Jim Rice is in the HOF now. He was a defensive liability who played one of the two least important defensive positions instead of being a defensive asset at more important positions. Rice was a slow base stealer instead of an asset on the base paths. Was Rice really that much of a better hitter (especially considering his home/away splits) than Dawson, enough to overcome those tie breakers? Dawson had more hits, doubles, triples, homers, RBI, was a 74% base stealer (good) with hundreds more steals than Rice’s 63% rate (bad). Dawson also had eight gold gloves and a great arm. And by all accounts Dawson did more to further the game of baseball. So the question in my mind is: why is Rice in the HOF when Dawson isn’t? And most of those arguments also apply to Dale Murphy over Jim Rice; more homers, five gold gloves in center field, more steals at a better rate, a true asset to the game, as well as two MVPs and a stretch of six straight years getting MVP consideration. Rice never managed more than three years in a row (twice).

And that’s why the Rice vote was a mistake. There are comparable players to him, contemporaries, maybe who didn’t hit as well as he did (or maybe didn’t have the advantage of playing half his games in Fenway and didn’t have Wade Boggs leading off for him) but who were clearly far better defensively, on the bases, and as ambassadors for the game. And since we now live in an era where good stats are available, we can also say that Andre Dawson’s OPS was 11 points better at home than on the road; Dale Murphy was helped an enormous 103 points of OPS by playing half his games in the launching pad; Jim Rice was helped a staggering 131 points by the short porch and the Green Monster. More than that: Rice’s BABIP was .340 in Fenway, helped no doubt by the Monster; on the road it was an ordinary .296. Does that really seem like a great basher of baseballs, or just a guy tailored for Fenway?

It’s worth looking at even more. Dawson spent two years in Boston in the decline phase of his career, the only times he played in Fenway. His OPS those two seasons was .738. His OPS in Fenway was .813. So it seems like Dawson benefited from Fenway about as much as Rice did, and had a much better OPS than Rice on the road. Does anybody have any doubt that if Dawson had been in Fenway for the meat of his career that he’d be in the HOF now? Then flip that around: if Rice were playing in Montreal during his career, would he have gotten any HOF votes at all? And that’s not considering the damage the artificial turf in Montreal did to Dawson’s knees that he’d not have suffered on the grass in Fenway.

So I say, vote in Andre Dawson. On neutral (road) fields he was far and away the best player of those three, he has the most counting stats (except for walks), he has the most defensive value, he has the most steals, he has the most unique skill set, and he was helped hardly at all by him home parks. Dawson should be the guy going to Cooperstown, not Rice, and Joe, I hope you vote for him next year.

Finally, and this would be an interesting project for one of you guys who has superior access to automated statistics (I’m just a poorly paid college professor these days, and can’t afford to pay for better stat access) it would be interesting to see if opposing left fielders outhit Jim Rice in Fenway during Rice’s career. Based on Rice’s home/away splits, I suspect that he truly is just a phenomenon of Fenway Park. It’s too late to consider for voting Rice in (or out) but before we get guys like Larry Walker and Todd Helton coming up for HOF consideration, it would be *really* nice to establish that yes, some ballparks *are* just that much better for hitters (and pitchers) than others. I know it cost Mike Piazza at least one MVP. I mean, over his career Piazza’s OPS was EIGHTY frigging points higher on the road. If only he’d gotten to play in Coors or Fenway.

“He led the league in OBP.”

“He led the league in not making outs.”

Not making outs has always been considered worthwhile. Avoiding outs leads to wins. Wins have also been considered worthwhile for quite some time. Rosenthal is just flat-out wrong.

If Hunt loses Pioli because of some b.s. reason, he’s going to lose a good chunk of season ticket subscribers and a majority of Chiefs fans that still give a damn.