A Thought About Jim Rice
Posted: July 26th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 85 Comments »
Well, Jim Rice is in the Baseball Hall of Fame … and the world has not ended. The Hall of Fame has not crumbled to the ground or become a baseball version of Baltic Avenue. The parade of Jim Rice comps has not started its march toward Cooperstown’s door. True, you could argue again his place in baseball history. And true, Rice has made some rather odd statements from his new perch, such this bit of Fred Mertz talk quoted by Phil Rogers:
“Everyone now is younger. When you’re talking about fundamentals, every team [was] doing their thing. They could handle fundamentals. These young guys can’t handle fundamentals because of the aluminum bats in high school and college. They have one thing to think about, hitting the ball out of the ballpark and styling. … We didn’t have the baggy pants.”
Yeah. In my day, you didn’t have catcher’s mitts — you caught the ball with your teeth.
But, in general, Rice’s induction into the Hall of Fame seemed to do no harm to the greater population. More than that, it made quite a lot of people happy … oddly enough, I include myself in the group. I say that’s odd because everyone here knows that I did not vote for Jim Rice as a Hall of Famer. It’s not personal … I’ve expressed my reasons again and again. He was an excellent player who just falls under my Hall of Fame line.
But when he went into the Hall, well, it actually made me happy in a way that I had not entirely expected. I may have mentioned that I have this book coming out on the 1975 Cincinnati Reds … and one of the driving forces for me was that I wanted to write a little bit about baseball from my childhood*. I love baseball from my childhood — doesn’t everyone believe that the time they grew up with baseball is special? From my experience, those who grew up in the 1950s tend to think of that time as the best ever in baseball — Willie, Mickey and the Duke, Hank Aaron, and so on. Those who grew up in the 1960s tend to think of that time as the greatest — what incredible pitching, Koufax. Gibson. Marichal. And so on.
And I suspect those who grew up in the 1990s will someday romanticize the Selig Era with all the home runs and the remarkable numbers and the Wildcard races.
*I generally date my childhood between 1975 — when I was 8 — through 1980, the year I turned 13. I suppose there are a few flickering memories from just before 1975, and maybe a little lingering baseball innocence for a couple of years after the strike. But really it’s 1975-80.
That’s how it should be. I love 1970s baseball because it’s mine. OK, so there are 18 everyday players who got 2,500 at-bats in the 1970s who are in the Hall. Some of them — Hank Aaron, Brooks Robinson, Willie McCovey, Carl Yastrzemski*, Billy Williams, Lou Brock — were mostly done by the time I came of baseball age in ‘75.
*You know what’s remarkable about Yaz? He led the American League in runs scored in 1974 … with NINETY THREE. And, of course, he famously led the American League in hitting in 1968 with a .301 average. And he led the American League in slugging in 1965 with a .536 slugging percentage — that was more than 100 points less than Willie Mays in the NL and would place him roughly 25th in baseball today. Point is … Yaz played a fairly short while ago. But when looking at his numbers … he might as well have played during Deadball.
So that leaves 11 players from my childhood. And to be honest, one of those — Robin Yount — was really a 1980s player. So, we are talking 11 everyday players from my childhood who are in the Hall of Fame. In case you want the list, they are: Johnny Bench, George Brett, Rod Carew, Carlton Fisk, Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Jim Rice, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell (who was already old when I was a kid but Pops still had pop), Dave Winfield (though he took really became prominent in the 1980s — in part because he was in San Diego then).
I’m not arguing here that there should be MORE players from my childhood — frankly I don’t think there’s much of an argument to be made. Heck, I didn’t vote for Jim Rice, so technically, I would put even fewer players in the Hall.
But my point is not about specific players — it’s about that era. I want to believe that baseball when I grew up was unique and special and great in its own way. Only the best players from my short six years of childhood are generally just not viewed as Hall of Famers.
Here are the Top 10 players from 1975-80 in OPS+ (min. 2,500 plate appearances).
1. Reggie Jackson (in the Hall)
2. Ken Singleton (no way)
3. George Foster (no way)
4. Mike Schmidt (in the Hall)
5. Rod Carew (in the Hall)
6. George Brett (in the Hall)
7. Reggie Smith (no way)
8. Dave Parker (not in but has some support)
9. Gene Tenace (are you kidding?)
10. Greg Luzinski (no way)
So that makes four of 10 –. I don’t think any of the others will get in, and I wouldn’t want to make any of their cases. Is that unusual? It FEELS unusual … but let’s put it up against another five-year period at random — let’s say 1954-59.
1. Ted Williams (in the Hall)
2. Mickey Mantle (in the Hall)
3. Willie Mays (in the Hall)
4. Eddie Mathews (in the Hall)
5. Duke Snider (in the Hall)
6. Hank Aaron (in the Hall)
7. Stan Musial (in the Hall)
8. Ernie Banks (in the Hall)
9. Minnie Minoso (not in but has some support)
10. Frank Robinson (in the Hall)
OK, so that’s nine out of 10 — and Bill James insists that Minoso should be in. Let’s take 1963-68.
1. Frank Robinson (in the Hall)
2. Dick Allen (not in but has some support)
3. Willie Mays (in the Hall)
4. Hank Aaron (in the Hall)
5. Mickey Mantle (in the Hall)
6. Willie McCovey (in the Hall)
7. Harmon Killebrew (in the Hall)
8. Yaz (in the Hall)
9. Al Kaline (in the Hall)
10. Roberto Clemente (in the Hall)
Nine out of 10 again — and to quote Bill James again, he feels certain that Dick Allen will get in sooner or later.
How about 1948-53?
1. Williams (Hall)
2. Musial (Hall)
3. Ralph Kiner (Hall)
4. Al Rosen (No)
5. Larry Doby (Hall)
6. Sid Gordon (No)
7. Jackie Robinson (Hall)
8. Roy Campanella (Hall)
9. Duke Snider (Hall)
10. Yogi Berra (Hall).
Eight out of 10 this time. From 1927-32, nine out of 10 are in the Hall (only Babe Herman is not). From 1934-39, nine out of 10 are in (only Bob Johnson is not).
And so on. For various reasons, though, the bulk of players viewed as the greatest of MY childhood — and you can add some of the other big stars of the time, players like Fred Lynn, Steve Garvey, Bobby Bonds, Bill Madlock, Cesar Cedeno, Cecil Cooper, Al Oliver and many others — are not in the Hall of Fame and are not going. (Pete Rose, I suppose, might have a shot someday. I’ll give you Pete Rose thought soon, of course).
And I don’t think any of those players HOULD go to the Hall of Fame (maybe Fred Lynn, but that’s a tricky case). I’m speaking about emotion here: The fact that I saw so few Hall of Famers growing up sort of clouds the baseball in my childhood. Did I, in fact, grow up during a real downturn in baseball? Was I just wildly unlucky to come of baseball age in a time after legends?
Probably not: I was just young in what might be an odd time in baseball. I grew up in a time when offense was down, when for numerous reasons several excellent players faded quickly, when some really good hitters (Steve Garvey, Al Oliver, Cecil Cooper) were not all that great at getting on base, and when some really good on-base men (Singleton, Tenace, Simmons, Grich) were not especially appreciated for it. I grew up in a time when many of the Gold Glove winners (Dave Concepcion, Garry Maddox, Cesar Geronimo, Mark Belanger, Frank White) couldn’t hit a whole lot, and many of the biggest power hitters (Foster, Luzinski, Dave Kingman, Jeff Burroughs) were considered defensive liabilities.
All in all, I believe the baseball played in my childhood was probably as good in its own way as baseball played any other time. It was a lot of fun to watch and follow. We just didn’t get to see many players who would put together Hall of Fame careers. I grew up in an American League City, which means that in my whole childhood I had the chance to see — in person — George Brett, Rod Carew, Carlton Fisk and Reggie Jackson as Hall of Famers in their prime. And that’s all.
So, when Jim Rice was inducted into the Hall of Fame this weekend — I did feel a little emotion. No, he wasn’t a complete player. Yes, Fenway Park probably inflated his numbers. Sure, I think that numerous other players just from around his time — Fred Lynn, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans, Dave Parker — were at least his equal.
But you know what? I grew up watching Jim Rice play baseball. I remember cringing when he came to the plate against my Cleveland Indians. I recall the feeling of joy I would get when a Jim Rice baseball card appeared in my wax pack — hey, Jim Rice, he’s a SUPERSTAR. The Hall of Fame is there to honor players, of course, but in a way it’s also there to honor our childhoods, to stamp our memories, to tell us that yes, we were lucky enough to watch this player, this Hall of Famer, this baseball icon.
Funny, when Rice went in, I remembered so clearly sitting at home one night, in my room, listening to a Cleveland Indians game. it’s one of the most memorable games of my childhood. It was 1979, and the Indians had won something like 10 games in a row. I remember that ex-Indians pitcher Dennis Eckersley was pitching for the Red Sox, and I remember that the game was delayed FOREVER — I remember listening to the Pete Franklin Show during the rain delay as everyone waited for the game to begin.
Rice clubbed a home run in the third inning to give the Red Sox a 3-0 lead. Eventually the red Sox lead was 5-0. But Cleveland was a hot team then, white hot, and I felt entirely certain they would come back. I just knew it. And they did. Mike Hargrove homered. Ted Cox homered (with hero Duane Kuiper aboard). In the eighth, Dell Alston stole second, went to third on a catcher’s throwing error, scored on a centerfielder’s throwing error, and it was 5-4, and I just knew Cleveland would win.
Then in the top of the ninth, Yaz singled off of Sid Monge. Yaz — I thought he had to be about 500 years old by then. Then Rice came in to face Sid Monge, and this chill came over me. And suddenly before the pitch was even thrown, I knew. And I was right. Rice crushed a mammoth home run. And that night I bitterly thought something like: “Jim Rice has to be one of the greatest hitters in the history of the world.”
Thirty years later, I remembered that moment and kind of smiled. He’s a Hall of Famer now.
Loading ...
Nice article Joe. I grew up during the same time and often had similar thoughts. We both are obviously big baseball fans. My wife’s cousin is Bill James. We will see him ina few weeks for a family reunion.
It will be interesting next year to see if Edgar Martinez makes it as a DH.
What about all of the players from the steroid era? Will any or all or some get in? Time will tell.
Joe,
Are you a BBWAA member? I assume you are since you say, ” I did not vote for (Rice).” What are your thoughts about 2010? For the record, my decade was the 80’s. I have a hard time accepting that Andre Dawson – a top 5 player from the decade- is not in. Will next year be his? Also, please tell me Edgar Martinez won’t get in. I never thought of him as a HOFer. He was not the greatest DH of all-time either (Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor, Hal McRae). Thanks for your great columns and blogs!
probably not an accident that the best players from those random years are also heavily loaded with players from NYC
Nice
Maybe it was harder to stand out in the Poz Era? There are a lot of Hall of Very Good guys in there as well as the Evanses, Grich, Simmons and others who didn’t make the list.
Also, on the 48-53 list, it took forever for Kiner and especially Doby to make it to Cooperstown.
Love to see a 1969-74 list to compare the “Spud Era” …. how did you come up with the numbers?
Nice article Joe. My six seasons are 1982-1987 and most of my favorite players from those years are mostly Mets, with the exception of Gary Carter I don’t expect to see many of my favorites to be in the hall but that doesn’t take anything away from my enjoyment of those years.
For what it’s worth, this post finally prompted me to pre-order the Machine. Looking forward to an excellent read.
[...] This post was Twitted by tanikaze [...]
I guess I have to blame Vin Scully.
Let me explain. I’ve heard dozens of baseball announcers over the years, maybe hundreds. I’ve heard tapes of old timers before my time. And to me, if there’s one thing that Vin Scully has over all of them (and he’s not better than all of them in all ways) it’s that he approaches baseball the way a sommelier approaches a dusty bottle of wine. He can appreciate a great moment. He can describe and compliment that moment. He can even describe the vineger he must taste when Willie Mays pulls a Frank Howard fly ball back into the ballpark. It’s as if everything out of Scully’s mouth is recorded with an eye towards it being used on an opposing player’s audio track in Cooperstown someday. That’s not to say he doesn’t appreciate the Dodgers. Nobody would continue working at his age unless they loved what they did and who they did it for. But even more than loving the Dodgers, he has to love baseball.
So in hindsight, yes, I’ve seen lots of Hall of Famers. I saw Stargell and Clemente, Mays and McCovey, Gibson and Brock and Ozzie, The Baltimore Robinsons in 1966, too many Yankees, Schmidt, all the Reds, Maddux and Murray rooting for and against, and many many more. I lived most of my childhood blocks away from Robin Yount. Baseball greatness was all around me, whether I was at the game, listening to the game, watching the game, or just going to school.
And I think that the difference between greatness (HOF worthiness, if you will) and mere excellence comes from quantity (doing more of the good things per year or doing things well for more years) and consistency (not doing the bad things). When I hear Vin Scully on the internet, I’m still a child. Hall of Fame arguments are for when the season is over. Today is for appreciating the season. I may have heard Scully describe ten thousand homers in my lifetime, and equal numbers of clutch hits, great fielding plays, unhittable pitches, and yes, gaffs, blunders, hanging curves. And most of them, good and bad, were not made by HOFers. I’ve seen Pedro and Fernando and Koufax give up home runs, and Mays and Piazza strike out. Most of the key plays, good and bad, were made by mere baseball mortals rising or sinking to the occasion.
This is what we have seen this season, no this week. We have seen one of the rarest of all things, a perfect game, and not only that, a perfect game for a pitcher who already has a no hitter. Six guys in the modern era have done that, and the other five are or will be in the HOF. We saw one of the most divisive players in history, a guy on a short list of candidates for best right handed hitter ever before he also became the first slugger still revered as a slugger (a guy who earlier in the week was intentionally walked in a one run game with runners on first and second!) take a 50 game suspension for steroids, not rehab very hard, but come back to hit the first pinch hit home run of his career, and it was a grand slam on his bobble head night to boot.
Yesterday I watched (on television) Ryan Howard make as smooth a pick as any left handed first baseman could possibly make on a hard ball down the line, and then make as bad a throw as ever Steve Garvey made in his attempt to turn two. And hey! The Royals won a game behind Hochevar!
Arguing about Rice became pointless once he reached 75%, and even more so once the season began. Arguing about anybody else on next year’s ballot right now is equally pointless. There’s too much good stuff going on. HOF arguments are to persuade this eager child that there will be another baseball season. For now, lets appreciate the plays by the HOFers and the non-HOFers, and as Ernie Banks would say, lets play two.
I would tend to agree with you in that Jim Rice falls just short, but was romanticized enough by Boston writers and fans, and feared enough by fans of other AL teams that his numbers have been glossed over.
My simple question is this one: Since Jim Rice has gone into the Hall, when does Albert Belle get in? Yeah, Belle was a terrible person, but so was Ty Cobb. And if you look at a comparison of Belle and Rice, they’re nearly identical, down to the dramatic and somewhat early fizzles to their careers. Belle simply had the misfortune of playing in Cleveland, and the extra weight of the writers disliking him.
Wrong thread, I know, but if Hillman’s showing signs of panic by bringing Soria in in the 8th inning of a tie game with the bases loaded, then, well, a panicking Hillman might be just what the Royals need.
Spud, using the baseball-reference PI it is easy to come up with such a list. From 1969-1974 the list is as such (min. 2500 PA):
1. Willie McCovey (168 OPS+, in the hall)
2. Dick Allen (166, still waiting)
3. Willie Stargell (165, in)
4. Hank Aaron (163, in)
5. Reggie Jackson (157, in)
6. Frank Howard (153, out)
7. Frank Robinson (149, in)
8. Boog Powell (143, out)
9. Harmon Killebrew (141, in)
10. Tony Perez (141, in)
Hey Joe…
I don’t think you didn’t get to see great players – I think the Hall of Fame has gotten more selective (and not always in intelligent ways), and not taken into account that there are almost double the number of teams there were during Mickey Mantle’s time.
You know about Baseball Think Factory’s Hall of Merit, right? It has the same number of members as the HOF, but picked on their playing ability as best as some very passionate and intelligent people can measure it, rather than on hazy memory or the more intangible components of “fame.” Reggie Smith is in it, and here are some more players in that august assemblage who were active during your childhood…
Darrell Evans
Bobby Grich
Graig Nettles
Ted Simmons
On the outside looking in, meanwhile, are Lou Brock, Tony Perez, and (it probably goes without saying) Jim Rice.
I like this game you started. let me try. Like commenter Will, my period is 1982-1987. Top OPS guys then were (minimum 2000 PA’s):
01. Pedro Guerrero (153, no)
02. Mike Schmidt (152, in)
03. Don Mattingly (150, no)
04. Wade Boggs (148, in)
05. George Brett (146, in)
06. Jack Clark (146, no)
07. Dale Murphy (145, no)
08. Eddie Murray (145, in)
09. Darryl Strawberry (145, tragic)
10. Rickey Henderon (138, in)
…that’s 5 out of 10, but the rest aren’t too shabby….and Strawberry is a sad story everyone knows.
But you know, my era was best.
Check out the pitching’s ERA+ leaders from ‘82-’87 (min 400 IP):
01. Dan Quisenberry (169, no but should be)
02. Dwight Gooden (146, tragic)
03. Kent Tekulve (142, no)
04. Roger Clemens (141, hope not)
05. Jesse Orosco (137, no)
06. Lee Smith (137, no)
07. Willie Hernandez (136, no)
08. Jimmy Key (135, no)
09. Dave Steib (131, no)
10. Dave Schmidt (126, no)
…I don’t even remember Dave Schmidt! All the others, are remembered as formidable forces in the 80’s. But hey, if I redo this list without relievers, we get a different look…
01. Dwight Gooden
02. Roger Clemens
03. Jimmy Key
04. Dave Steib
05. Brett Saberhagen (126, no)
06. Teddy Higuera (126, no)
07. Orel Hershiser (125, no)
08. John Tudor (124, no)
09. Bert Blyleven (120, no but should be)
10. John Candelaria (117, no)
…I’d have thought there would be a couple more HOF calibre pitchers on these lists.
BTW Poz, you must be referring to the August 1, 1979 game….the Indians had just finished a 10 game win streak and were playing the Red Sox.
I consider my “childhood years” of baseball watching to be between 1986-1993. Unfortunately I’m not old enough to remember the ‘84 Tigers, though I remember the ‘87 team vividly.
In any event, I went to the b-r PI thing and it wanted me to pay $30 to run those numbers. I considered doing it, but decided against it. What I could see for free, is that the best hitter during my childhood (2000 PA minimum) was Frank Thomas (OPS+ of 177), which might explain why I’ve carried my awe of him into adulthood. I’m almost 30 years old and I still speak of him the way I did when I was 13.
No way Dawson should get in….
.805 career OPS
27 HR / 98 RBI per 162 games
not HOF numbers at all
and if you take away his far and away great season of ‘87, he’s not even close
It’s a touch incongruent to wax on about how we all like to think that our own early experiences with baseball were different or special in some way, then slap the Fred Mertz label on a player who seems to think the same thing. Of course Rice thinks modern players are too flashy and aren’t as steeped in fundamentals as the players of his own era. ALL players think that. The current crop of players will offer the same lament in 30 years, and my son and his friends who are currently children and fans of these players will nod along as they say it.
Joe, it’s great how you do stats to back up your arguments. Keep up the great work!
In a completely ‘thinking out of the box’ moment which probably won’t earn me any nominations for VP of Common Sense, would it make sense to just forget about HOF voting and put everyone in? Maybe it would if it were a baseball museum instead of a HOF.
The reason I came up with this idea is I think everyone has a different take on HOF candidates. My own criteria would only yield about 100 players. Rather than argue the point with anyone who has different (and probably just as good) criteria, why not let us all be right? Just a wild thought.
I am happy to see Rice in the HOF. I often have wondered how that magnificent 1975 World Series might have been affected had Rice not have gotten injured at the end of his rookie season. Dwight Evans is HOF worthy as well. Looking forward to your new book being available.
How can you not already fondly reminisce about the 90s? Last season when Miguel Cabrera finished with an AL-leading 37 homers, I couldn’t help but think about how that was one fewer than the number Jay Bell hit back in ‘99.
Ah the 1990s. Good times, good times.
A couple of questions on park effect:
One is there any proof that hitters adjust to their parks – for instance do the splits develop for hitters in “friendly parks” over time (or maybe become wider).
Two – part of the argument for Rice should probably be he was smart enough to stay where he was successful.
The goalie Ken Dryden, when talking about hockey, once said that people viewed the Golden Age of the NHL as being whenever they were 12 years old, and I think that fits with just about every sport.
1988-1992 (my age 9-13 seasons):
1. Frank Thomas (yes)
2. Barry Bonds (yes, someday)
3. Fred McGriff (doubtful)
4. Jose Canseco (no)
5. Will Clark (no)
6. Kevin Mitchell (no)
7. Rickey Henderson (yep)
8. Danny Tartabull (heh)
9. Darryl Strawberry (no)
10. Bobby Bonilla (no)
3 out of 10. Interestingly, 6 of the next 7 guys after that are either in or should be eventually (Griffey, Edgar, McGwire, Molitor, Winfield, Boggs).
I don’t harbor any illusions about my era. The eighties had a lot of interesting baseball, but if you’re looking for the greatest players, look somewhere (just about anywhere, decade-wise) else.
What Posnanski’s look at 1975-1980 ought to point out is that the concentration of talent in MLB was probably reaching its peak at that time. The Baby Boom generation was in its athletic prime and had grown up with baseball as the top youth sport; participation by African Americans reached its zenith; the Latin America pipeline was fully tapped; free agency and arbitration were providing salaries and incentives for players to embark on year-round conditioning programs; Tommy John surgery and other advancements in orthopedic medicine were salvaging careers; teams were shifting to 5-man rotations and moving some of their most gifted arms to the bullpen.
I remember watching baseball during that era and hearing oldtimers complain that the quality of play must have diminished because hardly anyone was hitting 40-plus home runs or threatening to win a Triple Crown. What they were actually seeing was a game that was so laden with talent that no one could truly dominate it–at least not for an extended period.
I’ll admit that I’m biased because this was also the baseball of my childhood, but there’s a lot of evidence to argue that baseball truly did enjoy an unrecognized golden era, beginning in the early 1970s and extending until about 1990. Jim Rice may not have been the most deserving player to earn HOF honors from that era, but it’s nice to think that some of the writers have gained a little perspective on that time period.
As a 39 year old that grew up in KC and has moved back there, I would define kid as between 1976-1985 (6 to 15). Of course, we were in the playoffs 7 of those years which must seem unfathomable to a kid Royals fan today.
Great column!
For whatever reason, it seems the time frame you associate with your childhood did not produce players that were as well-rounded in the facets of the game, but more specialized (good at some aspects of offense, not so for defense; good power but bad average; etc.). For instance, the players that don’t get the notoriety they probably deserve (Grich, Evans, Simmons, Nettled, etc.) weren’t great average hitters. And though there has been a statistical revolution, batting average is something that many people won’t let go of. Also, when they would have been up for possible induction, batting average was still the number one stat. And it still is cited when trying to discredit a player that voters do want to allow in (Mark McGwire being the best example).
Despite the move toward OBP, batting average will never die off as a key stat. If your team is down a run in the ninth with a man on second and two out, you don’t want to know the probability of the guy at bat getting on base — you want to know if he is going to get a hit to hopefully drive in the tying run. Granted, getting on base via a walk would put the winning run on base, but people don’t romanticize about walking with the bases loaded to tie or win a game. Just doesn’t seem as noble.
The 70’s were an era of starting pitchers, as Joe noted himself (Yaz leading the league with 93 runs scored in 1974 is as example of how offensive numbers were relatively small.) We got to see a lot of Hall of Fame pitchers back then, so that makes up for any slight lack of Hall-of-Fame hitters.
Joe, those are roughly my years as well, 1974-1981. I usually include 1981, when I think about my childhood baseball years. My thinking about baseball changed in 1982 after the strike.
It’s a fairly small sample size (6 seasons) plus I think the selection process has gotten far too selective in some ways (Veteran’s committee not electing anyone) and not so selective in other ways (Jim Rice). Seriously why did Jim Rice get elected? For me Jim Rice is George Foster. Why is George Foster’s case seen as laughable yet Rice was inducted?
The “War” career listings have Rice ranked about 250th all time next to Strawberry, Foster, and Singleton.
You didn’t mention Gary Carter who was a star catcher during the latter part of those seasons.
As far as ’75-80 goes, here are some thoughts:
*It’s interesting that Rice was supposed to be the most “feared” player from this era yet he doesn’t even appear in the top ten for ops+.
*Rice was a horrible selection. There are literally 100 better eligible position players not in the HOF.
*Reggie Smith is the only player on that list that I feel should be a serious HOF candidate. He was an extremely underrated player.
* I think expansion has something to do with this as well. Do the math there are 10 more teams (250 players per season) since 1968 yet if anything the HOF selection has become more selective?! Even if you go with 2% of those players, that still 5 extra HOF caliber players. But instead of increasing the admittance the HOF, they’ve actually become more selective.
*That was the first generation of free agent players so I think they were the first group to have difficulty justifying those million dollar free-agent contracts. Guys like Foster and Lynn come to mind of players who signed big contracts with new teams and struggled trying to prove they were worth a million dollars. Also, there was a huge backlash from local fans when players didn’t live up to those new contracts.
Lynn and Foster were two players who just literally fell off a cliff from HOF careers.
Parker was a guy with a combination of Money & Drugs who just fell of a cliff of a HOF career.
*For some odd reason this was a golden era of third basemen. Think about it, 7 of the top 20 third basemen of all time were active during this relatively small time frame: Schmidt, Brett, Nettles, Evans, Bando, Cey, and Bell. And then you have guys like Harrah and Madlock who are in the top 30—40 all time.
The Hall of Fame has done a terrible job in identifying greatness at Third so basically if you’re not better than Schmidt or Brett you’re not getting in the HOF. If people are objective, Nettles and Evans should be in the HOF with Bando, Cey and Bell as borderline cases.
The HOF writers have also done a terrible job at second base.
*The most deserving player from that era who’s not in the HOF is Bobby Grich. Joe Gordon being elected and Grich not even being on a BALLOT just show’s the lunacy and general arbitrary nature of the HOF selection process.
*Lou Whitaker exclusion from the HOF ballot is another example of this lunacy. If you’re objective Willie Randolph should be a borderline case.
*Tramell who got his start in 1977 should also be in the HOF.
*Again being objective Keith Hernandez should be a HOF.
*Ted Simmons is also another HOF Omission.
*Munson is another borderline case.
Thanks Steve (#11) … I thought Howard might be in there but I forgot about Booooog.
Joe, Retrosheet shows that you have a good memory. The game you described was on August 1, 1979, and the Indians had a 10 game winning streak. David Clyde (appearing in the next to last game of his career) was the starting pitcher for Cleveland.
“2: Taylor Crouse said at 10:44 pm on July 26th, 2009:
Joe,
Are you a BBWAA member? I assume you are since you say, ” I did not vote for (Rice).” What are your thoughts about 2010? For the record, my decade was the 80’s. I have a hard time accepting that Andre Dawson – a top 5 player from the decade- is not in. Will next year be his? Also, please tell me Edgar Martinez won’t get in. I never thought of him as a HOFer. He was not the greatest DH of all-time either (Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor, Hal McRae). Thanks for your great columns and blogs!”
Seriously?
I hate this “WELL HE WAS A DH!” argument. It would be irrelevant if he was a butchering 1B, which is pretty much the same exact thing.
Martinez: .312/.418/.515, .327 EqA, 88.2 WARP-3 on his DT Card
Dawson: .279/.323(!)/.482, .285 EqA, 66.1 WARP-3 on his DT card.
Martinez top 5 year stretch: 36.4 WARP-3
Dawson top 5 year stretch: 36.3 WARP-3
So there it is, the only argument of Dawson being equal overall to Martinez is that he was beat up by playing on astroturf and it killed his longevity. Even if you pull that card, Martinez’s BA was almost equal to Dawson’s OBA. As hitters, Dawson doesn’t even belong in the same discussion as Martinez.
And on the issue of defense, Martinez had a 100 Rate at 1st and a 97 at 3rd, he was essentially an average corner IF before becoming a full time DH.
The anti-DH argument to Edgar Martinez is nothing but NL fan elitism continuing to insist that the DH isn’t “real baseball”. I’ll pay attention to that point once Greg Maddux’s HoF credentials are questioned for being a bad hitter.
I like that Poz waxes poeticaly about this era, as we grew up in roughly the same one — only I was atuned to NL stars (Dodgers) and less so the AL ones.
From a Dodgers fan perspective, it’s surprising to me that Don Sutton (along with Tom Lasorda) is the only HOFer from the best/second-best team of that era. I see that, in hindsight, writers are placing great emphasis on OPS from that era. But can you imagine if Adam Dunn had been playing for Lasorda? The second walk Dunn took in a game would have been the last time he saw the starting lineup!
Different times …
I was just able to pay a much lower fee to access the tool. And now I can see the top 10 from my childhood. I used 1986-93 (my age 5 through 12 seasons). 1994 was the strike year and after that I kinda moved on from baseball, returning around 2000, when I was in college:
(minimum 2000 PAs)
1. Frank Thomas, 177 (will be in)
2. Barry Bonds, 155 (will be in)
3. Fred McGriff, 153 (probably not)
4. Will Clark, 145 (no)
5. Ken Griffey Jr., 145 (will be in)
6. Rickey Henderson, 143 (in)
7. Mark McGwire, 143 (borderline)
8. Kevin Mitchell, 142 (no)
9. Darryl Strawberry, 141 (no)
10. Danny Tartabull, 141 (no)
Pitchers sorted by ERA+ (min. 725 IP):
1. Roger Clemens, 151 (will be in)
2. Kevin Appier, 141 (no)
3. Jose Rijo, 126 (no)
4. Bret Saberhagen, 125 (no)
5. Teddy Higuera, 124 (no)
6. Jimmy Key, 123 (no)
7. Frank Viola, 122 (no)
8. Greg Maddux, 122 (will be in)
9. Dennis Martinez, 121
10. Tom Candiotti/Chuck Finley, 119
I would also agree that each generation believes that the era it grew up had the best baseball. I know I certainly believe that. I can still name a great deal of players matched to their 1987 teams from memory.
Would the Red Sox have won the 1975 Series with a healthy rice? Mostly, Cecil Cooper played first and Yaz moved to left to replace Rice.
Three of the Sox’ losses were by just one run. They lost game two, 3-2. Cooper went 1-5 with a double. The Sox lost game three, 6-5 (in 10). Cooper went 0-5. The Sox lost game seven, 4-3. By now, Bernie Carbo had replaced Rice (with Yaz moving back to first) and went 1-3 with a walk.
I think it’s reasonable to think they might have won game 3 if Rice were playing.
Did Cooper win any games for the Sox? They won game 1, 6-0. The runs were scored in the 7th inning. Cooper hit a sac fly that inning to increase the margin from 5-0 to 6-0.
They won game four, 5-4. All the Sox’ runs were scored in the 4th. The immortal Juan Beniquez led off and played left that day. With the score 3-2 and one out, Beniquez reached on an error in the 4th, scoring Burleson, keeping the inning alive. He didn’t score.
They won game 6 thanks to Carbo and and Fisk. Cooper went 0-5 while in the game.
So, Rice’s replacements didn’t provide anything.
I know everyone has a different idea of what the Hall should be, that’s been discussed a lot in this space. This post describes exactly what MY hall of fame is (my HOF standard), which is the following:
I don’t have a kid yet, but when I do (be it a boy or a girl) I will take him/her to the HOF. And If we were to have made it through to the end without seeing Rice in there, I’d have been standing there near the exit door saying something like, “There was this guy Jim Rice–you might have heard your uncle and I talk about him a hundred times–I’m surprised he wasn’t in there. Well, I’ll tell you about him anyway. There was this one time…”
And that’s the standard, really. Not scientific I know. Probably doesn’t hold water in a real baseball conversation, but I mean I just can’t imagine canvassing the 70’s baseball history without mentioning Jim Rice. It’s like canvassing basketball history and not mentioning Dominique Wilkins or something.
as a Red Sox fan who grew up with Jim Rice in the 70’s and 80’s, it’s impossible for me to detach myself from the arguement, but what it comes down to is whether you value long term stats over “shorter” term stats. it’s a classic HOF arguement. Rice’s career stats are not overly impressive, but taken over a 10 year span, no one was more dominant that he was. I may not have all the exact facts, but he led or was near the top the AL in slugging, RBI’s, home runs, runs for a 10 year span, was the only player ever to lead the AL in RBI’s, home runs and triples, and topped 400 total bases in 1978 for the first time since Joe Dimaggio. Whether 10 years is enough to be a HOF’er is the question that peolpe have to answer, and it is different for everyone.
Joe R.,
I never once DHs should not be in the HOF. By your defensiveness you must be a Mariners fan. Why have Harold Baines, Hal McRae, and Don Baylor failed to garner significant support? Frank Thomas will be the first true DH elected (probably in 2014) and that is because he truly separated himself from the pack (2 MVPs & 500 HRs primarily as a DH).
Furthermore, Dawson was a true 5 tool player and won an MVP for a last place team. Martinez was a great hitter and that’s it. Don’t discount the toll that playing the field takes on a player. That’s what some of you zealous-DH-fans tend to do.
Over a 10-year span, there have been literally hundreds of players as dominant or more dominant than Rice. Let’s see … Pujols, A-Rod, Bonds, Helton, Frank Thomas, Rickey Henderson, George Brett, Mike Schmidt … Pedro, Big Unit, Maddux …
How long a list do I have to make? I guess I’m a fundamentalist on this. I really don’t care to listen to people who would say otherwise.
You want anecdotes? For every “most feared,” I’ll give you a GIDP. I’m a Sox fan, and that’s what *I* remember.
I think Molitor may open the door a bit for Edgar. Don’t discount the feeling by some position players of that era that being a designated hitter is like pinch hitting four times a game. You make a few outs, and there’s no way to make up for it defensively. It will likely take a veteran’s committee to appreciate him. I remember him being better than Jim Thome was at third, for instance. Seattle was just smart enough to use him as dh since he was productive that way and had injury issues. Molitor stayed in the game longer and got over 3000 hits, but Martinez had more defensive value over his career than Molitor . Granted, he didn’t play the field much to have those numbers deteriorate, but neither did Molitor. Since Martinez acted professionally and didn’t make a stink about not playing the field, everyone assumes he would just have gotten hurt all the time or be crappy at it. The defensive numbers on baseball reference indicate he would have been perfectly adequate at a corner position, in fact, he was an above average fielder at third for the 568 games he played there.
Growing up a Yankee fan, in the 70s, I figured Rice was a hall of famer, but Lynn was better, he just never used enough wall repellant like Rice. In retrospect, I don’t think Rice ended up quite getting there as a corner OF, but I don’t have any problem with him getting in the hall. I DO have a problem with Dick Allen not getting in, man, that guy was the STAR of the AL when I started following the game. His baseball card pictures were great too, of course, the era was great for that. Oscar Gamble’s look will never be beaten, especially with that crouching open stance. My NL team was the Cardinals, and Ted Simmons was always cited as being a more a hitter than a catcher. I dunno, I think he might have been like Posada, not really good at his position but capable enough to not be embarassing and really add an offensive advantage. He’d be a guy you have to look at seriously if you want to even things out to have more catchers represented.
John Q writes:
<>
PATENTLY absurd Johnnie Boy! Check Rice’s MVP shares lifetime in 16 seasons–I believe he’s top 50 or 60 LIFETIME—so there’s not even 40 players LIFETIME Hall of not better than Jim Rice in MVP shares. Check the hits, HRs and RBI for the decade of the 1980’s—he may well be #1 in all three of those stats for the decade, and I am sure the average was up there as well. And everyone who cries about him playing in Boston and benefitting from the Monstah–consider this one kids: in 16 Seasons, Jim Ed had 79 TRIPLES lifetime–how many of those do you think happened in Fenway, with Jim’s notorious lack of a speed game? To balance that out, perhaps THE player known the most for speed played 25 seasons—Rickey Henderson–and finished with 66 triples…hmmm… you think Rickey had 13 inside-the-park Home Runs lifetime in 9 more seasons to offset that difference? Highly doubtful. MVP shares versus the seamhead OPS+? I think I’ll take MVP shares any day.
Off topic warning… As calculated, practiced, rehearsed and awkward Rickey’s speech was, I absolutely loved it. In a lot of ways it removed the clown image as primary, replacing it with the ball player – who, in retrospect, was spectacularly singular.
For what it’s worth. Rice looked like he belonged with those guys. I was on the fence with Rice but am now very comfortable having him in.
I tend to think that the influence of Bolivian Marching Powder probably has something to do with a number of players from the late seventies who didn’t get in. Certainly Parker, if he’d been clean, would be in.
I should add that my “childhood years” were 1981-1985 and I don’t do much better:
OPS OPS
*1 Mike Schmidt .947
*2 Eddie Murray .920
*3 George Brett .912
4 Pedro Guerrero .897
5 Dale Murphy .889
*6 Wade Boggs .886
7 Dwight Evans .881
*8 Dave Winfield .857
9 Leon Durham .856
10 Jack Clark .852
That’s five out of ten, and only Murphy has any sort of support right now. Leon Durham?
Here’s the five years after, when I started to really understand baseball:
OPS OPS
*1 Wade Boggs .925
2 Fred McGriff .919
3 Jack Clark .905
4 Eric Davis .898
5 Darryl Strawberry .886
6 Will Clark .883
7 Kent Hrbek .879
*8 Kirby Puckett .878
*9 George Brett .874
10 Kevin Mitchell .872
Even worse. I’m a McGriff supporter, but I know he’ll have an uphill climb. Will Clark has his fans, and you could make a case for Straw, but I doubt anybody from that group who isn’t in will make it in the next twenty years.
I am from Joe’s era…he is bringing back some memories.
I was/am a diehard Reds fan but followed the Indians due to an uncle who lived in Cleveland. Spent many a night listening to Pete Franklin on WWWE – he was the greatest sports talk show host ever. It’s been 30+ years and I still remember the characters that called in — the Cleveland Bum, Mr. Know-it-All, etc.
Thanks for rekindling some nice memories, Joe.
I love reading how everyone has their eras they followed as kids, it’s what makes baseball special to all of us. I made a Radio Shack crystal radio kit with my Dad back in around 1973, and on a clear night with the earphone in, I could get (From Connecticut) The usual Sox, Mets and Yanks, but could also pull in the Indians, Reds, Cards, Braves, Pirates games in—man those were the times to be a fan. And go figure, no one ever mentioned OPS+ Sluggers were content to try to hit the ball hard everytime, and Billy Beane had nothing to do with how players were judged. Even Joe can remember Charlie Spikes, who could put a hurt on the ball, and was probably never concerned with how many times he got on base via walk.
#9 Mike Lew asks when Albert Belle gets into the Hall of Fame—that will be the day the reputed steroid cheats start to get in, as well as the corked bat users, as well as the “Let’s run the kid over on Halloween” guys do…in other words
Don’t hold your breath–it’s never happening.
I have to take issue with the “world didn’t end” argument. I’m sure that even the people who feel that Rice’s induction ‘lessens’ or ‘cheapens’ the HoF would agree that Rice’s induction isn’t the end of the world. Even his detractors typically admit that he was a borderline case.
Even so, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss them with the argument that amounts to “well, he got in and it doesn’t seem so bad.” I don’t think that the induction of any one player will damage the HoF (with the possible exception of Pete Rose, depending on how it plays out). And there are a number of players who may not belong, which means that if the HoF is being made irrelevant, it’s a slow and drawn out process.
Jim Rice’s induction neither elevates nor damages the HoF outright, IMO. But it may be indicative of a (very) slow erosion of relevance. Ironically, this may be accelerated as the BBWAA starts to deny entry into the HoF. The next decade or two will be interesting, but in a way that I wish it wasn’t going to be…
My baseball childhood is 79-85 and although I hold those memories close, I’m in the minority camp that thinks baseball is better today than it was then.
My baseball childhood included too many bad ballparks, too much artificial turf, and not enough games on TV. The experience for kids today is a lot richer, IMO.
As far as just fan experience goes, I’ll give my era an edge in two areas: radio announcers and ballpark affordability, and the latter especially is a big deal. But overall I’d rather be a 9 year old baseball fan today than in 1981.
MVP win shares (Rice is 29th):
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml
There’s plenty of reasons to question this as a measure — mostly, it’s a reflection of Rice being overrated when he was playing. Does anyone of Rice’s defenders believe he was better than Rickey Henderson (tied for 55th). Can someone make THAT case for me?
LAprGuy @33:
The Dodgers were the best or 2nd best team of the 1975-1980 era? Really?
Let’s see in their own division, the Reds won 3 Division titles, 2 pennants and 2 WS titles in that stretch.
The Phillies in the East won 4 division titles, 1 pennant and 1 WS in that stretch.
The Pirates in the East won 2 division title, 1 pennant and 1 WS in that stretch.
The Yankees won 4 Division Titles, 3 pennants and 2 WS titles in that stretch.
The Orioles won 1 Division Title and 1 pennant in that stretch.
The Royals won 4 Division Titles and 1 pennant in that stretch.
And the Dodgers? 2 Division titles and 2 pennants.
Just by those numbers, the Yankees, the Reds, the Phillies and the Royals appear to be more successful. Probably the Pirates too.
By overall record: Orioles 567-397, Red Sox 548-418, Reds 569-401, Royals 557-415, Dodgers 544-429, Yankees 572-394, Phillies 553-419, Pirates 549-421. Of the combined 48 seasons between those 8 teams, the only losing season is the Dodgers 1979 season.
It is close but as you can see they are 8th in wins during that period. Any Royals fan, Orioles fan or Red Sox fan will tell you the reason the Dodgers won 2 pennants is because the Yankees were in the AL and if those three teams had been NL teams, they would have been winning pennants too.
In response to #35. Excellent points made.
Cecil Cooper certainly had a horrible World Series in 1975. One hit and no walks in 19 AB’s. He even batted leadoff in four of the games I believe.
What’s interesting to me, Joe, is that I think you’ve just convinced me that players from “our” era are under-represented in the Hall, and we need more of them.
You know, as long as that doesn’t result in Dave Concepcion and Steve Garvey getting honored.
Seriously, I’ve always been of the opinion that just as we have to take historical context into account when comparing, say, Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth, so do we have to take it into account when filling Cooperstown. If a certain era is seemingly under-represented — that is to say, if we slice out a significant block of time and discover that some of the very best players from that era are missing — that’s an argument in favor of some of the borderline cases that have been bypassed.
Of course, some might argue that the reason things look like they do for the 75-80 group is a result of great pitchers, but let’s face reality; an expansion happened in the middle of that era, and if the stats of the best hitters in baseball were being dragged down, it indicates an overall depression of offense rather than great pitchers keeping hitters at bay. No, it was just a different game then, offensively, driven by astroturf and stolen bases.
Josh in DC (#39) – your list of players as dominant or more dominant than Rice is full of either HOFers or future HOFers so I don’t see how that demonstrates how he does not belong.
That being said, I too am a Sox fan and remember way more GIDP than I care to count. I certainly did feel the same level of excitement with Rice getting in as with Fisk or Yaz.
Hey Joe, I’m pretty sure someone has already pointed this out to you but theres a great article on Banny’s approach to pitching over at The Haardball Times
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/brian-bannister-tbd/
Its well worth checking out, as is the original interview/podcast with Banny linked to on the site
I’d argue that those things in your first two sentences haven’t happened because….the HoF doesn’t matter to most baseball fans. It just isn’t relevant or important to most fans. It likely is to many of the “purists”, “serious” fans, “real” fans, whatever. But, for most fans, the world didn’t come to an end because they don’t really care who is in or not.*
*I’m doubting this will be a well received view on a baseball blog site….
Using MVP shares to justify Jim Rice being a great player is kind of like bringing up “Grammy” nominations and saying that Lionel Ritchie was a better than “The Beatles” or “The Rolling Stones”.
The MVP is a subjective award that mainly shows that the same people who overrated Rice for his HOF selection are the same people who overrated him most of his career.
Jim Rice was a LF/DH playing in a great hitter’s park during a good hitter’s era who’s only top 50 career accomplishments are finishing 6th in Grounded into Double Plays and Sac Flies. And when you think that Sac Flies weren’t even an official stat until 1954 it really makes your head shake.
Seriously, find me another Corner position player (LF, RF, 3B, 1B) who was elected by the baseball writers who is not in the top 50 in any offensive categories.
So if you cringed when Rice came up to bat, wouldn’t that give credence to the idea that he was one of the most feared batters of his generation? And yet, I think you’ve long held to the belief espoused by many sabermetricians that Jim Rice was hardly ever intentionally walked, so that idea is bogus.
/confused.
Also, I’m sorry to say, but I could really not draw any other conclusion from your in the hall/not in the hall lists than that the baseball players in your childhood were just not that great. Doesn’t mean the games played were any less thrilling, but it does seem like a fairly inescapable conclusion?
Great story though. I like the research too.
Taylor @ #2:
What? Okay, so this is totally knee-jerk, and I have not looked at any statistics yet, but when you claimed that both Molitor and Hal McRae were better DHs than Edgar Martinez, I almost fell out of my chair.
I still don’t have a definate opinion on Martinez (though most days I think he should get in), but I need some convincing before I believe that he ranks behind Molitor and McRae as a DH. That statement needs some support.
Taylor @ #2:
Yeah, okay, so I just did a quick peak at fangraphs, using the compare function, and it pretty well confirms what I thought: at his peak Martinez was a better hitter than either Molitor or McRae were at their peaks, though both Molitor and McRae remained consistent for longer.
Outside of batting average, where the three were nearly identical, Martinez has a sizeable lead in OBP, SLG, ISO and wOBA.
And here are some career numbers:
Molitor: 21 seasons, 3319 hits, 605 2Bs, 114 3Bs, 234 HRs, 306/369/448 line with a career OPS+ of 122
McRae: 19 seasons, 2091 hits, 484 2Bs, 66 3Bs, 191 HRs, 290/351/454 line with a career OPS+ of 122
Martinez: 18 seasons, 2247 hits, 514 2Bs, 15 3Bs, 309 HRs, 312/418/515 line with a career OPS+ of 147
I just don’t see how you think either Molitor or McRae was better than Martinez.
I love baseballreference.com. Check this out Gar lovers:
Top 10 Batters most similar to Edgar Martinez:
1. Will Clark -not a HOFer
2. John Olerud -no chance
3. Moises Alou -no chance
4. Bernie Williams -outside chance (compare to Kirby Puckett)
5. Bob Johnson -not a HOFer
6. Paul O’Neill -not a HOFer
7. Ellis Burks -not a HOFer
8. Orlando Cepeda -HOF (Vet inductee)
9. Todd Helton -has a chance
10. Larry Walker -has a better chance
Top 10 Batters Most Similar to Paul Molitor:
1. Robin Yount -HOF First Ballot
2. George Brett -HOF First Ballot
3. Paul Waner -HOFer
4. Roberto Clemente -HOF First Ballot
5. Craig Biggio -likely first ballot HOFer
6. Vada Pinson -not HOFer
7. Al Oliver -not HOFer
8. Tony Gwynn -HOFer first ballot
9. Lou Brock -HOFer first ballot
10. Roberto Alomar -likely HOFer
Now do you Gar lovers really think he was better than Molitor? Molitor also has way over 3,000 hits and a WS MVP on his resume.
Brent @ 52
I don’t want to speak for LAprGuy, but he said roughly the same era. My guess is that is he is including 1974 and 1981 in the era and in that case you would have to add 2 division titles, 2 pennants and 1 WS title to the Dodgers’ totals. Also, they would move to 4th in wins. In that case they are much closer to the top of the era. In my opinion, they would still be clearly behind the Yankees and probably behind the Reds. But I think you could make a strong argument for the Dodgers being 3rd.
The great point I take from Joe’s piece here is that sometimes a player’s HOF value goes beyond the numbers, and into the overall impact he has on the game and the baseball world in general. Everyone who followed baseball knew and feared/loved Jim Rice in that era, and that’s got to count for something. I think that a player like Don Mattingly falls into that category. You talk to anyone whose childhood falls into the mid-late 1980s, and they can tell you all about Mattingly, whether it’s my brother or Mark Teixeira. So if this guy was so important to the game, yet for a more limited period of time, doesn’t that make his HOF credentials more in the Koufax/Pedro Martinez realm of sheer dominance over a stretch of ten years, rather than the traditional way of looking for immense longevity? Did Mattingly really have less of an impact on baseball than Don Sutton?
“Jim Rice was a LF/DH playing in a great hitter’s park during a good hitter’s era…”
You can make your case without being factually incorrect. The 1974-1989 time frame was NOT “a good hitter’s era”.
Joe, is it possible that instead of your childhood era seeing a downturn in MLB that you grew up in an era of uniformly high-quality play? If the talent-level was high across the board, it would reduce spikes in performance.
Edgar doesn’t have to be better than Molitor to get into the hall of fame. He didn’t have as long a career to amass the numbers and value Molitor did, but I certainly cringed just as much as I would have for Rice every time the Yankees pitched to him in the 1995 divisional series. That was the year he pretty much became a DH, and made room for former Yankee prospect Mike Blowers to have a decent year at third. Tino Martinez was a good 1B. Where should he have played? Left field, so worse hitters could dh? What you have to ask yourself when comparing them is how much did Molitor help his club when he played the field? Nobody cares, because he was mediocre at 1B in his 30s.
Nobody worries about Reggie Jackson being a liability in the OF when he should have probably been DHing, or Willie McCovey playing a lousy 1B in the NL since there wasn’t a dh when it comes to Hall cases.
Taylor @63:
I think you are putting too much weight on those similarity scores, and not paying enough attention to their career statistics.
Things to consider:
(1) those similarity scores consider fielding statistics and positional adjustments; Molitor actually played the field for most of his career, Martinez was almost exclusively a DH.
(2) the scores also accentuate similar length of service and weigh stats like hits and runs more than walks and strikeouts. So of course Molitor will come out looking like Brett and Gwynn — guys who played for 20+ years and amassed 3,000+ hits. Martinez “looses” points compared to all these guys based on fewer games played, fewer hits, fewer runs, etc.
Part of me enjoys the similarity scores at baseball reference, and part of me loathes it because so many use that one reference as a meta-metric for a player’s career. It is not that useful.
Look at Koufax’s similars:
Ron Guidy
Jack Coombs
Ed Reulbach
Andy Messersmith
Mel Stottlemyre
Lefty Gomez
Jim Maloney
Ed Lopat
Dave McNally
Jeff Pfeffer
Only one Hall of Famer in there, yet when people discuss Koufax they compare him to Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson.
Molitor was a great hitter who played for a long time and got himself a bunch of hits, but his career high for OPS+ was 161, followed by 147 and 143, with nothing else above 140 in his 21 years. Martinez maintained a career 147 OPS+
Martinez was not quite the hit machine that Molitor was, but he drew more walks, he struck out less and he hit for more power.
More for Taylor @63:
Also, when you are comparing a guy with a career 306 average (Molitor) and a guy with a career 312 average (Martinez), the fact that only one has 3,000 hits becomes an issue of opportunity and durability. It also has something to do with Martinez’s higher walk rate. So while we can say that Molitor was more durable, or that he had more opportunities at the plate (3,000 more career at bats than Martinez), I don’t think his edge in hits tells us much about whether he was a better hitter.
Taylor @ #38:
A “5-tool” player with a career .323 OBP. If Dawson is elected to the Hall, he’d have the lowest OBP of any primarily corner player ever.
Not just corner OF.
Corner Player.
That’s LF, RF, 1B, and 3B. That’s also counting deadball era players, and old school players who got voted in by their Vet committee ex-teammate buddies.
Judging players by MVP awards are dumb, too, and Dawson’s 1987 win was one of the worst selections ever to boot.
And Jesus, look some stuff up:
Martinez: .312/.418/.515, 147 OPS+
Baines: .289/.356/.465, 120 OPS+
McRae: .290/.351/.454, 122 OPS+
Baylor: .260/.342/.436, 118 OPS+
THIS is why Martinez has more support. He was BETTER. A lot better. And a lot better than Molitor, too:
.306/.369/.448, 122 OPS+ (yes, Molitor played good D til age 34, but lump him into DH’s and get this for analysis).
And those similarity scores are much more dependent on count statistics, which hurts Martinez since his MLB career started so late and helps Molitor. But if you do want to play that game:
Molitor – DH for a pluriality of his career
Yount – SS
Brett – good defensive 3B
Waner – OF, whatever
Clemente – RF, legendary defensive ability
Biggio – everything
Pinson – CF
Oliver – 1B, mildly passable excuse of a CF, and not in Hall
Gwynn – RF, hit in notorious pitcher parks his whole career
Brock – LF, would never have sniffed hall if Cubs never traded him
Alomar – middle infielder, awesome defender
Molitor also had over 12,000 PA’s in his career to Martinez’ 8,672. Yes, Molitor deserves the Hall, and yes Martinez’ hitting accomplishments should be discounted a bit since he didn’t have to field, but seriously, 147 OPS+. 40th of all time. Only two non-deadballers ahead of Martinez aren’t in the Hall, Dick Allen and Mark McGwire. We all know why McGwire’s not in.
Is there something wrong with me, that I’m not all that bothered about Dawson’s MVP award?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml#NLmvp
I mean, just looking at the top 3, Jack Clark missed all those games, and Ozzie didn’t even slug .400. So it’s either Ozzie or Dawson, and Dawson hit 49 homers. I’m not looking any sleep over it.
Says the guy who still gets worked up over 1941, 34 years before I was born. And Pedro getting jobbed by the two guys — one a NY Post writer — who left him off the ballot entirely.
And no one gets to complain about an MVP award without mentioning 1960.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1960.shtml#NLmvp
Well, Josh, disregard the two Cardinals if you wish, but that still wouldn’t justify giving the award to Dawson because he wasn’t even the best corner outfielder in the league, let alone the best overall player. Either Tim Raines or Daryl Strawberry would have been significantly better choices. Open it up to other positions and you get Dale Murphy, or Will Clark, or Eric Davis, or Tony Gwynn, or Tim Wallach, or Pedro Guerrero, or Mike Schmidt…all of whom had better years, most for better teams.
In short, Josh, yes, I guess there is something wrong with you.
It’s understandable why Dawson won the award, he had high HR and RBI totals, and the whole lowball deal he accepted just to get out of Montreal and play on grass made him a story. But everything that applied to Howard’s case in 2008 applied to Dawson and then some in 1987, that outside of those HR’s, there really wasn’t anything there. 10 of those miss clearing the fence and he goes from MVP to Dave Kingman.
Many others guys had awesome seasons as whole players. As evidenced:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=512991
Defense aside, Gwynn, Strawberry, Raines, and Clark SLAUGHTERED Dawson’s offensive #’s. Dawson won by nothing but RBI goggles
I wonder what percentage of the ‘87 MVP votes went Dawson’s way because he famously handed the Cubs a blank contract and said “pay me whatever you think I’m worth.”
Remember, back in those days, some players were making an exorbitant $1 million (or more!) a year. A lot of writers were up in arms over how such free-spending ways would mark the end of the game back then.
It’s likely that Dawson’s HR and RBI totals would have carried the day anyway – obviously, OBP was even more underrated then than it is now (when dudes like Jimmy Rollins can win the MVP largely because they make a cocky preseason prediction and then back it up by being one of the five best hitters on their team,) but I have to believe Hawk gained some votes for not chasing the top-dollar deal.
Please note that I am not condoning this method of player valuation.
That is still one of the greatest 1 year contracts of all time, no doubt.
Made the media love Dawson. They still do, unlike Tim Raines, who used coke a lot one year, which obviously makes him a terrible person and unfit for the Hall, unlike upstanding men like Ty Cobb was…
“But, in general, Rice’s induction into the Hall of Fame seemed to do no harm to the greater population. More than that, it made quite a lot of people happy …”
Well put Joe. I missed Rice’s glory days by a couple years but it is wonderful to see how happy this is making so many of the old Sox fans and that really is the important thing about baseball, that these players accomplishments bring joy into ordinary people’s lives. Does it really matter that his OPS+ or something is slightly worse than someone who isn’t in the Hall?
I mean that’s not an argument to let David Eckstein in because it would make some folks happy. The stats do count for a lot but Jim Rice is close enough to being statistically good enough and was such a beloved player on top of that that I don’t think anyone should be griping about his inclusion.
Jim Rice was actually a pretty remarkable hitter. For example, he was a .300 hitter who hit with power. Those kinds of guys were pretty rare in the mid-late 70s. I mean, a few guys did it, like George Foster, Fred Lynn and Greg Luzinski, but they didn’t do it like Rice did. When Luzinski or Foster did it, it was sort of an anomaly for them. Rice came out of the gate hitting like that. Rice, in addition to batting .320 and hitting 39 HR, would get 200 hits as well. In fact he’s the only guy in history withe 3 straight seasons of 39 HR and 200 hits. He’s also the only guy in history to lead the majors in HR, RBI and triples in the same season. He was pretty unique as a hitter, and that’s why he stands out over other borderline HoFers.
It doesn’t hurt that he hung around just long enough to amass decent counting stats, i.e. he didn’t finish his career with fewer than 2000 hits like Albert Belle or Dick Allen.
And finally, he led the league in various offensive categories several times, and they were big ticket categories too, like HR, RBI and SLG. Many borderline HoFers, like Dwight Evans, didn’t lead the league as often.
Raines also missed April that year because of the May 1 re-signing rule. And the Expos were in the race to the very end.
Dawson was most valuable because without him the Cubs … would have sucked even more?
The only thing about Jim Rice’s induction that rubs me the wrong way is the way he said “we” and “Hall of Famers like us” before he was even inducted. I mean seriously, there is a picture of this guy next to the word “borderline” in the dictionary. I understand you’re either a HOFer or you’re not, and he is one now, but still. I just imagine the luminary Hall of Famers looking down at Jim Rice and chuckling at his inclusion, much like we chuckle at a baby and say, “Awww, he thinks he’s a grown-up”. Cute, but insubstantial. Although I will reluctantly acknowledge that Jim Rice DID lead MLB in RBI’s from the arbitrary dates of July 15 1975 to September 3rd 1983 with RISP and less than 2 outs while within 5 games of the division lead while playing for an AL East team with a name that starts with “B”, but not to include Baltimore, and the temperature within 22 degrees of freezing, against lefthanded pitchers working while issued temporary visas on teams managed by Billy Martin, but only when Martin was managing the A’s. That is one stat that simply can’t be overlooked.
PS–See, anything is true if you give it enough qualifiers.
@Quinn #3 –
The so-called New York bias has been debunked so many times I am not going to repeat the research here.
Your statement could just as well (or, actually, more accurately) have read “probably not an accident that the best players from those random years are also heavily loaded with players from [pennant- and World Series-winning teams]”
The four lists Joe presents contain 10 Yankees out of 40 players, or 25%. During the time periods covered by these lists, totaling 24 years, and taking into account the varying numbers of teams in both MLB and New York, the New York teams made up roughly 13% of the teams, yet won 46% of the pennants and 50% of the World Series.
Sounds to me like they are UNDER-represented.
That should be “10 New York players”, not “10 Yankees”, in the first sentence of graf #3.
The following is a direct quote from Rob Neyer -a childhood Royals fan by the way- regarding the candidacy of Edgar Martinez:
There have been six players with long careers who played at least 50 percent of their career games as the DH. Yes, I cherry-picked that 50 percent; if I made it 60 percent, there would be only three players. But 50 percent is an elegantly simple cutoff, and it also gets us what we really want: a list of players with long careers and very little defensive value. We could, of course, extend the list to poor-fielding first basemen and corner outfielders, but that wouldn’t do Edgar Martinez any favors. So we’ll stick with these six: Harold Baines, Frank Thomas, Don Baylor, Edgar Martinez, Hal McRae and David Ortiz.
Is Martinez the most impressive hitter in this group? Clearly, he is not. He’s third in hits and times on base, and fourth in home runs, runs scored and RBIs. Quantitatively, he’s nothing special. Qualitatively, though? That’s where Edgar shines. His .418 career on-base percentage is second-best, just a hair behind Thomas. And his .515 slugging percentage trails only Thomas and Ortiz (and, of course, Ortiz’s decline phase is still ahead of him). I don’t have any qualms about describing Martinez as the second-greatest DH in American League history.
Does that make him a Hall of Famer? I suspect not. He was a great hitter, one of the best of the past 20 years, comparable to Bagwell and Thome. But because Martinez got a late start and had problems staying healthy, he didn’t pile up the career numbers those players did (and Thome continues to do). Edgar’s lack of defensive value is a problem, but perhaps a bigger problem is the fact that during his career a lot of guys were piling up numbers and there’s little to set him apart from his peers.
[...] of Fred Mertz talk quoted by Phil Rogers : “Everyone now is younger. When you’re talking about click for more var _wh = ((document.location.protocol=='https:') ? "https://sec1.woopra.com" : [...]
[...] of Fred Mertz talk quoted by Phil Rogers : “Everyone now is younger. When you’re talking about click for more Published: August 21, 2009 Filed Under: Uncategorized Leave a Comment Name: [...]