Didn't we just have this conversation?

Yes. But this

Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded.

is worth the link.

I think George Brett took a bases-loaded intentional walk during his 1980 season.

Is BL the CHB?

Speaking of planets - anyone been outside at night lately and looked up? Mars is about as bright as it ever gets and about as close to Earth as it ever gets. (I think it was at its brightest and closest about a week ago.) If it's late enough in the evening that you get a good look at Orion, then Mars should be above and a little left of Orion. It should be the brightest star-like object in the sky.

Didn't we just have this conversation?

The reason I've bothered to participate in that other thread is that Rice may very well be elected, which would be wrong, and Raines will most likely not be elected, which would also be wrong.

According to the baseball almanac website, there have been 5 bases loaded intentional walks in the major leagues.

There's no record of the times a manager thought about intentionally walking someone with the bases loaded.

At least he has Blyleven and Gossage on his ballot.

Rice hit 46 homers in a season back when it meant something - before 50 became the province of guys like Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez

And the year before, George Foster hit 52. And the year after, Gorman Thomas and Mike Schmidt hit 45 and Dave Kingman hit 48. And the year after that...

People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day.

Cross-Posting from the current Rice thread:

Rice, to my mind, is well below the borderline. He does not have a career case to make, and his peak was simply not very high, on a historical level.

He had three consecutive excellent years. Not historically great by any means, but excellent. And he had several more good years.

When your best year does not produce an OPS+ among the top 500 seasons ever; when your three best years produce only 1 league-leading OPS, with a 4th and a 6th for outriders, and your only other top 10s are two other 6th place finishes, that is one pathetic peak on which to be making a peak argument.

And he was done as an elite offensive force by his age 34 season.

And offense is the only thing he has going for him. I am not saying he was a butcher in the field. I am not saying he was a slug. But the hard facts were that of 2,000 games, he played 1/4 as a DH, and 3/4 as a LF, mostly patrolling the tiny patch of ground that is Fenway's left field. He stole all of 58 bases; he hit 373 doubles in the doubles paradise that is Fenway; and he scored 100 runs only 3 times.

[I will say that I think the Double Play thing is a LITTLE overblown. He was always coming to bat with Boggs or Evans on base, neither of whom seem to get a particularly good jump, and neither of whom you would really want to start just to "stay out of the double play" -- unless you were trying to set some kind of league record for CS. And he hit the ball hard enough to make it an easy turn. At the same time, that also cuts into his "claim to fame" in terms of RBIs. You hit behind Boggs and Evans, and you are going to rack up a few RBIs.]

He made great use of Fenway, but on the road he was ordinary -- .789 OPS.

His claim to fame as an offensive force is not batting average -- he never led the league. It is not OBP, obviously. It is slugging. And even there, he led the league twice, with three more second place finishes. Admirable, but not exactly a pantheon-like performance, especially when his best slugging season is in 300th place.

He is only "borderline" in terms of the fact that the some voters and Sox fans are pushing him, not on the merits. He is only "borderline" in terms of some of the lousy choices made by the veterans committee. He is only "borderline" in comparison to other players of his era, which simply was not overrun with historical sluggers.

Even by traditional stats, he doesn't look special. Forget about the really big milestones, He did not even reach 400 HRs, or 400 2bs, or 1,500 RBI, or 2,500 hits.

So when people say that it is "the fearsome reputation" thing that is at the heart of his candidacy, they are right. Three big, but far from historic years, combined with those mediocre career totals, is way, way short of a Hall of Famer. So just about every single writer who pushes his candidacy argues about how he was the most "feared" hitter of his time.

Big deal. From where I'm sitting, that is like arguing about who was the tallest munchkin.

From the article:

Defense was not part of his game

Ooh, better not let kevin hear you say that.

Shaunnessey must be drunk again. He thinks Jim Rice is Wade Boggs. It was Boggs who was so feared that he was intentionally walked all the time. Maybe being afraid of black men is so common among sports writers that they project their own fear of Rice with that of managers. Boggs led the league in intentional walks 6 straight years and he wasn't very scary, even his wife tossed him out of a moving car.

Also from the article:

I voted for Rice, Gossage, and Bert Blyleven this year. I try to vote for the same players every year and stuck with Luis Tiant and Ron Santo till they were bounced from the ballot. Commissioner Bob Ryan still votes for Dave Concepcion every year. We know that Lee Smith was a save machine, but it's hard to vote for a selfish lug who put up numbers in an era when artificial saves were invented. Jack Morris is certainly worth a long look, but the 3.90 ERA is high.

Voting for the Hall is heady responsibility, without a doubt the most important annual task for members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. It's also a lot less fun than it once was, largely because of steroids and Rule 5 which states, ''Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.''

There you have it. Baseball asks baseball writers to judge Hall of Fame worthiness based (in part) on a player's integrity and character. With all due respect to my estimable colleagues, what makes baseball scribes fit to pass judgment on ballplayers' ''integrity'' and ''character''? Why should any group be assigned this charge? It's unfair to both voters and players.

Oh, oh, I better leave before I am tempted to say something nice about CHB.

Shaunnessey must be drunk again. He thinks Jim Rice is Wade Boggs. It was Boggs who was so feared that he was intentionally walked all the time.

Every single sportswriter says that Jim Rice was feared.

Backlasher says that Jim Rice was feared.

How can you argue with authorities like that.

Boggs led the league in intentional walks 6 straight years

Well sure, he had no one batting behind him.

Oh, wait...

Maybe being afraid of black men is so common among sports writers that they project their own fear of Rice with that of managers. Boggs led the league in intentional walks 6 straight years and he wasn't very scary, even his wife tossed him out of a moving car.

That has to be the best post of the day. And I say that as one that supports Rice for the Hall.

Department of cheap laughs:

Outfield assists, Jim Rice, 1981-1986: 9 + 10 + 21 + 12 + 8 + 16 = 76
Outfield assists, Vince Coleman, 1985-1990: 16 + 12 + 16 + 14 + 5 + 12 = 75

The ballpark Coleman played in had a much deeper LF fence.

Now go out and look for Mars in the sky.

Outfield assists, Vince Coleman, 1985-1990: 16 + 12 + 16 + 14 + 5 + 12 = 75

Yeah, but instead of throwing the ball all the way in, Coleman ran the ball into the infield and the threw it.

If I were Tim Raines and read that quoted excerpt I'd be damn insulted.


That said, the part Srul Itza quotes in #12 is commendable.

Maybe being afraid of black men is so common among sports writers that they project their own fear of Rice with that of managers.

I understand that fear of black men causes politicians to do strange things, too.

"those mediocre career totals"

I hear you, and am in the camp that Rice is boderline and viable only in the big Hall scenerio, but assigning 'mediocre' to his career totals is a bit exaggerated. Compared to 1st and 2nd tier HOFfers? Yes, but you don't make that clarification.

Rice had a solid career. Large impact as a rookie, won an MVP, collected 6 top 5 MVP finishes, reminded all of the awe of 400 total bases, was deemed a 'force'. His career totals are impressive much in the way that Kirby Puckett, Don Mattingly, or Orlando Cepeda's are.

Mediocre it was not.

Raines was a much better player than Rice. And he was even...feared...

People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day.

Is this one of those things that if it just gets repeated over and over and over, then maybe naive and impressionable people will start thinking it must be true? Like, "Joe Rudi is underrated" or something?

If even Rice were the most feared hitter of his day, that fact in isolation wouldn't amount to two sh!ts of a HOF case. And the truth simply remains that Rice was not the most feared hitter of his day, by any means of estimation that one can possibly bring to bear on such a vague question, objectively and subjectively.

The notion that Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame while players such as, oh, Tim Raines, Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven, Dick Allen, Will Clark, Bobby Grich, Joe Torre, Graig Nettles, Bill Freehan, Minnie Minoso, and Dwight Evans aren't included is just, well, laughable. The only remotely persuasive argument for Rice is one that simultaneously decrees that the Hall of Fame has just been rendered vastly larger than it currently is, and in that circumstance Rice will march in well toward the rear of a very long procession.

He wasn't the most feared hitter in baseball, and his case isn't seriously "borderline."

He wasn't the most feared hitter in baseball

I understand the "fear card" is being overplayed in the media, but he was the most feared hitter in baseball for a time. I'd say it is very safe to say in 78-79 that was the perception of many fans and players. And, perceptions being what they are, it probably lingered in the air for another year or so beyond that. Whether that matters or not is a whole other barrel of apples.

and his case isn't seriously "borderline."

Obviously it is or we wouldn't be having all these Jim Rice threads. The one thing I really dislike about Hall of Fame debates is they wind up causing otherwise excellent players to get ripped constantly. Their "reward" for being a fringe HOF candidate is perennial disappointment and having your career annually picked apart in an unflattering way for a decade or so. Jim Rice was an outstanding player, whether anyone thinks him a Hall of Famer or not. And it's important to remember this is all subjective anyway.

he was the most feared hitter in baseball for a time. I'd say it is very safe to say in 78-79 that was the perception of many fans and players.

How many fans and players, would you say? More than had the perception that George Foster or Mike Schmidt was the most feared hitter in baseball? Or more than understood that it was George Brett or Dave Parker or Fred Lynn? And more as well that believed it was Willie Stargell or Ken Singleton?

Look, it's such an entirely unprovable, untestable BS term in the first place, and then when one does try and assess just how such a thing would be measured -- by productivity rate stats, or intentional walks or something -- Rice doesn't stand out as distinctly apart from a long list of competing hitters anyway. I followed baseball as intensely as anyone on the planet in those years, and it sure was never my perception that there was any special "fear" mojo surrounding Rice.

Obviously it is or we wouldn't be having all these Jim Rice threads.

No, it isn't obvious in the least. Or if it is, then the meaning of the term "borderline" has been stretched beyond any sensible meaning. If Rice is borderline, then so are literally dozens of other players. How wide is this borderline, anyway? Miles?

We're having these threads because sportswriters and Rice fans continue to beat the drum for his candidacy, despite the fact that the arguments in his favor aren't remotely persuasive to anyone who seriously and objectively analyzes where Rice falls in comparison with other players not in the Hall of Fame.

The one thing I really dislike about Hall of Fame debates is they wind up causing otherwise excellent players to get ripped constantly.

It isn't "ripping" Rice in the least to state the truth about his performance, that it doesn't come nearly as close to meeting HOF standards as those of many other players who aren't in the Hall. That doesn't disrespect Rice or his achievements at all, in any way whatsoever.

How many fans and players, would you say? More than had the perception that George Foster or Mike Schmidt was the most feared hitter in baseball? Or more than understood that it was George Brett or Dave Parker or Fred Lynn? And more as well that believed it was Willie Stargell or Ken Singleton?

Many people felt that way. I can't say how players felt, but there's no question fans feared of opposing teams feared him. He was the guy you didn't want to see come up against your team. He was the guy that made the stadium buzz when he stepped up to the plate. You'd pray for Fred Lynn if it meant missing Jim Rice. Doesn't mean he was really better, but Joe Fan saw it that way. As far as Ken Singleton, you have to be kidding. He was respected, but not even in the same stratosphere as Rice in terms of perception.

Rice was physically imposing, stoic, and had killer stats for the time period. That's not a Hall of Fame case, I realize, but it's a large part what created an aura of "fearsomeness" about him. I certainly saw him that way. Granted, I was a kid. But I was far from alone in my opinion.

No, it isn't obvious in the least. Or if it is, then the meaning of the term "borderline" has been stretched beyond any sensible meaning. If Rice is borderline, then so are literally dozens of other players.

This is a bit ridiculous. You clearly think he shouldn't be seen as borderline. Fine. But the jury has long ago returned with the verdict and he's borderline. He's going to get somewhere in the range of 65+% of the BBWAA vote this year.

How wide is this borderline, anyway? Miles?

Depends. We all know the difference in philosophy between big and small Hall voters. The Hall goes from the Babe Ruths to Ray Schalks after all. Obviously, you don't open to doors to every Tom, Dick, and Ray because of past mistakes. But there's a lot of room for debate on the Rices, Murphys, Dawsons, Morrises, Trammells, Concepcions, etc. Virtually any modern day "borderline" player is miles better than the worst of the already enshrined.

despite the fact that the arguments in his favor aren't remotely persuasive to anyone who seriously and objectively analyzes where Rice falls in comparison with other players not in the Hall of Fame.

That's pretty arrogant. I would vote for Rice. So I'm either a) not serious, b) not objective, or c) apparently too dumb to have an opinion. This is ALL subjective. In the end it's just a museum for baseball fans to enjoy. A museum most of us will never set foot inside. For the players it is a great honor. For fans, it's entertainment. Just like the game. He's probably not going to make it, so don't lose any sleep over it.

"If Rice is borderline, then so are literally dozens of other players."

Hi Steve. Merry Christmas.

I agree with you, but I don't find much wrong in that. With the Baseball Hall of Fame museum, perhaps that's how it should be?

FWIW, I used to think of Billy Williams as borderline (before and after induction), but I suppose I've relaxed over the years .. ; )

I always thought the "most feared" gunk came outta the NY press due to his 1.047 OPS (highest, by far) at Yankee Stadium (with road high 22 HR's).

I mean Bill Madden still leaves puddle squirms whenever Rice's name comes up during checkers hour.

The notion that Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame while players such as, oh, Tim Raines, Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven, Dick Allen, Will Clark, Bobby Grich, Joe Torre, Graig Nettles, Bill Freehan, Minnie Minoso, and Dwight Evans aren't included is just, well, laughable.

Stevie, I hate to break it to you, but Ron Santo, Dick Allen, Will Clark, Bobby Grinch, Joe Torre, Graig Nettles, Bill Freehan, Minnie Minoso, Zack Lowenlacy, and Billy Grabinass aren't on the 2008 ballot.

Look, it's such an entirely unprovable, untestable BS term in the first place

I think its being proven nicely by the sportswriters votes.

Billy Grabinass

I'm re-naming one of my OOTP players this. Bwahahahaha!

Why do you say that, Hobbsy? I've been there several times myself.

Don't rub it in, Kevin! I'm hoping to get there one day, but will have to wait until my kids are older. What percentage of Primates have been there, I wonder? I'm guessing well under 50%, but that's just a WAG.

Look, it's such an entirely unprovable, untestable BS term in the first place
I think its being proven nicely by the sportswriters votes.

"Proven"? I trust you'll abide by that same logic when Bonds gets in?

"Fear," as I often mention in these threads, is generally associated with high-average, low-walk hitters with doubles power: Brett, Molitor, Garciaparra. These can be scarier guys than the lower-average, higher-walk home run hitters. David Maraniss's biography goes on and on about how scary Roberto Clemente was: he broke Bob Gibson's leg with a line drive, and Maraniss claims that Clemente drove Don Drysdale into retirement with the fear of getting his limbs broken next. In that sense, Rice, who hit the ball very hard and very often, was a scary opponent. But that fear by itself has little to do with how much he contributed to his teams' offense.

"he was the most feared hitter in baseball for a time. I'd say it is very safe to say in 78-79 that was the perception of many fans and players."

How many fans and players, would you say? More than had the perception that George Foster or Mike Schmidt was the most feared hitter in baseball? Or more than understood that it was George Brett or Dave Parker or Fred Lynn? And more as well that believed it was Willie Stargell or Ken Singleton?

My period of most intense fanhood almost perfectly coincides with Jim Rice's career and I was a fan of a big division rival of his. And the idea that Jim Rice was the most "feared" hitter in the American League (the leagues were quite distinct back then, so there's really no meaningful way to compare how "feared" Rice was as compared to a Dave Parker or a Mike Schmidt) really was true. At least that's what the Orioles announcers said when I listened to Red Sox games.

That said, I agree with the general position that he's well below the HOF in/out line and that other players had more legitimate claims as the "best" hitter of the era, including, of course, my alltime favorite player, Eddie Murray.

In that sense, Rice, who hit the ball very hard and very often, was a scary opponent. But that fear by itself has little to do with how much he contributed to his teams' offense.

I don't think that, when sportswriters refer to Rice being the "most feared" hitter, they're talking about opposing pitchers - they're talking about opposing managers, opposing fans.

When I think "most feared", I think of the guys that, when their team is playing your team, you look to see when he's coming up next. Guys like Albert Belle, or Frank Thomas, or Gary Sheffield. I remember Jose Canseco was like that for a while. In fact, I usually consider Rice to be the equivalent of Canseco as a ballplayer.

assigning 'mediocre' to his career totals is a bit exaggerated.

It is more than a bit exaggerated, if you apply it to baseball players in general. Any lack of clarity is my fault.

But for a Hall of Fame candidate who was LF/DH, yes, they are mediocre.

Rice had a solid career.

Absolutely. Better than solid. But there is a huge drop from having a good career, and being a viable Hall of Famer.

His career totals are impressive much in the way that Kirby Puckett, Don Mattingly, or Orlando Cepeda's are.

Kirby Puckett did not get in on his career totals. He was a gold-glove winning center fielder who starred on two World Championship teams, and who managed 2,300 hits and 1,000+ RBI in an injury shortened 12 year career. For a 12 year career, frankly, that is more impressive than what Rice did.

Mattingly is not going to sniff the Hall.

Cepeda -- well, you got me there. Then again, the Baby Bull is a VC selection, and a questionable one. If someone can explain that one to me, I would like to hear it.

Jim Rice had an outstanding career, but if a Rice advocate has to resort to specious, fuzzy qualifiers like "feared" in order to promote his HoF candidacy, that's a pretty good sign right there that he's probably not a HoF caliber player.

Can anybody name a Hall of Fame hitter who WASN'T "feared"? Mistakes like Lloyd Waner don't count.

And there are countless non-HoF hitters who were "feared" at some point in their careers. The oft-mentioned Frank Howard, Ted Kluszewski, Cecil Fielder et al...

Can anybody name a Hall of Fame hitter who WASN'T "feared"?

A few like Ashburn or Carew never evoked much fear. I don't know about Sam Rice's reputation, for instance, but if anyone was scared of him, they were probably quite timid to begin with :)

There is also the Wade Boggs type, a better brand of offensive player but one that I always found more annoying than scary. Boggs would wear you down taking pitches, and then slap a mistake the other way for a base hit, or draw a walk. George Brett would come up and hit the first damn pitch to the farthest corner of the park. Brett was a scary guy. Again, fear does not correlate precisely with offensive value, or sometimes even loosely.

A few like Ashburn or Carew never evoked much fear.

The funny thing is that the one stat that sometimes gets bandied about as relating to "fear" is intentional walks (Shaughnessy does it in the intro here). Jim Rice never drew more than 10 IBB in a season and had 77 for his career. Rod Carew drew 144 IBB in his career and had a 4-year run from 1975-78 where he had IBB totals of 18-14-15-19, leading the league 3 times (75,77,78) and coming in 3rd the other time.

Wasn't Jim Rice the subject of that movie "Fear Grounds into a Double Play"?

Free Rice!!

We should have a poll about that. Who's been to the HOF, who hasn't?

I've been, in the winter of 2003. Of course, I'm never going again until Dale Petrosky leaves the organization.

I've been there, but it was a while ago.

A LONG while ago.

Like, around 40 years ago.

I went to Cooperstown in the 1970s, again in the 1980s, and most recently in 2004 (three different stages of the museum's development, actually). I've had the advantage of living in the NYC area much of this time, so it's not a terribly long drive, but it's not super-convenient either. There are many tourist attractions in the Northeast that I've never seen at all; for that matter there are places in New York City I've only visited once (Ellis Island / Statue of Liberty) in all that time. I would imagine any baseball fanatic passing anywhere near stops in at Cooperstown.

I went in '97.

I went 20 years ago. McCovey and Doerr were the new inductees.

Once as a child in the 1970s, then back to back years in 1981 and 82. In the latter year, my dad and I went up for Hank and Frank's induction, I snuck into the player's hotel afterwards and shook hands with a bunch of HOFers and then we stayed around to watch the HOF game (White Sox-Mets, where I got my only foul ball off the bat of Mike Jorgensen). Among the greatest weekend of my life to that point.

I've been there probably 6 or 7 times, including in November, but it helps that I've lived within 3 hours of Cooperstown for most of my life. Surprisingly, it took me almost two years after moving back to the NE (Albany) to get back.

I went in about 1960. They've probably added things since then.

I've only been there once, in 2001. And no, McCoy, I wouldn't have gone more if it were in NYC.

I've been there three times. Once in 1985, when my roommate and I drove all night on Dec. 30 through an upstate blizzard to see the HOF and then drove back after spending an hour and half there to be back in Columbus, Ohio for New Years Eve. The second time in 1992 I spent all day there with my then girlfriend, and in many ways the town itself is as impressive as the museum. The last time in 2003 I dragged my two kids (3 and 7 at the time) through it. I still need to go and spend a couple weeks there to do research. It's just a magnificent place.

Once in 1997 and once in 2005. My aunt lives about 45 minutes away, so it was a thoroughly nice drive through the mountains to the Hall.

It's a lovely place to go to, although the rise of crappy souvenir/card shops has dampened some of the appeal of the town (that said, it's still nice).

It's a lovely place to go to, although the rise of crappy souvenir/card shops has dampened some of the appeal of the town (that said, it's still nice).


I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that. Visited in July 2007, two weeks before Gwynn/Ripken were inducted.

I must be one of the few who appreciates Cooperstown's isolation, though.

I must be one of the few who appreciates Cooperstown's isolation, though.

Count me in. I haven't been there in a while but most of my family lives within a few hours of the place. Thinking of primates in Cooperstown, when's the last time anyone heard from Eric Enders? Or has he just changed his screen name?

Here's my wins over replacement for outfielders. I've incorporated batting runs from B-ref, position adjustments, defense (zone rating for 87+, my own retrosheet-based measure for 56-86), and John Walsh's arm ratings.

Link

Hoping for Raines and Dawson...

I went with Will Young and GGC in '05.

Went in the early 90s with my family. I was 11 or so at the time and as much as I was into baseball then, I have to say it was a little dull. I'm sure I would appreciate it a whole lot more if I went now.

"It is more than a bit exaggerated .."

that 'a bit exaggerated' wordage reflects the gentleness of the tone employed ; ). We land on the same page. I wasn't tooting Rice's horn for HOF, just comparing career totals with others who fall into the well-beyond-mediocre category.

I've been a few times, but I live in the Northeast.