Jim Rice's alright if you like saxophones.

First HOF article about a player who's actually in the ballot this year?

Which would result in more long-term hand-wringing, Rice being elected to the Hall or Rice NOT being elected?

Down to his 15th and final at-bat for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Jim Rice hopes the vote will at last swing him right into Cooperstown, N.Y.

If we continue this analogy, one wonders if Rice can actually knock both himself and another ex-player off the ballot with one swing?

Which would result in more long-term hand-wringing, Rice being elected to the Hall or Rice NOT being elected?

Let's hope it's the latter, and let the hand-wringing begin.

Couldn't he just get bitten by a vampire or something instead?

He had what, five great years? Productive starter for what, 14 years? DHed about 1/4 of his games? Less than a .700 OPS in the postseason?

Seems like Tony Perez, except for the DHing. I guess that's a HOFer, whatever.

My half a$$ed list of non-HOF OFs with greater career offensive value (IMHO) than Rice:

Barry Bonds
Manny Ramirez
Gary Sheffield
Ken Griffey
Rickey Henderson
Vladimir Guerrero
Larry Walker
Sherry Magee
Frank Howard
Bob Johnson
Jack Clark
Reggie Smith
Brian Giles
Dwight Evans
Albert Belle
Sammy Sosa
Rusty Staub
Ken Singleton
Jose Canseco
OFs with roughly the same offensive value:

Bobby Abreu
Jim Edmonds
Babe Herman
Tim Raines
Rocky Colavito
Darryl Strawberry
Bobby Bonds
Minnie Minoso
Fred Lynn
Bernie Williams
Juan Gonzalez
Jimmy Wynn
Greg Luzinski
Moises Alou

I can see Rice definitely over maybe 5-6 of the 33 guys I just listed.
and those are just OFs

Which would result in more long-term hand-wringing, Rice being elected to the Hall or Rice NOT being elected?

If he's not elected, hand-wringing articles about the injustice of Rice not being in the hall will become a permanent fixture in baseball journalism. It's way more easy to get worked up about a guy not being in than a guy who is. Nobody writes columns calling for Phil Rizzuto or Tony Perez or (fill in least deserving HoFer here) to be removed from the HoF. People just move on.

If he's not elected, hand-wringing articles about the injustice of Rice not being in the hall will become a permanent fixture in baseball journalism. It's way more easy to get worked up about a guy not being in than a guy who is. Nobody writes columns calling for Phil Rizzuto or Tony Perez or (fill in least deserving HoFer here) to be removed from the HoF. People just move on.

I agree. But in fairness, our pre-election, apocalyptic caterwauling will trump his supporters' advocacy in shrillness.

Hes pretty much a lock, I would think. He and Rickey this year. Dawson next.

JPWF13, you're selling Tim Raines way, way short there - if you include everything, Raines has significantly more offensive value than Rice. Also: Jim Edmonds, Bernie Williams and Jimmy Wynn were CF, and some of your others, such as Lynn and Bonds, had more defensive value than Rice.

Hall of Merit ranking on your list (if I don't mention someone, he's not eligible yet):

Henderson: currently being voted on, appears headed for unanimous #1 vote.
Magee: In.
F. Howard: Middle backlog. Hurt by perception of poor defense.
B. Johnson: High backlog.
J. Clark: Low backlog
R. Smith: High backlog; could be elected this year.
Dw. Evans: In
Belle: Middle backlog
Staub: Middle backlog
Singleton: Middle backlog. As with Howard, hurt by perception of defense.
Herman: Out
Raines: In, overwhelmingly
Colavito: Out
Strawberry: Lower backlog
Bo. Bonds: Middle backlog
Minoso: In
Lynn: Lower backlog
Wynn: In (!)
Luzinski: Out
Rice: Lower backlog

I agree. But in fairness, our pre-election, apocalyptic caterwauling will trump his supporters' advocacy in shrillness.

Naw, I'm already at peace with his election. I'll just let the small child in me who used to believe the hype about Jim Rice and get all jazzed up when I pulled his card from a wax pack have his day in the sun. (And then I'll take the little ignorant bastard out back and shoot him after I make him dig his own grave.)

If he's not elected, hand-wringing articles about the injustice of Rice not being in the hall will become a permanent fixture in baseball journalism.

Those I can ignore. Rice in the Hall would be harder to ignore.

If he's not elected, hand-wringing articles about the injustice of Rice not being in the hall will become a permanent fixture in baseball journalism.

Those I can ignore. Rice in the Hall would be harder to ignore.


1. he's gonna make it this year
2. he won't be the worst player there

1. he's gonna make it this year

Almost certainly, yes.

2. he won't be the worst player there

So effin' what? If Lloyd Waner or Tommy McCarthy is to be legitimately interpreted as the minimum standard, then the HOF absolutely, positively ceases to sustain a capacity to meaningfully honor its membership.

Down to his 15th and final at-bat for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Jim Rice

Did they eliminate the VC when I wasn't looking? (Yes, I know the current rules make it difficult for them to elect a player, but still. The point is, Rice has another shot at Cooperstown, and he's exactly the sort of borderline person the VC puts in.)

Did they eliminate the VC when I wasn't looking? (Yes, I know the current rules make it difficult for them to elect a player, but still. The point is, Rice has another shot at Cooperstown, and he's exactly the sort of borderline person the VC puts in.)

I'd say Rice would be a near-lock by any VC that actually puts people in. Even if Fear strikes out with writers, I think his fellow players would embrace it.

And Shooty, I applaud your restraint, though I think Steve's 16 is closer to the average primate's response to Jim Ed's final looksee by the BBWAA.

If you can't RTFA, at least you could RTFI.

2. he won't be the worst player there

How would he rank among the selections by the BBWAA? As far as I can remember, almost all of the truly terrible selections have been by the Veteran's Committee. I'd have to think that Rice would be one of the worst players selection by the BBWAA. Personally, among selections by the BBWAA, I'd go with Bruce Sutter, as I really don't understand what he did which impressed the writers so much. Perhaps he really is one of those "You had to be there" cases.

If you can't RTFA, at least you could RTFI.

I read the first sentence. Seems like enough.

HE INVENTED THE SPLITTER!!!!

Perhaps he really is one of those "You had to be there" cases.

I was there, and I'm as not-overly-impressed as you.

I was there, and I'm as not-overly-impressed as you.

He had a cool beard. He was the Robert Bakker of baseball stardom!

and some of your others, such as Lynn and Bonds, had more defensive value than Rice.

The majority of my "others" had more defensive value than Rice.

WRT Raines & Rice
Rice OPS+ 128 in 9058 PAs
Raines 123 in 10359 PAs

But

Rice EQA .293 350 BRAA
Raines EQA .309 607 BRAA

hmmmmm

Without going into baserunning or defense BPRo sez Raines blows Rice away.

HE INVENTED THE SPLITTER!!!!

He and Candy Cummings should have their own wing.

Jim Rice's alright if you like saxophones.

He didn't play in New York, though.

Ok new half-a$$ed list, using park adjusted ERP rather than OPS+, non-HOF OFs with more career OFFENSIVE value than Rice:
Barry Bonds
Rickey Henderson
Manny Ramirez
Gary Sheffield
Ken Griffey
Sherry Magee
Tim Raines
Larry Walker
Bob Johnson
Vladimir Guerrero
Dwight Evans
Brian Giles
Jack Clark
Reggie Smith
Bobby Abreu
Sammy Sosa
Rusty Staub
Frank Howard
Babe Herman
Bobby Bonds
Ken Singleton
Jimmy Sheckard
Jim Edmonds
Jose Canseco
Albert Belle
Jimmy Wynn
Darryl Strawberry
Bernie Williams
Andre Dawson
Fred Lynn
Bobby Veach
Luis Gonzalez
Rocky Colavito
Greg Luzinski

Luzinski? You ask...
In addition to his slight OPS+ advantage- he had half the DPs, basically his ERP indicates he generated 5.92 runs per 27 outs to Rice's 5.71. Then when you consider that Rice played in a .271/.337/.407 context and Luzinski in a .267/.334/.394 context- Luzinski had virtually identical offensive value even though he had 1500 fewer PAs (unless you are looking at runs over replacement rather than over average).

OTOH the Bull is one of the few men on the above list with LESS defensive value than Rice

BTW- I added 100 CS to Magee's BBREF total, if I added 10 more he'd drop below Raines - but I'd need to add over 175 to get him under Walker.

Magee played from 1904-1919, boy did he get screwed - he's a guy whose homer totals reacted quite strongly to more HR friendly environs- had he played 1924-1939 instead he'd long ago have been in the Hall- he was extremely valuable compared to his league- but he likely would have been even more valuable compared to league in a HR friendly era.

Perhaps he really is one of those "You had to be there" cases.

Basically he looked great when you didn't yet KNOW that a relatively large number of guys could look similarly great when allowed to just seek out 3 out saves.

What's perplexing was that Sutter was elected AFTER it was readily apparent that his closer performance was merely good and not great. How was Sutter that much better than John Wetteland fro instance?

To refer to my own list in 27
The curve really flattens out around Dewey/Giles & Clark, suggesting that the HOF line should be at or right above them.

Sheckard's too high, and so is Herman- I forgot to plug in something for CS.

The ten guys under Rice are close enough to him to say they had nearly equivalent offensive value:
Moises Alou
Cy Williams
Bill Nicholson
Dave Parker
Ellis Burks
Jose Cruz
Minnie Minoso
Tim Salmon
Juan Gonzalez
Cesar Cedeno

Some, like Cedeno had FAR more defensive value.

What's perplexing was that Sutter was elected AFTER it was readily apparent that his closer performance was merely good and not great. How was Sutter that much better than John Wetteland fro instance?

And Henke, and Myers, and Quis, and Montgomery, and so on. Hell, even Doug Jones, the closer without a home, is fairly close in career value, and people would laugh themselves sick if someone suggested that he was a hall of fame player.

This is why I asked - I really can't see what separates Sutter from a whole bunch of other closers, including quite a few who were at least partial contemporaries. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by this.

Bruce Sutter is the Jim Rice of relievers - he was elected based on TEH FEAR.

I hate to defend Sutter, but he wasn't a one-inning closer. Even Eckersley when he started wasn't a one-inning closer. The one-inning closer didn't really show up until the 90's.

Sutter won the CY in 1979. He had 37 saves. 12 were 3 outs. 3 were less than 3 outs (meaning, likely, coming into a jam in the 9th). He also had 10 blown saves, today that ratio loses a closer his job. Sutter's season high in saves was 45 in 1984. 10 were 3 outs. 3 were less than 3 outs.

Edit: I've also seen some stats -- maybe it was WPA or WXRL or something like that, that showed Sutter added significantly more value based on context than his context-independent stat-comparables. Not enough to make him a good selection, but enough to separate himself from the pack. Not sure where to find those, maybe it was B-Pro's JAWS?

He "invented" the splitter, he "transformed the game" to heighten the role of relievers, he was a true fireman who didn't do one inning saves. In all seriousness, Sutter's induction is a blight on the BBWAA.

He and Candy Cummings should have their own wing.

Candy would doubtlessly call for Blyleven's induction as the man who perfected what Mr. Cummings claimed as his own.

FREE RIP SEWELL!

Edit: I've also seen some stats -- maybe it was WPA or WXRL or something like that, that showed Sutter added significantly more value based on context than his context-independent stat-comparables. Not enough to make him a good selection, but enough to separate himself from the pack. Not sure where to find those, maybe it was B-Pro's JAWS

Career WPA:
Sutter: 19.61
Henke: 20.89
Myers: 19.39
Quis: 19.66
Wette: 19.38
Montgomery: 13.74
Doug Jones: 13.07

anyone else?

Lee Smith.

I'm okay with setting Sutter apart from Henke and Wetteland based on his being a multi-inning reliever. So, Sutter and Gossage are in there to represent that era of reliever usage. Sounds OK to me.

However, my instinct is that only other Hall of Fame reliever whose career is now over or almost over should be Mariano Rivera.

Do Henke and Quisenberry have as good a case as he does? No. What about them compared to the record-breaking Trevor Hoffna?

Lee Smith.

23.97

Oh, and for reference...

Mariano Rivera: 44.94

EDIT: Threw in Rivera before I saw #39...

Hoffman: 33.51
Goose: 31.4

I'm okay with setting Sutter apart from Henke and Quisenberry based on his being a multi-inning reliever.

Edit: I see this has been changed to Wetteland. Which makes more sense.

Quisenberry had 5 seasons of 120+ innings, Sutter had 1. Sutter averaged 1.58 innings per game for his career, Quiz 1.55 (neither one started any games).

I suspect that Sutter is in because of the splitter, and because the splitter makes it easy to tell stories about him. Quisenberry was very similar, maybe even better (and certainly had his unique qualities). But he doesn't have the same image, I guess. So yeah, Sutter

was elected based on TEH FEAR.

Having rooted for a team that Sutter often faced, he did have TEH FEAR factor working for him in those days. For me Lee Smith was meh and Jeff Riordan was up and down but Sutter just seemed to dominate. Those were all data-free observations from the day.

Originally, I was gung ho on Sutter for his FEAR and CLOSING and his INVENTIVENESS with the Splitter, based on my memories. But the more I read, especially from folks here whose analysis skills I admire, the more I realized that he shouldn't be close.

Did they eliminate the VC when I wasn't looking? (Yes, I know the current rules make it difficult for them to elect a player, but still.

Didn't they change the rules for teh VC again, or did that apply only to non-players?

At any rate, if they haven't yet they will soon enough - the SuperFriends VC can't last.

How would he rank among the selections by the BBWAA? As far as I can remember, almost all of the truly terrible selections have been by the Veteran's Committee. I'd have to think that Rice would be one of the worst players selection by the BBWAA. Personally, among selections by the BBWAA, I'd go with Bruce Sutter, as I really don't understand what he did which impressed the writers so much. Perhaps he really is one of those "You had to be there" cases.

Glad you asked. I wrote a two part column on it.

Summation of their errors:

There are two types of problems going on: positional bias and errors of individual evaluation.

The second one is the more obvious kind. They missed Johnny Mize, Arky Vaughan and Goose Goslin. Those are their clear sins of omission. Their errors of commission are Pie Traynor, Bill Terry, Catfish Hunter, Herb Pennock and I suppose Rabbit Maranville.

With positions, the BBWAA really gives too much credit to shortstops and relievers, while giving center fielders not enough credit.

Having rooted for a team that Sutter often faced, he did have TEH FEAR factor working for him in those days.

My team was the Mets, I have no special memory of fearing him (I know the media adored him back then)- he had more saves vs the Mets than any other team (38)- but still he never struck me as being dominant.

I have no special memory of fearing him
You may be a tougher guy than me

The reliever I remember fearing is Jim Brewer, but, hey.

I have no special memory of fearing him
You may be a tougher guy than me

Lee Smith was the opponent who impressed me- it wasn't until later that I found out that everyone else's reaction was "meh"...

Here's Smith's top ten BBREF comps
so why is Sutter a HOFer and Smith is just "meh"?
Smith has more
games
innings
saves
Ks
wins

plus
6 all star game apps (Sutter had 6)
Cy Young votes in 4 years (Sutter had 5, including 1 win)
MVP votes in 4 years (Sutter had 6)

I'm not saying Smith should be in, just saying that he has/had as good if not better HOF case than Sutter by the voters' own standards IMHO

Sutter's candidacy is based on unprovable platitudes and intangibles. Its pointless to compare Smith's numbers to Sutter's.

when you talk about TEH FEAR, you start with Radatz (well actually maybe you start with Ryne Duren, but that's a different kind of fear)

I actually always thought Jim Kern was kinda scary in his prime

anyway, fear factor should not be a consideration

The thing that absolutely blows my mind is that Sutter beat Gossage to the Hall. I mean...really?

2. he won't be the worst player there

So effin' what? If Lloyd Waner or Tommy McCarthy is to be legitimately interpreted as the minimum standard, then the HOF absolutely, positively ceases to sustain a capacity to meaningfully honor its membership.

be honest now--Rice may have been overrated, but he was FAR more valuable than either of those guys, and you know it

Rice is the great shibboleth in the SABR/HOF debate (now that Garvey has ###### himself out of consideration)--to show you're in the know, and not hidebound by the stupidities of the MSM, you have the VEHEMENTLY oppose his candidacy, with a fervor that far outstrips his unworthiness

Rice has become a symbol rather than a former player

(the most feared symbol, of course)

be honest now--Rice may have been overrated, but he was FAR more valuable than either of those guys, and you know it

Yes, of course he was. But I repeat: so effin' what? In what way is the fact that there are worse blunders in any way relevant to assessing the intrinsic worthiness of Rice's candidacy? "There are worse guys in the HOF" is the furthest thing from a valid argument on anyone's behalf.

I don't vehemently oppose Rice's candidacy because it's SABR-hip to do so. I vehemently oppose it on its own merits. Whether or not everyone "in the know, not hidebound by the stupidities of the MSM" is opposed to Rice's case, then once again, so effin' what? What does that have to do with the facts of Rice's case?

I don't vehemently oppose Rice's candidacy because it's SABR-hip to do so. I vehemently oppose it on its own merits. Whether or not everyone "in the know, not hidebound by the stupidities of the MSM" is opposed to Rice's case, then once again, so effin' what? What does that have to do with the facts of Rice's case?

I don't dislike Rice--when I was a lad, he was a god and all that--but what pisses me off about his candidacy is that Tim Raines has almost no support. Forget sabr-thinking or whatever. As a baseball aficionado, it offends me gravely that the priests of the game really believe Jim Rice is a worthier player, a greater player and more winning player than Tim Raines. Maybe they should head to the ballpark once in a while and get their heads out of the stats books.

As a baseball aficionado, it offends me gravely that the priests of the game really believe Jim Rice is a worthier player, a greater player and more winning player than Tim Raines. Maybe they should head to the ballpark once in a while and get their heads out of the stats books.

yes, it is ironic (in the Michael Kay sense) that Rice has become the symbol, because it was the BBWAA, the MSM,the priests of the game, who very specifically chose NOT to induct Rice 14 straight times--and now we're told he's a shoo-in (except-for-the-cyber-geek-crowd-who-live-in-their-mothers-basement)

I have a feeling that Raines may actually make it some day

yes, it is ironic (in the Michael Kay sense) that Rice has become the symbol, because it was the BBWAA, the MSM,the priests of the game, who very specifically chose NOT to induct Rice 14 straight times-

Don't underestimate human pettiness- Rice is not yet in, not so much because Sabr ideas have widespread acceptance, but because many of the voters personally disliked Rice and were inclined to make him wait- however as the years have gone by many of THOSE particular "no" voters have started voting "yes".

The question is going to be how many "no" voters are left (A) who simply do not think Rice was a HOF caliber player, versus how many "no" voters (B) think he was a HOF caliber player and were voting no because they hated his guts.

Last call, I think all the remaining (B) voters are voting "yes" this year.