Last portion of Rice
Posted: January 8th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 79 Comments »
OK, we’ve already talked too much about Jim Rice, Jack Morris, the Hall of Fame and all that. Tuesday, the Hall of Fame will announce some new inductees, and I feel pretty sure that Goose Gossage will get in, I predict that Jim Rice will get in, I suspect that Bert Blyleven will get closer, and the world will keep on spinning. This blog will move on to some more important issues, such as what the hell happened to Francis Ford Coppola after about 1979 and the meaning of Bill Belichick in Cleveland and what it feels like to be 41 years old today.
But there is one final thing about Jim Rice that has been driving me nuts … it really isn’t about Rice. It’s about myths. I don’t like myths. I don’t like when people call Jack Morris the best pitcher of the 1980s because he was not. I don’t like when people talk about how Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his time because he was not, at least not in any way I can find. I don’t like when people talk about how Vince Young’s “leadership†is so valuable when that guy can’t throw a 10-yard out pattern. Stuff like that makes my teeth hurt.
Well, there has been something else about Rice that has bothered me, but I could not figure out why. Brilliant reader Dan — and I’m not picking on you Dan, you are a valued reader here who brings a lot to the table — brought it back up in the last few days, but it has been a prominent Rice stat for a few years now. You know that from 1975-86, Rice led the American League in several categories including:
1. Runs
2. RBIs
3. Homers
4. Hits
5. Slugging percentage
6. Total Bases
There are others (extra-base hits, multi-hit games) but it seems to me with those we’re just double-counting. Let’s leave it at those six. That seems impressive enough — over a dozen years, Rice led the American League in six major offensive categories. Good stuff.
But something about this accomplishment made my teeth hurt, and I could not figure out what it was. At first I thought it was that the numbers here are all at least a little bit suspect — Rice put up most of his big numbers at Fenway Park while playing for high-scoring Red Sox teams. But no. That wasn’t it. There was something else bugging me. My teeth kept hurting.
And then, I realized what it was. The other day I was looking again at the “stats†that Rice led over those 12 years and I saw it … Rice had more at-bats than any other player. And not by a small margin either. Rice had 7060 at-bats over those 12 years — 588 per season. And while that’s a testament to his durability — no small thing — I did think, “Hey, wait a minute now.†Nobody else had 7,000 at-bats. Or 6900. Or 6800. Or even 6700.
In second place was Robin Yount, who had almost 400 fewer at-bats — he had 6,693 at-bats.
And so here’s where it gets interesting. Only four American League players — Yount, Cecil Cooper, Don Baylor and George Brett — were within ONE THOUSAND AT BATS of Jim Rice over that time period. That’s it. We’re basically comparing Rice to FOUR GUYS — and with Rice having a sizeable at-bat advantage over even those four.
And that did it. Suddenly, I could put that stat in context. I mean, yes, Rice had more home runs than Reggie Jackson over that time — but he had 1100 more plate appearances. Yes, Rice had more hits than Rod Carew but he had 1700 more at-bats — that’s three seasons worth. Yes Rice had more runs scored than George Brett, but with about 900 more at-bats, you would HOPE he would score more runs.
Reggie hit more homers per at-bat, Carew had a much higher batting average, Brett scored more runs per game. Etc.
Believe me or not, I’m not trying to downplay Rice’s accomplishment here. I happen to think that durability is one of the most underrated qualities in baseball — people don’t have enough respect for those every day players who can give you 150-160 games year in and year out. Rice did that. He put up the numbers when others were on the bench (or, you know, taking walks). He also hit .304 over that time and slugged .520 and, Fenway Park or no, that’s a good peak. As mentioned here before, if/when he goes into the Hall of Fame today, he won’t be anywhere close to the worst player in there.
But I’m just trying to point out that in baseball, in anything, when you start narrowing your focus, you can lose the big picture. Sure, it sounds amazing that Rice led the “American League†in homers, RBIs, runs, hits and all that over a 12 year period. But the reality, I think, is that the stat is rigged. Give a good player hundreds more at-bats than anyone else, yeah, his counting stats should look pretty good.
Loading ...
I continue to be amazed at your ability to take new statistical looks at baseball performances, and your persistence at it.
And Happy 41st!! May you have many more.
Happy Birthday!
Joe:
That’s why The Babe will always be my HR King. He put his numbers up with so many fewer at bats.
Also, not o overdo the topic, Rice would have been in by now if not for the higher “jerk” total he amassed with fans and media. Having said that, I still think he is borderline because I have a higher bar for HOF. There are more people who should be taken out.
Happy Birthday Joe!
I’d say happy birthday, but is that really up to you? Maybe a snow plow will take out your mailbox. Maybe the person who gives you your morning coffee will forget to put sugar in it, and you like sugar. Maybe you’ll go out to your car later today and it will have a flat tire. Is any of that your fault? Well maybe the flat tire could be. You should have had your tires checked out before today. They were getting pretty bad. That was dumb of you. But my point is, I’m basically demanding that you have a happy birthday, but most of what goes into having a happy birthday isn’t really under your control. So I hope you have a happy birthday. But in no way am I demanding it.
Happy Birthday Joe.
As to Rice – the Stat Guy in Me doesn’t think he deserves it. The Boston Fan in me does. So I’m going with the Fan, and hoping he gets in.
Something about those stats always struck me as kind of odd but I never could put my finger on what it was, you’ve now done it for me. Thanks for the insight.
i will say that i think it might be more amazing that he played hurt as often as he did.
durability is great, but often times it’ll dminish your skills.
i also think that all those at bats will go a long way to explaing why his drop off was so severe. if he played that much, that often, and i’m sure was hurt or hurting much of the time, than it makes sense that the drop off would be so intense.
happy birthday! you share the birthday today (1/8) w/ the rythm section of The Donnas.
Happy b’day Joe… and many more. May you live to see 10 more Royals World Series wins.
Happy B-Day Joaldo. What’s the address? I’ll send you some HGH. Keep that writing arm fresh.
Elvis Presley, Stephen Hawking, David Bowie….Joe Posnanski…January 8th, a day of greatness….2 musical geniouses and 2 statistical geniouses…Happy Birthday.
By my reckoning, 85 non-pitchers played a major league game every season from 1975 to 1986. Only 25 played in the American League each year: it’s strange that a big part of the case for Rice rests on his staying in one league.
Happy Birthday, Joe
Re: FFC–
I’m with you , save The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, and Tucker.
The first 2, especially, as they were the movies he made while in ‘director jail’ after One From the Heart, and the budgetary restraints seemed to do him well.
Interesting take on Rice. If you don’t want to look at his counting stats- over that period, how did he rank in terms of BA/OBP/SLG/OPS? I can’t figure out how to access those stats (you’d obviously have to set a minimum ABs).
Editor’s note — Rice’s AL ranking in those rate stats from 1975-1986 (minimum 4000 plate appearances):
Batting average: 3rd.
On-base percentage: 20th
Slugging percentage: 1st
OPS: 3rd
OPS+: 8th.
I understand the point, and agree with the general premise that Rice is not a HOFer, but I’d argue that durability is an underrated virtue. It does show up in the counting stats, which I think is fair. No need to deduct it back out.
Pete Rose is another great example (at least up to 1983). Yeah, he played more games than anybody else. But he played more games than anybody else. Would you rather have Rice or Garry Hancock? Rose or Darrel Cheney?
Wait — Other Josh is a Boston fan, too? WTF? Is someone trying to steal my identity?
Or, as is more likely, I’m waking up in the middle of the night to post comments on this blog, like in Fight Club, only with fewer bruises?
Birthdays are merely symbolic of how another year has gone by and
how little we’ve grown. No matter how desperate we are that someday a better self will emerge, with each flicker of the candles on the cake, we know it’s not to be, that for the rest of our sad, wretched pathetic lives, this is who we are to the bitter end. Inevitably, irrevocably; happy birthday? No such thing.
Can we ignore durability on the plus side without ignoring the lack of it on the negative side? I don’t really care about Rice either way, but it seems like the argument is for counting stats *per AB,* which would open the door for all those “he was obviously a monster player, but his career was too short” guys. Slippery slope, or a call for consistency in application?
Joe,
I understand what is bothering you but it just doesn’t make much difference to me. I mean, looking at the four other AL players within 1000 ABs of Rice – they were all regular, full-time, established players at that point. Cooper’s prime years are part of the time frame, so is Brett’s.
Carew shouldn’t even be mentioned as a comp simply because the time-frame goes one season beyond Carew’s playing career. And yet, in their careers, Rice had three 200-hit seasons, Carew four. In fact, let’s step away from the current debate, and look closer at Carew vs Rice on the hit-counter. Rice broke in at the age of 22, in ‘86 he was 33. A pretty good definition of what most consider the “prime” years of anyone’s career. Rice totaled 2145 hits. Carew 2065. Now that calculation eliminates Carew’s 150 hit rookie campaign (Rice in ‘74 barely had a cup of coffee, logging 18 hits), but on the other hand, its pretty clear that both broke into the majors at a young age and excelled immediately. For that matter, its not exactly fair to include 1974 when Carew logged 514 ABs while Rice had 67.
So what do we conclude? The inescapable conclusion is that through 12 age-equivalent years, Rice logged more hits than Carew. Was he a greater hitter over-all? Not getting into that. But he was good enough and durable enough to go head to head with one of the all-time greats, a no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer, and come out with more hits through the same chronological years.
Going back to the issue at hand, you are right about durability counting! Rice was durable enough across 12 seasons to be number one in all of those categories, ahead of two Hall of Famers, and two guys who had very decent careers, who were playing full-time or could have been. This doesn’t count somehow? I’m not buying the cause of your toothache as a reason to keep Rice out of the Hall.
A donation has been made in your name to The Human Fund. Money For People.
Coppola’s last movie before this year? The Rainmaker. Coppola does Grisham.
You think you’re upset now, wait til you read the pre-season AP poll this summer. tOSU #2, KU #13.
Dan- you’re *really* stretching now. Okay, he “went head to head” with Carew over a 12-year period on racking up hit totals. And that’s an argument how? Carew, who was hardly a great walk-taker himself, drew 15 more of them per 162 games than Rice over their respective careers. That Rice got more hits over a given period is because of that difference and because Carew missed a bunch more games (which is a point in Rice’s favor, but Joe already covered that). Carew was very plainly a better hitter than Rice.
More importantly, though, Carew was a better hitter than Rice while spending almost exactly half of his career as a passable second baseman, which is what makes him “one of the All-Time greats.” If Carew played almost entirely at 1B (or LF), he’s probably still a Hall of Famer, but hardly an all-time great; he’s basically a better version of Mark Grace. So if you’re taking the whole defensive spectrum thing out of the equation, you’re arguing that Rice should be in the Hall because he went head-to-head with Mark Grace in one barely meaningful category. So…yeah.
The Human Fund: It has a certain understated stupidity.
Apparently there is a third Josh. I think I am the original other-. Third Josh, please use a modifier!
Coppola may be back: just saw the preview for his new movie with Tim Roth – looks awesome.
Voters love counting stats. Just see: NL MVP 2007.
Happy Birthday Joe!
Happy Birthday Joe. I will refrain from any long Rice-related diatribe that questions every point you just made out of respect for 41st anniversary of your birth.
One thing that Rice has going for him is he does well (or at least average) in the Hall of Fame Monitor, Black Ink and Grey Ink tests (as their listed on Baseball Reference). If he’s elected today he’ll pretty much be an ‘average’ hall of famer.
I was the first Josh. I’ll make sure I put Josh from Boston in my comments from now on. I hate confusing other Josh’s.
No worries, he’s 14 votes short.
14 votes! 14 votes! My kingdom for 14 votes!
How fitting. That was his uniform number and this was his 14th year on the ballot as well.
Any numerologists out there?
Joe,
Wow, 41? You type like a 35 year old.
Happy Birthday!
Well I’m certainly not going to Cooperstown to watch that Yankee get inducted. Booooo.
Happy Birthday!
I read that next year will be Rice’s last year of eligibility for the Hall. Can someone tell me how many years of eligibility a player gets? Thanks.
Kevin – players are on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years.
Come on Dan, you can’t make any argument for Rice using durability. If he would have been as durable as most Hall of Famers and not fallen of the cliff after 33 he’d have the total numbers to make it in. You can’t have durability matter in one regard but dismiss it in another.
Re: Kevin
To be elected by the writers, a player gets 20 years after his final season.
Of course, at that point, he can still get elected every odd year by the Veterans committee.
It seems that the only time a player is completely out of the running is if he fails to get 5% for his first ballot, if he is banned from baseball, or if he doesn’t pass the initial screening process to begin with.
15
Now wait a hat-eating second there, Bill. My Carew comparison was motivated solely by what Joe wrote, to wit:
***************
Yes, Rice had more hits than Rod Carew but he had 1700 more at-bats — that’s three seasons worth.
****************
Which got me thinking about hit totals between the two. And I showed pretty clearly that in the same chronological ages, Rice got more hits than Carew, who most assuredly is not in the Hall because of his “passable” second base skills. He played a majority of his games at 1B from age 30 on, ten full years of his career. He’s in because he was a hit machine, winning 7 batting titles. And Rice got more hits than he did from age 22-33. There’s no getting around it.
And I don’t think Carew was a bad walk-taker when you consider he had 13 top-ten finishes in OBP. He had to take a few walks to accomplish that.
***************
Come on Dan, you can’t make any argument for Rice using durability. If he would have been as durable as most Hall of Famers and not fallen of the cliff after 33 he’d have the total numbers to make it in. You can’t have durability matter in one regard but dismiss it in another.
***************
James, by the same token you can’t say that he accomplished all those league-leading totals solely due to durability and then criticize him for not maintaining it long enough to reach what should be unimportant “milestone” numbers whose only advantage is that they are nice, round, and even.
Fact is that over his prime years, Rice dominated his league – whether through durability, a helpful hitting environment or whatever – I call that a Hall of Famer.
And a year from now, so shall you – when he gets in.
Thanks for the info guys!
Feliz cumpleaños, Joe.
Much as I loved Jim Rice (and as a native New Englander I’ve been a Red Sox fan for most of my 53 years), I would submit that except for a couple of years, he was “most feared” only in the sense that whenever he came up with men on base, most of us fans feared he’d ground into a double play (or a fielder’s choice to end the inning). Obviously he didn’t always disappoint us, but memories and images can be very powerful, especially when you consider how physically gifted he was. I only saw him live a few times and I seem to remember watching him GIDP twice in a game against the Royals in ‘76 during one of my rare Fenway visits of those years. I need to go back and check my old scorecards.
Nevertheless, for me, still, Rice is still borderline HOF material, although it’s hard for me to ascertain if my Red Sox fandom and especially my memories of ‘75 are what put him in for me, as opposed to keeping him out.
The other thing to remember about the PA and AB advantage Rice had in those years was that he was often part of a very good offense, backed up by Fenway park. Boston finished in the top three in the AL in runs/game in 9 of those 12 years. They batted around a lot, giving Jim Ed plenty of opportunities.
Rice was a very good hitter. He had some excellent peak years and a fine career. But his “dominance” was partly created by Fenway park, not his own talent, and there are plenty of other players who achieved the same types of things he did. He was not a historically dominating hitter, not as good as George Brett or Tim Raines or Dale Murphy. He belongs in the Hall of Very Good.
Rice and his career by now have been dissected so thoroughly that there are no more rabbits to pull out of the hat come time for the 2009 HOF voting.
Therefore the Rice campaign should be, simply, “Just vote for him already, dammit.”
I don’t think the Hall needs Rice, but to have him come this batted-eyelash close — 72.2%, 16 votes short — is setting up a huge cliffhanger for his final ballot a year from now.
And does the BBWAA really, REALLY want to promulgate an UNHAPPY ending after all this time? Over 70%, into the promised land, and yet deny him on his final chance?
I think he gets it next year, and I think he does it by more than a squeaker margin. Which writer wants to think that HIS Riceless ballot was the one that did it, that cast him aside into the winds of unbronzed history?
Rice 2009. And we’re not talkin’ Condi here.
Happy Birthday, Joe.
The results are in. Confusing still about Bert Blyleven. But Gossage deserves it richly. Even if some Sox fans wouldn’t go see him inducted. What’s up with that?
First, happy birthday for the 18th time.
Second, FFC has been making some excellent wine over the last few years. I’d rather he spend time pruning the vines than working on another musical. Worth noting.
Your birthday plug reminded me of a scene from The Office:
Micheal: Hi Jan I was just calling to wish you a happy birthday
Jan: Todays not my birthday
Micheal: Thats weird I thought we shared the same birthday
Jan:……….happy birthday Micheal
———————————————————————————
Carew being a good “walk taker” is why Rice had more hits. Carew had an obp over .400 7 times between ages 22-33. Rice had zero.
Dan-
Are Dick Allen and Albert Belle Hall of Famers in your book?
“Which writer wants to think that HIS Riceless ballot was the one that did it, that cast him aside into the winds of unbronzed history?”
How about the many writers who feel he’s not good enough for the Hall? If you elect Rice, it opens the doors for Dale Murphy, Albert Belle, Dick Allen, George Foster, Dave Parker, Joe Carter, etc, etc, etc. If one is in, they all should be in.
Here’s my issue with going after Rice and his counting stats by mocking his durability: When people discuss Cal Ripken, Jr., they talk about the streak and then throw in the caveat about how he was also a great player during the streak.
How do they then go about quantifying his status as a great player? His counting stats.
Is it fair that the same stats that elevate Cal Ripken, Jr. to Greek God status are somehow to be held against Jim Rice?
But Gossage deserves it richly. Even if some Sox fans wouldn’t go see him inducted. What’s up with that?
**************************
I have no idea, because this Red Sox fan very much was hoping that Rice and Goose would go in together. Dominant reliever, dominant hitter, same era. Yankee and Red Sock. Would have been a beautiful sight.
Now, I just expect that Gossage is going to say something along the lines of “I look forward to when Jim Rice joins me on this stage next year.”
Dan- regardless of your reason for the Carew comparison, you left it an open question whether Rice was a “greater hitter” than Rod Carew. He’s emphatically not.
And as I’ve said, Carew is a Hall of Famer even without having played second base, but if he’s “one of the all-time greats” at all (and I’m a huge Twins fan, but I find that a bit of a stretch to begin with), it’s solely because he did put up many of his best seasons as a second baseman (where they go up among the best seasons BY a second baseman…as a 1B or LF, they’re not in the discussion). Rod Carew played well enough to help his team at one of the most important defensive positions for half his career, and was an excellent first baseman for the other half, all while being a considerably better hitter than Jim Rice across a longer career. Jim Rice played one of the least important defensive positions rather poorly. Jim Rice stands to gain nothing from a comparison to Rod Carew.
So anyway, I’m not arguing with the fact that Rice got more hits than Carew over a certain period, but with your implied assertion that this fact has any meaning whatsoever (other than that Rice had a good stretch of health and didn’t walk much). Not to keep picking on the excellent Mark Grace, but he got more hits from age 24-33 (1691) than Frank Thomas did (1529). Was he a greater hitter over-all? Not getting into that.
James,
I believe Dick Allen belongs. Belle I have a problem with due to his personality/character flaws.
But you can count me as one who does not fall on the super-strict standards side of the divide. There are a lot of deserving players who are further away from making it than Jim Rice is. Heck I always thought it was a shame that Gil Hodges got so close but didn’t make it. I don’t begrudge Scooter being in, either.
But I do draw the line at Jack Morris.
Jim Rice also stands to gain nothing from a comparison to Cal Ripken Jr.
Fair enough Dan. If you’re ok with Dick Allen being in and feel Belle’s stats should get him in (throwing out the character debate) I’m ok with you arguing for Rice to get in. I don’t agree with you, but your argument definitely holds more weight than many of the arguments for Rice I have seen today.
Bill, I did not leave it as an open question as to whether Rice was a better hitter. My “not getting into it” was an acknowledgment that Carew – due partially to longevity, certainly – was the better hitter.
And I completely disagree about the notion that Carew gets in based on his performance as a second baseman. You go ask the writers who voted him in. It was based on 3000 hits and seven batting titles. It had nothing to do with being a second baseman and having historically great years for second baseman. No one, or very few, of the voters thought in those terms. Carew was a no-brainer candidate because he reached one of the biggest milestones there is – 3000 hits. He was a threat to hit .400. He was a perennial contender for a batting title.
He was indeed a hit machine – and from the ages of 22-33 Rice outhit him. Sorry friend but there are no two ways around it. Over twelve seasons at the same age, their prime years, they both went up to the plate to either walk, make an out, or get a hit. Rice got more hits, and yes, I view that as an indication why he belongs in the Hall. Far from the only one, but an accomplishment nonetheless.
“I only saw him live a few times and I seem to remember watching him GIDP twice in a game against the Royals in ‘76 during one of my rare Fenway visits of those years. I need to go back and check my old scorecards.”
Let me help you out. Your recollection is a bit off. Rice didn’t ground into two double plays in any game in 1976.
Forget your old scorecards, embrace Retrosheet.
Jim Rice also stands to gain nothing from a comparison to Cal Ripken Jr.
*************************
As a hitter?
Once again, Dan, I’m not saying he’s in the Hall because he was a second baseman. I explicitly said both times that he’d still be in the Hall if he hadn’t been. But since you’re advocating to expand the Hall so much, I hope you’ll agree with me that there’s a big difference between a Hall of Famer and “one of the all-time greats,” in the sense that you used the term in the initial comment. If Carew were a exclusively a first baseman, he’d be a Hall of Famer, but not by any means an inner-circle-type one. If he gets THAT distinction (the inner-circle), it’s because he did half of it as a middle infielder.
There you go again attaching importance to raw hit totals. The term “outhit” is generally used to mean “hit better than.” Rice didn’t do that. He collected more hits than Carew over a certain arbitrarily selected age range, and he did so only by playing more games and walking less (as is demonstrated by the huge difference in batting averages). If Rice was a “hit machine,” he was also an “out machine,” whereas in each of the three seasons where Carew led the league in hits, he hit over .350, and was far from the top in outs. Getting more hits while being a much less effective offensive player just doesn’t mean anything (especially when you’re also a less important defensive player).
James- I don’t see any similarity between Rice on the one hand and Belle and Allen on the other, other than surliness. Belle and Allen were both much, much better players than Rice, but over even shorter careers. I’d put either in before Rice, but I’d prefer that each stays out. All depends on how you view career vs. peak value, I suppose (as to whether you want to make a case for Allen or Belle–can’t really make one for Rice either way).
G Young- go ahead and compare them as hitters, but where does it leave you? Even if you want to say Rice comes out ahead (and maybe he does, but how does a very good hitter with a shortish career compare with a merely good hitter with about 7 seasons worth of extra plate appearances? I honestly don’t know. Cal created 345 more runs…), you’re comparing him to a very good shortstop and third baseman.
“Jim Rice played one of the least important defensive positions rather poorly.”
Bill – Your argument was going fine until you included that quote. Even Bill James, who really doesn’t think much of Rice at all, begrudgingly conceded that Rice was a better defensive outfielder than he’s credited with. He got the same defensive grade in “Win Shares” as Carl Yastrzemski, who won 7 Gold Gloves playing the same Green Monster as Rice.
Paul, you’re right. I was going by reputation and what others have been saying without bothering to look at the numbers. Let’s say he was average; it’s still not making much of a case for him to comparing him to a second baseman who was also a better hitter.
Agreed
Time to start a national campaign for Tim Raines to be elected to the HOF and to make Jim Rice miss in his final year of eligibility!
THE GOOSE IS LOOSE!
The mission should be Raines and Henderson elected in the same year NEXT YEAR!!!!!!
Paul:
You’re right. I know about Retrosheet and I should have checked. And I will.
The problem with checking out my old scorecards is that they’re in Maine and I’m in Mexico. I’ll have to wait a while.
Rice may have had more hits but Carew was the better hitter, easily. Check the difference in batting average and on base percentage.
Happy Birthday, Joe!
Interesting post on the teeth hurting. Sometimes things are thrown out there as gospel and you need to look at it more than one way. Like being the best pitcher of the decade. First of all, are they really? Secondly, is that HOF worthy? I’m somewhat reminded of the interesting stat of how every play who leads a decade (40s, 50s, 60s, etc.) in hits is in the HOF except for Rose (80s) and Mark Grace (90s). In Grace’s case it’s an interesting and impressive stat in and of itself but that doesn’t necessarily make you a HOFer.
Happy Birthday, Joe! Around here we call this “Elvis Day,” a day of listening to Elvis in the car, and eating peanut butter and banana sandwiches while watching Elvis movies with the family. I guess now we’ll have to add a tradition of reading Joe’s stories on the 8th of every January. (And, every other day for that matter. But you get the point.)
Rick–
I think you’re right as well. While in fact Jim Ed did not, according to Retrosheet, ground into two double plays in one game in 1976, an astounding fact (Thank you Paul) because frankly, living through it as you did, and attending many games at Fenway every summer – it often felt as if he grounded into three.
And yet now I’m starting to believe this is because I, as a 10 yr. old wanted him to crush one over the monster every time – because he was the monsterously talented, larger than life Jim Ed – with his powerful stance – and anything less was a disappointment. In my mind I now think a routine groundout or even a base hit was really another double play.
That whole era, especially now with Sox mania, to me, was filled with disappointment. Teases. ‘75 / ‘76 / ‘78 we’ve all been there. Rice, in his entire career was in 3 post season series. 2 in 86 and 1 in 88. From 1975-1985 the man did not appear in a playoff game. NOT A SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME. He managed 16 hits in 71 at-bats over those three series. .225 / .313 / .366 with 2 home runs. 7 RBI and 21K’s.
And still and yet – I am disappointed he was not elected today.
Dan-quick question: knowing what you know now, would you vote ro put Kirby Puckette in the HoF?
You mean, regarding his questionable character traits? I know I didn’t have a problem with his induction at the time, due to the whole “forced to retire early, would have ended up with great stats” but I haven’t thought about it enough to comment.
- Bill –
in the context of a discussion about counting stats I think its completely clear what “outhit” means.
Beyond that I am finished going over the same ground again and again as we have different perspectives and beliefs and they won’t be reconciled.
That’s it exactly Dan. Kirby and Albert had a similar career arcs – great player forced to retire due to injury – but with considerable baggage. Personally I think physically abusing women trumps verbal abuse any day. Now the stalking thing – I dunno. Either way neither is exactly a paragon of virtue.
“…Rice was a better defensive outfielder than he’s credited with. He got the same defensive grade in “Win Shares†as Carl Yastrzemski, who won 7 Gold Gloves playing the same Green Monster as Rice.”
Paul I swear I’m not raggin’ on ya. I’ve agreed with way more of your positions than damn near any other major writer over the years, and I don’t believe that I’m necessarily disagreeing with this one. I mean, you definitely deserve your Hall vote (I can only think of maybe 20 that I consider earned), and I mean that absolutely sincerely and without equivocation.
But the above statement can be read several ways. I agree with what I believe that you’re saying: that Jim Rice was at least adequate in the field, and maybe better than average.
But you can’t possibly be comparing Rice to Yaz, can you? I mean you’re just comparing stats, right? As Mark Twain would no doubt say, “There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and fielding statistics.”
I’ve been paying reasonably close attention for a few decades, and Barry Bonds the thinner and Yaz are the two left fielders that jump out as surperior in the field. I would have to admit that, regarding Yaz, I didn’t see as much at the time, and so I’m a bit more open to being moved around on it…
Albert Belle, then in his Joey days, was also an LSU guy, and…there’s a story that I believe to be true, but even if it isn’t it’s one of those things that Ken Kesey said is “true even if it never happened.” Anyway, when I got to LSU in 1980 Playboy magazine had allegedly recently rated the party schools, but disqualified LSU on grounds of “being professional” (as Olympians were then disqualified).
Whatever the case, LSU parties harder than any place I’ve ever seen, and I did spend nearly a decade in Southern California, currently hop down to The Ship’s Inn (pub, in Exeter UK), which Sir Francis Drake once declared his favourite (note British spelling) place in the world besides his boat…incidentally Sir Francis’ was eventually urged to only show up in the presence of a responsible adult, and now allegedly haunts the place, but I digress…
I did actually read this story that I’m about to relate, but I forget where. Sporting News maybe, somewhere reasonable like that. Joey, like so many LSU alumni, left town with a drinking problem, something that I hope we all agree is both serious and regrettable. Some hack fan was heckling him about it from about the tenth row and Joey threw a ball and hit him in the chest (was this spring training, someone else here must know this tale; and if so I have questions about a certain Antonio Osuna thing)…so far as I know there were no lawsuits, and one would think that Joey could have defended himself on a “fighting words” defense in most states, even though there might have been a temptation to assign guilt on some kind of “increasing hostilities” grounds, but I digress…
I respect Joey for what he did that day, and I’ve always wondered, since, how much of the difficulties that he had were more the result of his strong response to provocation, as opposed to a malignat soul.
No matter, it’s not nearly like the kid that Jim Rice saved. He should probably be in the Hall just for that.
Clayton, you’ve actually toned the story down a bit. The above incident actually happened during his Albert phase and it was while he was a Cleveland Indian. Yep, hit that jamook square in the chest from about 150 feet and knocked him dead on his ass. Probably the best throw he made all year.
The LSU tale/fable I heard was that while a LSU and in the midst of a game against Mississippi State some jadrool in the stands called Joey the infamous “n-word” and Joey promptly went up into the stands and cleaned his clock and a coupla his buddies too – shades of Ty Cobb don’t you think? The story goes on that he got kicked off the team for that little infraction.
The first one I’m 90% sure is accurate. The second one I’ve got a lot less confidence in. But like you said, if it didn’t happen exactly like that it shoula.
Well I’ll just say that I lose all respect for anyone who responds to verbal harassment with a baseball thrown at full velocity that happens to hit the man in the chest, and I lose a great deal of respect for anyone who thinks it wasn’t such a big deal or that he was somehow provoked. He might have killed the man, and that’s only one of the reasons why I find his character flaws so objectionable.
Clayton – Stylistically, you’re right. Yaz absolutely LOOKED better playing left field. Rice was never that smooth. Funny thing thought – his results weren’t terribly different. He actually had a bit better range than Yaz and roughly the same fielding percentage. Per game, Rice also had more assists.
I’m not saying Rice was a better fielder than Yaz. But clearly he was better than his reputation, and Bill James, among others, has recognized it. Sadly, most voters who write up their reasoning on Rice generally still cite the usual, “Rice was a poor defender” schlock.
“I’ve agreed with way more of your positions than damn near any other major writer over the years, and I don’t believe that I’m necessarily disagreeing with this one. I mean, you definitely deserve your Hall vote (I can only think of maybe 20 that I consider earned), and I mean that absolutely sincerely and without equivocation.”
Clayton – It seems from this comment of yours that I should probably offer another clarification. I am NOT the Paul White associated with Baseball Weekly or USA Today. I’m not a BBWAA member. I’m not even a professional writer. I’m just some dumb schmoe with a common name.
And I’d like to add, to Josh from Boston, that I’m not Paul White either. No, wait. I mean, I’m also from Boston (well, Needham).
Paul White is a fine name, it’s an honourable name. Anyone would feel wrong disagreeing with Paul White.
I did some reseach (because it’s better than working) on my post up there about Rice. Here’s why I think Jim Rice ranks higher on the voting lists than any of the other guys that frequently get talked about as better or as good as him.
I base this on the four HOF prediction methods used on Baseball Reference. I list test, (average HOF), Rice’s score and (his rank) within the following range of players (Dale Murphy, Tim Raines, Dave Parker, Joe Carter, Andre Dawson, Tony Perez, Dwight Evans, Dick Allen)–
-Black Ink Test (27) 33 1-
-Gray Ink Test (144) 176 1-
-HOF Standards (50) 43 3-
-HOF Monitor (100) 146.5 1-
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Rice deserves to be in the HOF, although if you put stock in these rankings he ends up as a slightly above average Hall of Famer.
By the way (this is actually fun to look up) Rice scores better on all of those scores regarding Darrell Evans, Fred Lynn, Don Mattingly and Dave Kingman.
He tops Fred McGriff and Harold Baines in all categories but Hall of Fame Standards.
Mark McGwire tops Rice in Black Ink (the only one in my ‘group’ that does) and Hall of Fame Monitor. Rice is ahead in Gray Ink and HOF Standards.