Jim Rice Not Worthy

January 4, 2008 at 2:21 AM

25 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

I understand sticking up for the local guy and favoring the credentials of a Red Sox lifer on a Red Sox blog as the logical route, but the credentials of one Jim Rice simply do not stack up to a worthy inductee of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

By nature, I��m extremely strict when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Candidates like Phil Rizzuto and Bruce Sutter deserve to be nowhere near the distinct Hall in Cooperstown, yet voters continue to award excellence over legendary. Overall, the Hall has been watered down in recent years with the inclusion of many half-deserving candidates that get in due to reasons such as demeanor off the field, grittiness and how nice he was to Woody Paige at any encounter.

Jim Rice has a chance to be elected to the Hall of Fame very soon. As it stands, the former slugger looks to be a bubble candidate, to steal a college basketball term, while a deserving candidate like Goose Gossage appears to have the inside track at an election. Players such as Bert Blyleven, Alan Trammell and Tim Raines are bigger question marks to be elected than Rice, and yet, are much more deserving.

Jim Rice was a very good player for the Boston Red Sox during his 15-year tenure. He did some incredible things: totaled 46 HR and 139 RBI in the 1978 pennant run, had three consecutive years with slugging percentages over .593 in the late 70s, totaled 4129 total bases and batted .298 over his career, nearly reaching the .300 plateau. His 128 OPS+ is good, but Hall worthy?

Many pro-Rice arguers point to the concept that he was the ��most feared�� hitter of his time. While this is merely dusty hearsay reborn for people looking to give Rice an edge while ignoring rock-solid numbers, the idea that Rice was the most feared is impossible to judge. As a matter of fact, Rice drew less intentional walks than 32 major league players from 1975 to 1986. His win shares weren��t exactly glowing during his prime period either: 1975 20th, 1976 92nd, 1977 26th, 1978 2nd, 1979 11th, 1980 111th, 1981 44th. Good, but not Hall-worthy, and not sustained long enough.

Some other statistics that show Rice is not worthy include his 382 career HR, a total that is actually quite ordinary for a player that considers himself an elite power hitter over a long period of time. Rice only reached 30+ HR in a season four times over fifteen years, including a drop to 24 HR in 1980, just one season removed from his 1978 campaign. His .352 OBP is nothing compared to Tim Raines�� .385 OBP. Raines dominates the early 80s much more than Rice and should be included in Hall discussions with much more fervor than Rice.

What about Fenway Park as a factor favoring Rice��s career? Away from the legendary ballpark, Rice��s line concluded at .277/.330/.459 with just 174 HR and 1148 hits, while at home Rice was strong: .320/.374/.546, 208 HR, 1304 H. There��s no doubt a hitters park that Rice enjoyed aided his already suspect career totals when talking about the Hall of Fame. We can also discuss his defense, which was widely regarded as seriously below average at the time. He played DH more and more often as his career progressed.

Fred Lynn finished his career at .283/.360/.484 with 306 HR, a 129 OPS+ and phenomenal defense, should we include him?

Dwight Evans finished up at .272/.370/.470 with 385 HR, a 127 OPS+ and even better defense, why isn��t he in any Hall of Fame debates?

Oh, I forgot. They weren��t feared enough.

Do us a service, voters, and don��t check off Jim Rice��s name when you vote to enshrine the newest members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Save us from the embarrassment.

Categories: Jim Rice

PREVIOUS: Slow off-season

NEXT: Could Carlos Quentin be heading to the Red Sox?

Discussion

25 Comments on "Jim Rice Not Worthy"

Posted by Jeff Kallman, January 4, 2008 12:07 AM

Zach---The intentional walks issue is a very interesting issue. And when it comes to Jim Rice (I drew what follows from my own HOF discourse, but I thought you'd like to share it), you��re going to have to convince me that a man is genuinely feared when ten percent of his walks are intentional passes and that percentage is equaled or passed by quite a few others some of whom aren't going anywhere near Cooperstown.

Consider the percentages, then, of these among Rice��s contemporaries: Jack Clark (ten percent), Dave Kingman (12 percent) Reggie Jackson (12 percent), Dave Winfield (14 percent), Cal Ripken (nine percent), Mike Schmidt (13 percent), George Brett (21 percent), Dave Parker (25 percent), Andre Dawson (24 percent).

If intentional walks as a percentage of your total bases on balls can be called a fear factor (disallow, for the moment, that some of the above weren��t that great at taking walks in the first place; and, bear in mind that walks totals don��t account for those unintentional intentional bases on balls), then you��ll have a very hard time convincing me a man whose walks were ten percent intentional was that much feared against some of his contemporaries.

I submit on that tally that Jack Clark was at least as feared as Jim Rice (the free pass he should have gotten but didn��t��when Tommy Lasorda elected to let Tom Niedenfeuer pitch to him with first base open and the Dodgers an out away from a World Series��got hit into Casey Stengel��s back yard for a three-run homer), and Jack the Ripper isn��t going to the Hall of Fame. Dave Kingman was slightly more feared and King Kong turned out anywhere but a Hall of Famer. Mr. October speaks for himself; so does Cal Ripken, who was just about equal to Rice in this fear factor. Dave Parker and Andre Dawson, based on that tally, were actually twice as feared as Rice . . . and Parker isn��t likely to go to Cooperstown while the debate will probably continue about the Hawk. Dave Winfield, Mike Schmidt, and George Brett were more feared based on that tally, but their Hall of Fame cases were (and remain) incontrovertible.

(Just for a yuk-yuk, I decided to check four earlier contemporaries. Hank Aaron��s lifetime walks were 20 percent intentional; Frank Robinson��s, 15 percent; Willie Mays��s, 13 percent; Mickey Mantle��s, seven percent. Right there that should end any and every argument��most of which are pretty stupid to begin with��about whether or not Hank Aaron belonged in the Asgard of sluggers merely because he lasted long enough to pass Babe Ruth without ��spectacular�� seasons. You tell me why a guy who got first base on the house twenty percent of the time should be considered less fearsome than three guys who got it fifteen percent or less, even if you give Mantle an allowance for all those injuries. And if you think only the big bombers strike fear into the hearts of enemy pitchers, be advised that Roberto Clemente��s lifetime walks were 27 percent intentional. How's that for a fear factor, folks?)

---Jeff

Posted by Ethan Michaels, January 4, 2008 12:23 AM

I'm sure he did too Moshe. I can't imagine any other word he possibly could have meant.

Posted by Ethan Michaels, January 4, 2008 5:22 AM

Will Man-Ram Return To Greatness In '08?

http://modernrooters.blogspot.com/

"There are signs that Ramirez is finally realizing he isn't 30 any more. According to Peter Gammons, Manny's become a "manicle workout warrior". Manicle is Gammons' word, not mine. Gammons provides a brief first hand account of Manny's workouts, describing them as "extremely difficult."

Posted by Moshe Mandel, January 4, 2008 8:26 AM

I'll bet he meant maniacal.

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 4, 2008 1:23 PM

ESPN is running a poll on their baseball page on this very topic. With 15,905 votes cast, 67% believe Rice should be in the Hall, and 33% think he shouldn't. I'm in the minority there; he was great, but (to use your word, Zach) not legendary.

Posted by Aubrey Klaft, January 4, 2008 4:15 PM

If I were looking for a "fear factor" I would look at intentional walks as a percentage of plate appearances, not as a percentage of walks. These are guys with wildly different walk rates.

Posted by JaredK, January 4, 2008 4:21 PM

I think manicle sounds like a man encapsulated in ice...maybe it was a Ted Williams comparison.

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 4, 2008 6:40 PM

Side-note:

The Sox have signed LHP Jon Switzer (former Rays reliever). His overall numbers at the ML level are awful, but Switzer has done well against lefties, so he might have LOOGY potential. Either way, he shouldn't cost much.

They also added Michael Tejera to the Pawtucket rotation on a minor league deal.

Posted by Ethan Michaels, January 4, 2008 7:42 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3181689

Congress is asking Pettitte, Clemens, and McNamee to testify in front of them under oath on January 16th.

#10

Posted by Jeff Kallman, January 4, 2008 8:32 PM

Aubrey---You could be right, but I find it extremely interesting to note how many of one's walks---I did make a point of noting that you've got quite a few on the list who weren't that great at taking walks in the first place---are free passes. I suspect (I've yet to do the math) that if you wrung out walks as a percentage of their plate appearances they'd probably come out not that far, either way, from their intentional walks as a percentage of their walks. (Well, maybe Dave Kingman and Reggie Jackson would be another story altogether . . . )

JaredK---I thought manicles were what you got clapped into when they wanted to haul you off to the calaboose.---Jeff

#11

Posted by Evan Brunell, January 4, 2008 8:40 PM

Rice should be in the Hall. Rizzuto is in for crying out loud. Don't think of the Hall of Fame as a true Hall of Fame; look at his peers.

I dislike the Hall and think that it has become watered down. In this watered down Hall, Rice absolutely deserves to be in.

If we're talking the REAL Hall, the issue isn't voting Rice in, it's getting the undeserving out.

#12

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 4, 2008 9:32 PM

Evan:

But doesn't getting the undeserving out start with not voting any more undeserving in? I don't think you can strip players of their Hall status once they're in. By voting more undeserving players in, all we're accomplishing is watering down the Hall even more. At this rate, by 2020, it'll be the "Hall of Above Average," if we don't stop sometime soon.

Rice is on the borderline, IMO, but in the interest of raising the bar for the Hall in the future, I don't think he should get in.

By the way, FWIW, KNBR reports that "the A's continue to have strong interest in Coco Crisp, but are only willing to part with current major leaguers, ideally ones with no remaining minor league options, to get him." I doubt Beane would do Coco for Huston Street straight up...but maybe Coco + Bowden? Of course, then Theo's handcuffed on the Santana front...

#13

Posted by Jeff Kallman, January 4, 2008 9:53 PM

Evan---Phil Rizzuto belongs in the Hall of Fame . . . as a broadcaster. And just because a given Veterans Committee was fool enough to think Rizzuto was a Hall of Fame player, it doesn't make a case for whether Jim Rice should get elected by the BBWAA. The worst argument you can make on behalf of one player is to say he should be in because a far less worthy player got there, at all . . . never mind when the ones who put the lesser player in aren't the ones who still have to consider the player on whose behalf you argue. That's as unfair to Rice as to Rizzuto, and to the Hall itself.

I think what really hurts Jim Rice in the Hall consideration, other than that he may not have been as feared or fearsome as his reputation, are a) his ghastly home-road splits---they're just too blaring, no matter how you cut and shape them, and it's the same issue that's probably hurting Dale Murphy the most; and, b) the fact that, taken at face value, Rice's lifetime jacket shows a very short period in which he did play like a no-questions-asked Hall of Famer overall, even before the injuries and exhaustion finally began getting the better of him. I'm still not convinced that both Rice and Murphy are Hall of Famers when all is said and done, but neither am I completely convinced that they're not.

As for beginning to excise the undeserving, I'd be for it. We could (should?) begin with just about everyone who got hustled in when Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry were running the Veterans Committee and, apparently, bent on getting as many of their old Giant and Cardinal buddies into Cooperstown as they could get away with, whether or not those buddies deserved the honour. What those two did to the Hall of Fame is a disgrace.---Jeff

#14

Posted by Joe, January 4, 2008 10:52 PM

To me Rice belongs in. He was dominant for about a 4-5 year stretch in the late 70s while his career numbers are borderline. In my mind if you have a great peak and your career value is close, that gets you in.

I don't give a crap about the "most feared" stuff. That's just one of those stupid things.

Evan, the Hall isn't watered down, actually quite the opposite. It has become much tougher to get in. In 1955 the average team had 2.1 Hall of Famers, in 1985 the average team had 1.0 (if you give credit for Rose, Rickey and Roger). The problem isn't the BBWAA voters, it's the VC. Virtually every borderline (or worse) selection has been a VC selection.

#15

Posted by RollingWave, January 4, 2008 11:53 PM

I agree that Phil Rizzuto being in has really nothing to do with rice... for quiet a few reasons.

1. he's voted in by the vets committee. it's not like he was voted in by the writers.

2. he coupled a pretty good career with a GREAT broadcasting one.

3. he missed 3 season to the war... in his prime... which cost him around 450 hits if we look at what he did before and after.. which would at least make him a boarderline case considering the SS offense ability of the time

4. it's unfair, but being part of the most ridiculasly successful era in the most ridiculasly successful team gets you plenty of extra points.

5. even Phil himself said he didn't really deserved it.

----

I think the biggest problem is this, here's a list of guys that survived last year's ballot .. i'm just going to point to the similar type players to rice (big hitter corner OF / DH / 1B type )

Harold Baines

Andre Dawson

Don Mattingly

Mark McGwire

Dale Murphy

Dave Parker

Jim Rice

Big - Mac is in another territory obviously as his stats are enough but obviously a certain day in a certain city is going to keep him out for at least 5 more years .. but let's just look at these other guys. if you put Rice in, is there anyway you could debate not putting in the rest of that group ? (with the exception of Mattingly ) Murphy / Dawson / Baines all had significantly better count stats. Murphy / Dawson were known as GREAT defenders in their youth. Parker is a virtual clone of Rice and unlike Rice he had 2 rings .

If your going to vote in Rice, it's really impossible to exclude everyone else save Mattingly on that list.

#16

Posted by Dave Brunell, January 5, 2008 12:02 AM

Rice's offense was borderline. His defense was poor. His clubhouse leadership was worse. Defense certainly wins and loses games as well. No way should he get in.

#17

Posted by Dave B., January 5, 2008 12:07 AM

Jim Rice is not a HoFer. His WARP-3 is 83.2. That is nice but nothing to get up in arms about. For a reference point, Manny is at 106.2.

Furthermore, HoF and MVP voting is the stupid and most annoying things in baseball. I hate hearing about it and i hate discussing it. It means nothing to me and shouldn't mean anything to people outside of the players themselves.

#18

Posted by Joe, January 5, 2008 11:38 AM

In 700+ more games Baines had 2 more home runs and 200 more RBI with a lower OPS+ while Rice had three seasons with a higher OPS+ than Baines did.

Parker is a better comp but again, lower OPS+, fewer HR despite many more games. Also, both Parker and Baines had lower OPS on the road than Rice did (Baines by a lot).

Dawson and Murphy belong in.

McGwire has no relevance to this conversation as his exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with his on field performance.

Mattingly makes for an intriguing argument. Same OPS+, like Rice he had great peak value and almost identical road OPS (marginally better) to Rice. I think Rice's career length/counting stats are borderline so Mattingly's certainly don't meet my standard.

#19

Posted by Chris C, January 5, 2008 6:07 PM

Numbers tell alot, but not everything. Rice was indeed the most feared hitter during his peak seasons, and in '78 became the first player to have a team put in a defensive shift against him since Ted Williams. Good company. Ask anyone else who was following the Sox, and MLB, in the 70's and you will probably hear the same thing. Just looking at the numbers alone don't tell the whole story; it's like looking at the blueprints of a building as opposed to walking through it after it is built. Same thing in a way, but really a totally different experience.

(And, as for IBB's, take a peek at the rest of the lineup he hit in. We had Hobson at third base batting ninth, and he had 30 HR's and 100 RBI's. And deserved to hit ninth. You couldn't pitch around anyone on that team.)

#20

Posted by David Hannes, January 6, 2008 11:58 AM

My gut tells me that Rice should make it...if you use the criteria of "most feared" in his time, there were very few hitters in the late 70's as feared as Rice--Pete Rose (who is not nor probably every will be in the HOF), Dave Kingman (not in HOF AFAIK), and Reggie Jackson the only ones clearly more feared than Rice (guys like Joe Morgan, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Sr., and Robin Yount are in the same category as Rice).

#21

Posted by Ethan Michaels, January 6, 2008 11:05 PM

Bill James 2008 Red Sox Pitching Projections

http://modernrooters.blogspot.com/

"I was a little surprised to see such a high ERA projection, even though 2007 was a career year for Beckett. Since his rookie season, Beckett's posted an ERA on the lower side of 3.50 most of the time. Other than Beckett's atypical 2006 season, Beckett's BB/9 IP has gone down every year, yet the projection expects it to go back up in 2008.

I can understand why the projection is so high, as projections must give weight to Beckett's 2006 season. But most indications point to 2006 being an off year and 2007 being an indicator of improving ability at the major league level as he enters the prime ages of most pitchers' careers."

#22

Posted by Gerry, January 6, 2008 11:17 PM

Take away Rice's last two years and his stats climb, if that is central to his candidacy. Those who lived with the Sox in Jim Rice's prime know he was not only the man who dominated other teams, and led his own as Captain, but the man who finally and firmly smashed the color line in Boston. Local attitudes and negative press towards him was almost as nasty as that faced by Henry Aaron and even Ted Williams, and it was incessant. Jim overcame alot, accomplished alot, and deserves the Hall as one of the absolute stars of his era . . . and without the juice. Talking heads then weren't much different than those of today.

#23

Posted by Chris C, January 7, 2008 12:37 AM

Check out Goose Gossage's comments in the Globe today about who was the most 'feared' hitter of the time. I predict he will get in, and know that he utterly deserves it. There were many at the time that said that what he did in dominating the League in '78 was by itself reason enough for the Hall. Koufax only had 5 good years, and he's there. Imagine if Ruhle hadn't busted Rice's wrist down the stretch in '75 and he had been able to play in the Series. We probably would have won, perhaps with Rice as the MVP of the Sox beating the streak. And he'd already be in the Hall now.

#24

Posted by BJ, January 7, 2008 1:40 AM

props to you sir, eat it gammons

#25

Posted by Daniel Rathman, January 7, 2008 1:54 AM

Ethan:

I'm fairly confident that the ERA is indeed bloated by his shaky 2006. I don't see him regressing that much, though I don't see Beckett being quite as good this year as he was last.

via RSS

Poll

Which former Red Sox would you most like to see on the team this year?(answers)

MVN: Most Valuable Network