If someone goes .000/.000/.000, then their OPS+ is 100(.000/lgOBP + .000/lgSLG – 1) = 100(-1) = -100.

As for Jim Rice’s double plays, it’s also the same reason he has so many RBIs; lots of guys on base in front of him. Which is why I discount both of those statistics. I know, some folks here think RBI are more important than runs. I have to debunk that. Consider: if it’s a tied game in the late innings, with a runner on third, the infield will play in and the ground ball won’t generate an RBI. But if it’s the second inning, or a blowout, the infield plays back. So where is there skill? And if there was a double play while the guy on third scores, or if there’s a steal of home, an error, a wild pitch, no RBI is given. Give a guy a three high OBP types in front of him, and he could have a terrible season and still get 100 RBI because of so many opportunities. On the other hand, 100% of the runs scored do require somebody to get on base, touch second safely, third safely, and touch home before the third out is made. A player like Rickey Henderson, who was as good as there ever was at getting himself into scoring position for the hitters behind him (via single or walk then a stolen base, if not a double), was far rarer and more valuable a talent than Don Mattingly or Jim Rice.

You can even take the comparison one step further. Rice had Boggs batting in front of him his last eight seasons. In those seasons, Boggs put himself in scoring position (without a home run) 364 times via double, triple, or stolen base. Henderson put himself in scoring position (the same ways) 923 times those seasons. That’s over 500 more opportunities Rickey gave Mattingly to drive him in with a single (and given Rickey’s speed, a single was almost always enough; with Boggs, not so always) that Boggs didn’t give Rice. That’s over 80 times a season, or probably 20+ RBI a season more if Rice had Rickey instead of Boggs (I’m figuring that some of Boggs’s extra times on first base he scored via homers). That probably would have given Rice a couple of 140+ RBI seasons, another 100+ RBI season, all because he had a better leadoff hitter in front of him. Also, give Rice Rickey those eight years, and an extra 150 RBI putting Rice about 30th all time, and I bet Rice is already in the HOF.

Which is an important point. Rice had some superb guys getting on base in front of him. Put Rice on the Dodgers of those years (1982-1988) and Rice gets 150-200 fewer RBI because of fewer RBI opportunities, even if he hits as well playing in the friendly confines of Dodger Stadium. Boggs had *five* seasons with an OBP of .444 to .476 batting in front of Rice, and was over .400 every season. George Brett got to have Willie Wilson, who led off with an OBP of .365 one year, .350 one year, and .289 to .320 the other six. There were two elite leadoff hitters in the American League in the 1980s, and they helped Rice and Mattingly look better than they really were. But Rice and Mattingly weren’t that good. Rickey and Wade were the true HOF’ers. Wilson was on base 1548 times from 1982-1989. Boggs had 1597 *hits* those seasons, and 771 more times walking or getting hit by a pitch. So Rice was driving in runs those eight years in a context of having 100 more times having a man on first base than Brett *each* *season*. I don’t know who was batting second in front of Brett those years, but in 1985, all the obvious candidates (McRae was clean up, IIRC) had possible OBP ranging from .284 (Frank White) to .321 (Lonnie Smith). So should Rice go into the HOF because he was blessed by Wade Boggs? That’s why I look at some stats that nobody knew about when Rice was playing, like OPS+, and I look at things like speed, defense, World Series titles, and I must say: no. Rice, Mattingly, Dewey, and a whole lot of other guys, were not quite good enough. Because once you start letting in Rice, because he had Boggs, then you have to consider a guy like Garvey, who played in pitcher’s parks, won four gold gloves, one World Series ring, played in five World Series total (Rice played in only one), batted .338/.361/.550 in 55 postseason games (Rice was .225/.313/.366 in 18 postseason games), also batted almost twice as high as Rice in more All Star game at bats, which certainly showcase the game, and then the floodgates are open for the HOF to become the HOVG.

Jim Rice did not set any single season records. He only finished in the top 44 all time in one career statistic: 6th in GIDP, a negative stat. He was 45th in sacrifice flies, another stat that has as much to do with the guys batting in front of him reaching third as it does with his showing any particular talent in getting them home. He was a superb player whose best wasn’t great enough to overcome his career length, and whose career wasn’t long enough to overcome the lack of true greatness. My rule of thumb for a slugger is that there must be 15 useful seasons (OPS+ 110 or higher) with some greatness sprinkled in there, or 10 All Star seasons (130 OPS+ or so) with some greatness sprinkled in there, or 5 MVP like seasons (150 OPS+), or something close to that with one or two seasons that can be argued stand out as amongst the best of all time. Rice has 2 MVP like seasons; I’ll give him three with the 147. He has only 7 All Star level seasons by OPS, 8 in real life (112 and 123 are not AS level production for a left fielder in Fenway, but by that time in his career he was *Jim* *Rice*, so he got in anyway). He had 12 useful seasons, OPS+ of 110 or higher. By each evaluation, he falls short. His best season was an OPS+ of 157, which doesn’t come close to all time standards. Rice’s Red Sox contemporaries did better: Dewey had a 162, Yaz a 170, 177, and 193, Boggs a 173 and 166 getting on base for Rice, and that was without much power. In 1988, when Rice became a DH,Greenwell had an OPS+ of 159, better than Rice’s best, and nobody would thingk Greenwell is a HOF candidate. Fred Lynn had two years better than Rice’s best. In fact, for all of Rice’s career, there were only two seasons (1977-78) where he had the best OPS+ on the Red Sox, and Rice always played LF or DH, where his OPS+ was almost all of his value to his team. As for Rice’s fearsome reputation as a hitter, he was so scary that he was never walked more than 10 times in a season. Greenwell and Boggs both were walked intentionally 18 times in 1988.

Rice is a guy who got some great press and it makes him seem better than he is. Same with Jack Morris, who gets great press for one awesome shutout, never mind that his postseason ERA overall was almost 4. That’s a lot of bad games everybody forgets to make up for that one shutout. They weren’t HOF worthy. They didn’t raise their game in the post season. They got good press and good memories. But 100 years from now, if these two get in, visitors to Cooperstown will look at the numbers and wonder, “Were the BBWAA suffering from steroid usage when they voted in Rice and Morris?”

I meant what I said. I was responding to the argument raised earlier in the comments that he didn’t know what ops+ was, but if he did and intended to raise it he could. I guess you would have to read my comment with an implied “seriously? you really think that? wow that’s not a very supportable position.” What I was implying, though now reading I can see why you understood it to mean what you did, is that getting on base and hitting for extra bases would be the goal in the first place, the existence of the metric is irrelevant because what it measures is exactly what he would have been trying to do. We agree.

- JP

It may be that Rice ultimately falls into the category of good-but-not-great hitters like Fred McGriff, Jim Thome and Rafael Palmeiro. It would be interesting though to see if someone could estimate Rice’s statistics in the present era.

as a bostonian who voted for tokyo i would not vote for jim rice to be in the hall of fame.
i’d also like to replace him w/ bill lee on the red sox pre and post game shows.

in fact, i’d like to nominate bill lee for the hall of fame for everything he’s done for the sport of baseball worldwide.

i’m also patiently waiting for a great hockey post, joe.
maybe you’ll be in wrigley for the winter classic?

Not to be mean, but…

Comparing forced fumbles to Win Shares (VORP, WARP, etc) is a poor analogy. Forced fumbles are a count of something that happened. Win Shares assigns a value to a counted statistic (like a forced fumble).

An example: You mention “It (a forced fumble) can be more of a game-turner than an interception, or a touchdown pass or a punt return”
Well yeah, I guess it could, but someone out there (maybe football outsiders) has actually attempted to quantify the value of a forced fumble (almost assuredly worth less than an interception). If in someone’s analysis in the future it was determined that a forced fumble wasn’t worth all that much would it change your opinion of DT? That is the point that is trying to be made in the article. At one time the media relied on RBIs to value players. Today we realize that RBIs are a poor metric to value a player since opportunities, which are outside of the player’s control, contribute so much to the statistic.

You say “Come on, ops+ is high when you get on base and hit for extra bases at high rate relative to the league. You think Puckett could have done that at a higher rate if he was trying?” I think you may have meant “couldn’t” instead of “could” (implying that his numbers would be better if he were trying to elevate them).

Either way, though, are you implying that Puckett could have done better at OBP or SLG “if he was trying”? Is that not the same as saying that during his actual career, he wasn’t trying? I mean, really — what else would he have been focusing on in his playing days, other than (a) getting on base, and (b) getting as far as possible when on base?

Not much of an argument for Kirby’s effort level, much less his qualifications for the HoF.

Are you counting the first baseman, first base coach and first base umpire in addition to the baserunner(s) on first?

I sure can argue against Jim Rice, though.

Zerocasah, .352 is 15 points higher than the league average, when you consider he was playing in Fenway. Great for an outstanding second baseman, but not so much for a guy who’s “all wood,” as they used to say. Even before considering that Rice benefited from Fenway even more than most would have, Rice hit about 25% better than the average player. But second basemen, shortstops, and catchers are factored in as part of that average player. If you’re a left fielder who provides no real value in the field or on the bases, you’re kind of expected to be about 125% of average. Which isn’t to say that Rice wasn’t a good player, becuase he was a LITTLE better than that, and not many guys keep that up for 12 years. But he’s no Hall of Famer. Or if he is, so are Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Ken Singleton, Frank Howard, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Harold Baines, Tony Oliva, Bobby Murcer, &c., &c.

Your argument that where he played is irrelevant fails because it goes both ways. It’s not just that he would very likely have fallen well short if he played for another team (he would have). It’s also that, if he really were such a great player, we would’ve expected his numbers with the Red Sox to look a lot BETTER. We *know* that Fenway inflated his numbers. That’s just not debatable. So if he were a Hall of Fame player, his numbers in that environment would look out of this world. And they look…pretty good.