um where does robothal explain himself?

Disagree. I think some writers are reinventing themselves and embracing the "new" thinking, albiet more slowly than we'd like to see.

But inherent in this "new thinking" is a very specific dogma. I haven't seen the excellent writers listed in the article (Alex, Jon, and SG) do this, but declaring that an MVP candidate should win the award based entirely on one number, or even a bunch of numbers, misses the point. These guys aren't paid to be correct, they're paid to be read. I think there will always be room for Lupica or Mariotti-style idiots in the sports pages.

and from the kind of saber-inclined writers you read at Baseball Think Factory, Baseball Musings, waswatching, and RLYW.

And here I thought of Robothal as one of the saber-inclined writers you read at Baseball Think Factory. I wouldn't be surprised if he were the writer Primer has linked to most often. He gave an interview last year where he mentioned Primer as one of the first places he goes in the morning.

What's the point of this needless antagonism to anybody in the paid media?

I like Robothal. No, he's not a stat guy, but he works incredibly hard at getting info, he almost never veers into the self-indulgent territory you see from a lot of sportswriters who are so determined to look like Important Award-Winning Journalists, and he doesn't use his real estate to satisfy personal grudges. I know I've thought Rosenthal was dead wrong at times, but there's nothing gleefully assholeish from him - he's not Mike Lupica or something.

Writers like Robothal and Gammons want it both ways. They want to be seen as embracing new ideas but they also still want to have a sabermetric nerd in his mother's basement to make fun of. The message seems to be that new ideas are good, but they only go as far as established members of the media will allow them to go.

Steve Lombardi is not a saber-inclined writer.

Steve Lombardi is not a saber-inclined writer.

But that's one of the reasons SNY has just hired him.

I really like Rosenthal and Gammons. Not only do they consistently provide inside information from an incredibly large contact list, they also are open to new ways of looking at the game. Are they perfect? No. No writer is. They are, without doubt, in the 99th percentile of baseball writers. They are also at the top of my list of writers I'd love to watch a ball game with.

Writers like Robothal and Gammons want it both ways. They want to be seen as embracing new ideas but they also still want to have a sabermetric nerd in his mother's basement to make fun of. The message seems to be that new ideas are good, but they only go as far as established members of the media will allow them to go.

Never got this sense at all. I mentioned before that I get the impression Gammons appreciates sabermetrics as an approach to view the game but loses his patience with those who see it as the way to watch baseball. Thus he can promote OPS, Bill James and read the THT Annual on his vacation while still taking shots at statheads who don't want Jim Rice in Cooperstown. My hunch is that Robothal's similar. And I have no problem with that.

I hate to blame it on a medical problem, but I think Petey was more open-minded pre-issue. He's exhibited a sharper tongue towards "forward thinking" recently.

But Gammons doesn't go after statheads for thinking that their way is the only way to enjoy the game. He goes after them when their math gets more complicated than he likes. The Rice debate is a good example of this. He's okay with OPS and OBP but once you start adjusting for park or comparing guys to their eras, forget it. To him, that's just nonsense made up nerds in their mothers' basements, even though it is, mathematically, just as relevant as things like OPS.

I could respect a viewpoint like the one you describe, but I don't see it in Gammons or Robothal.

*haughtily picks up twenty-sided dice and deliberately folds up Dungeon Master screen. Stomps upstairs*

I am pretty sure that no MSM writer is looking to Allard or NYYFans for much of anything other than reinforcement of their preconceptions about what internet baseball fans are like.

I do think that credible sabermetric sites like some of the others mentioned are places writers are going now. But they also acknowledge doing so, too--Rosenthal, Gammons, Porn Star Stark, Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe all have done so. Given that, the animosity towards MSM does look silly now, at least as to those types of writers...guys like Plaschke and CHB, they still deserve the animosity because that's what they project towards any of us, too.

there is nothing unreasonable about pimping Rice for the HoF

Except for the little fact that he is clearly unqualified.

Rice would hardly be the worst leftfielder in

There's your campaign slogan:

Vote for Rice, because he wouldn't be the absolute worst mistake they ever made.

I'm fine with them putting Rice in... as long as they enshrine the other 200 players who were as good or better, first.

you're clearly blind to the facts.

What facts? That he was a mediocre hitter outside of Fenway? That he was at best a mediocre fielder and a mediocre base runner? That after 33 he was through as a force in the league? That, even playing in Fenway, he managed 40 HRs exactly once in his career? That he had an OPS+ above 150 exactly twice in his career, and above 140 two other times? That if he played for anyone other than the Red Sox, he wouldn't get a sniff at the HOF?

It is particularly rich for Col. Kevin to be claiming that other people are blind to the facts.

Bernie Williams > Jim Rice

Maybe we should use this thread to discuss Rice's candidacy. That seems like an interesting discussion that hasn't really been explored before.

Thus he can promote OPS, Bill James and read the THT Annual on his vacation while still taking shots at statheads who don't want Jim Rice in Cooperstown.

I don't really want to start the Rice thing again, mostly because it will cause Treder to crawl out from under his rock again, but there is nothing unreasonable about pimping Rice for the HoF.

That's untrue, but it also misses the point in a fashion which is typically Kevin. Words matter. He didn't say, "while advocating that Rice make the Hall." He said, "while taking shots at statheads who don't want Rice in the Hall." It's completely unreasonable to attack statheads who don't want Rice in Cooperstown; regardless of whether a case can be made to put Rice in, a case certainly can be made to keep Rice out.

And this disqualifies him exactly how?

Medwick only made it above 140 3 times.
Manush only made it above twice.
Brock and McCarthy never did it once.

(talking about OPS+ above 150)

Not that any of those 4 are overly deserving of the HoF, but:

Medwick's best season dwarfs Rice's. And in fact, his career OPS+ beats Rice handily, 134 to 128. Oh, and while it's hard to rate Medwick's overall defense, since comprehensive stats weren't really kept in that era for it - we do know he lapped Rice in outfield assists, 139 to 66. And that whole triple crown thing helped, of course. That sort of accomplishment does tend to get a player into the Hall. Rice just doesn't have anything like that.

Brock made it in because (at the time) he was the most prolific basestealer in history. Rice doesn't have anything to compare.

Manush is in because he hit .330. He shouldn't be in, but again, Rice doesn't have any flashy stat to disguise that he isn't worthy, while Manush did.

McCarthy is a 19th century player - surely you're not pretending that 19th century players - especially ones considered to be innovators (McCarthy supposedly invented the hit and run) are held to the same standards as modern era players?

So of your four examples - we have one player who was clearly better than Rice; another who probably shouldn't be in but at the time of election held a significant record; another who shouldn't be in but did have a very flashy stat; and a guy who was elected from the 19th century, who had a reputation as an important innovator of the game. Rice has nothing to compare in terms of why those players were elected. The closest he compares to is Medwick - and he falls significantly short of him.

Maybe we should use this thread to discuss Rice's candidacy. That seems like an interesting discussion that hasn't really been explored before.

Well, we could discuss the question of whether steroids should be allowed in baseball, instead. That might provide meaningful insights.

#25 -- Agree with your thrust. If being better than the HOF mistakes is a viable HOF case we're going to end up with a couple of thousand inductees.

Rice's real problem though is that he's not particularly close to the front of the line. Shouldn't a HOF case for Rice start by addressing (say) Charlie Keller, Ron Santo and Dick Allen.

"Fine. Let them in. The fact remains that Rice would be an average leftfielder amongst those already in."

The following are all left fielders not yet in the HOF whoses cases for the Hall are much better than Jim Rice's:

Player - Pos - Career Win Shares
Barry Bonds LF 707
Pete Rose LF 547*
Rickey Henderson LF 535
Gary Sheffield LF 418
Tim Raines LF 390
Sherry Magee LF 354
Manny Ramirez LF 349
Jimmy Sheckard LF 339
Joe Jackson LF 294*

Jim Rice LF 282

* Rose and Jackson, of course, are banned. Yet Shoeless Joe Jackson accumulated 12 more career Win Shares in 1,332 games than Rice did in 2,089 games. I think the case for Jackson (without the Black Sox Scandal) is very marginal. The case for Rice is much worse than that, playing 57% more games and doing less.

#25 -- Agree with your thrust. If being better than the HOF mistakes is a viable HOF case we're going to end up with a couple of thousand inductees.

The thing is - Rice WASN'T better than Medwick. And Brock, McCarthy, and Manush were all elected because of something flashy they had, that Rice utterly fails at having.

While I generally feel that the Hall should be reserved for the best players by sabermetric means, the truth is that Brock, McCarthy and Manush were not elected by those standards, but because they had accomplishments in things that were highly valued at the time. I won't argue against McCarthy being in the hall, because I think he was elected as an innovator, not just as a player. Brock of course set the single season and career stolen base records. We can recognize the relatively little value of those - once caught stealings are factored in - but the voters at the time had less idea at that. And while we now know that a flashy batting average without power or a ton of walks isn't aht important, when Manush got voted in that wasn't common knowledge among the writers.

Rice was a very good (but not great) player who just didn't have enough of the flashy stuff to overcome his career's total value.

Look, this "Manush, Medwick, Brock, McCarthy" comparison isn't helpful at all. Rice was the first guy in dozens of years to post 400 total bases and he led the majors over a 10-year period in runs created, something that typically only the very best hitters do. That sounds pretty flashy to me. Rice has some strong points in his favor.

His overall case is weak, but the argument against Rice has nothing to do with people like Manush or Ducky Medwick. It has to do with him not being truly superior to a dozen or more other guys who aren't getting into the Hall of Fame. Stop obfuscating the matter by comparing him to players who aren't as good as him but are "flashier" by your bizarre evaluations. That sounds a lot like "feared."

I love this stat from Little Poison's 1941 season:

219 ABs
0 Ks

Unbelievable.

I think you need to open Webster's and look up the definition of the word "handily", akrasian.

Hand´i`ly Pronunciation: ~ĭ`lŷ
adv. 1. In a handy manner; skillfully; conveniently.

Done. Thanks. That clears it up.

Says who? You? The HoF committee? Srul?

The fact of the matter is, they ARE in the HoF and just because YOU don't think they deserve it doesn't change that fact one whit.

I happen to think Barry Bonds deserves enshrinement. I think he's a credit to the game. Kevin, do you agree?

Isn't there some place in that pointed head of yours to rationalize why Rice should get in too?

Wow. You really are the most insecure jackass who posts here. Somebody disagrees with you, and your immediate response is insults. Do you ever at least try to have a mature discussion here?

I think you need to open Webster's and look up the definition of the word "handily", akrasian.


Hmm, those 6 points do make a rather large difference, Kevin, in case you didn't notice. 6 points is the difference between being tied for 111th all time and 173rd all time. Now, since Rice was below average defensively and on the basepaths, you need to explain why those 62 places historically aren't a large difference. Why would somebody playing one of the easiest defensive positions, and doing so poorly, and who didn't bring extra value on the basepaths, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame without even an overly impressive amount of counting stats?

But in any case, pointing to Medwick was silly, since Medwick was a BETTER hitter than Rice, as well as had a better peak and at least had a decent throwing arm.

You've rationalized why every one of these players got in.


No, I've explained what HoF voters were likely looking at when they voted those players in. Rationalizing would be saying that they were correct in thinking that way. But trying to understand why voters would have made those mistakes is not the same as saying that mistakes should be made on anybody else.

I don't really understand the critism of Rosenthal here. He is willing to accept, even embrace, some Sabermetric concepts. That puts him ahead of many mainstream writers. Those who expect that a writer is going to accept all of Sabermetric philosophy--lock, stock, and barrell--is in for a long weight. He is meeting you half way; be happy with that.

Furthermore, Rosenthal isn't employed to do Sabermetric research. His job is to break stories and provide information, both of which he does very well. He's also one of a few watchable elements on FOX's coverage of baseball. On the whole, Rosenthal deserves praise, not contempt.

Ken is one of the nicest and brightest guys in that role. There's no question in my mind that he understands as much about sabermetrics as anyone else doing what he does. Of all the writers on whom this article could have picked, Ken was a bad choice.

Ken is one of the nicest and brightest guys in that role. There's no question in my mind that he understands as much about sabermetrics as anyone else doing what he does. Of all the writers on whom this article could have picked, Ken was a bad choice.

I agree with this. Rosenthal gets called "Robothal" and there are frequent jokes about his posting speed, but he has useful connections and doesn't seem to have a distaste for different ways of thinking of the game.

I did notice, akrasian. I also noticed Medwick sat out the war.

He was awesome during those years, though.

Actually, the vast majority of his offensive value came in the '30s, Kevin. Including the triple crown year, when he put up the 180 OPS+.

And on what basis do you make this absurd assumption?


I watched him, for one thing. He wasn't a good defensive player - not even close. His assist totals were poor for the most part also.

By his late 20s he had lost his speed too.

It's ridiculous to claim that he wasn't below average defensively and on the basepaths. Did you actually watch him? Or are you trumpeting him merely because he played for the Red Sox?

The Robothal stuff is supposed to be a compliment!

I agree with this. Rosenthal gets called "Robothal" and there are frequent jokes about his posting speed, but he has useful connections and doesn't seem to have a distaste for different ways of thinking of the game.

"Robothal" himself is aware that the nickname is a compliment. There was an interview with him a while back where he stated that he is flattered by the nick

First off, I’m very grateful that people notice and appreciate my work. As someone who is 5-foot-4, 140 pounds, I get a particular kick out of that nickname. It makes me sound like I’m a relentless, indestructible machine!

Facts matter too, Nieporent. And it's a fact that otherwise balanced and reasonable people here go absolutely batshit insane whenever Rice's name comes up for candidacy.

Well, I'd cite you as an example of that, except that any resemblance between you and "otherwise balanced and reasonable" is purely coincidental. Rice was a one-dimensional player with, for a Hall of Famer, a short career and a mediocre peak. He wouldn't be the worst player in the Hall -- a ridiculously low standard, since there are a couple of mistakes in the Hall who weren't any good -- but he wouldn't be one of the better ones, and on the logical theory that we should induct the best candidates rather than anybody better than the worst, Rice is far down on the list of people who deserve induction. After we induct the dozens better than him, then we might get around to discussing whether Rice lowers the quality of the Hall.

I don't really want to start the Rice thing again

riiiiight.


As for the article about Rosenthal's article.....wow....some people just don't get it. I immediately took Ken's comments to be tongue in cheek, humorous, even a bit self mocking, and yes, poking fun at others too, and written by a guy with a bit of a grin on his face at the time he typed them.

He then gives his predictions, which are wholly reasonable. Whats the BFD ??? Heck, I even picked Atlanta to win the WC.

Does EVERYTHING have to be a referendum on good and evil in the world of baseball?

he led the majors over a 10-year period in runs created

What ten year period is that?

The sum of the runs created in Rice's ten best seasons by this metric: 1093

Those ten seasons are pulled from 1975 through 1986. Meanwhile...

Schmidt from 1975-1984: 1158
Schmidt from 1976-1985: 1158
Schmidt from 1977-1986: 1159

And it's not as if Rice catches Schmidt by looking at post-1986 years (Schmidt created 111 runs in 1987 alone, while Rice created only 138 runs for the rest of his career) or in pre-1975 years (Schmidt's best season by RC was 1974, while Rice only created 8 runs).

And even if this were the case, it ignores the fact that (1) runs created is neither park-adjusted (definitely important), nor era-adjusted (quite possibly important), nor opportunity-adjusted (which may or may not be important); (2) it ignores the fact that while Rice may have been good for a certain ten (or twelve) years, outside of those twelve years, he did little; and (3) inside those twelve years, he did not do as much as other more worthy candidates did in other eras in their own ten (or twelve) year intervals.

It's not ridiculous to think that Rice should be in the Hall of Fame. There are certainly players in the Hall of Fame than whom Rice is better, and there are a ton of players throughout the history of baseball who were inferior to Rice. And one can construct an argument in looking at the weaker members of the Hall in which Rice deserves inclusion for his being superior to those players. Unfortunately for Rice, there are quite a few players neither in nor likely to be in any time soon who are not in the Hall of Fame. And one can construct (in my opinion) a stronger argument in looking at the excluded players that Rice also deserves exclusion.

Rice deserves election if the Hall of Fame is large enough. But the Hall of Fame does not include Dwight Evans or Sherry Magee or Ron Santo or Lou Whitaker or Alan Trammell or Tim Raines or Dick Allen or Reggie Smith or Fred Lynn or Dave Parker or... (and so on -- others can do a better job than I can of naming players who are more worthy than Rice). We can define the bar for election as being "better than X" and say Rice deserves election, but we can just as (if not more) easily say "better than Y" and say Rice doesn't.

What facts? That he was a mediocre hitter outside of Fenway?

I certainly agree with your overall point that Rice isn't qualified for the Hall, Srul, so I don't mean to pick out one comment; but I don't think the above (which I've heard elsewhere as well) is a valid criticism.

Jim Rice hit .277/.330/.459 (.789) outside of Fenway.
The league hit .271/.337/.407 (.744) during Rice's career.

So Rice's road OPS was 45 points higher than the league OPS, which in itself would mean that Rice was better than a mediocre hitter on the road -- but the above comparison actually hurts Rice in a significant way, in that his non-Fenway numbers are being compared to a league average that includes Fenway, one of the best hitters' parks in the league over his career. So he's even better than that comparison shows.

There are many valid arguments against Rice being in the Hall of Fame. But I don't see that he was a mediocre hitter on the road -- not compared to the league, anyway. Mediocre for a HOF outfielder? Sure. But, then, he was a mediocre hitter overall for a HOF outfielder.

Is that your requirement, Nieporent? He has to be "one of the better ones" to get in? Since when was that standard established for induction?

He certainly should be one of the better candidates not elected. He's not.

I think if a player easily fits in with the middle tier of the HOF, he has a very strong argument that he should be elected. Rice does not.

If he's in the lower tier (and I don't really mean mistakes like Catfish and Lloyd Waner, but players who were better than them), he has an argument; but it's not as strong.

Rice is better than the Hall's mistakes, but that is obviously not a sensible standard. He's not better than several candidates on the outside looking in.

I think he'd lower the overall quality. He's a corner OF with a 128 OPS+ over a short career, with no defensive or baserunning value to speak of.

His argument has to be based on peak, but his peak, while good, was not special for a HOFer. A few 140/150ish seasons, heavy on SLG. Ralph Kiner is a good example of a peak inductee; a 149 OPS+ was Kiner's average season. Granted Rice's career was 600 games longer -- but Rice was also nowhere near as good with the bat.

How does one get Rice over, say, Jack Clark? Dwight Evans? Larry Walker? Bob Johnson? Ken Singleton? Those are just some of the outfielders you have to distinguish him from.

Is that your requirement, Nieporent? He has to be "one of the better ones" to get in?

Well, yes. I'm pretty sure that all sane voters believe that they ought to induct the best candidates before the worse ones.

Since when was that standard established for induction?

Since pretty much always, except where Frisch's Veterans Committee was concerned. That's why when a new, better candidate joins the ballot, the vote totals of lesser, holdover candidates drop.

I would think, as a libertarian, you would be in favor of Rice just inducting himself.

You really oughtn't to use the word "think." It borders on perjury.

I think it's already been well-established, even by Rice's detractors, that he would not lower the quality, Dave. No need to revisit that one.

See, there's that "think" again. You just get yourself in trouble when you try that. Rice would be one of the lesser candidates in the Hall, with a weak HOF peak and a short career. So, yes, he'd lower the Hall's quality. He wouldn't be the worst player in the Hall, but once again, that's not a reasonable criterion for membership, because the worst player in the Hall -- McCarthy -- is actually a bad player. If everyone better than McCarthy -- or everyone better than Lloyd Waner, for that matter -- was deemed to be a HOFer, they'd have to annex Quebec to find room for all the plaques. Once you disregard the outliers, Rice would be towards the bottom. And what's particularly egregious about that is that the group of HOFers he'd fit in are mostly older era players, when the HOF standards are lower. They've gotten much higher in recent years, which means Rice fares even worse in comparison.

And the odd thing about this "statheads are crazy to oppose" Rice for the Hall idea is that it isn't just statheads tilting at windmills to say that he shouldn't be in the Hall; the voters have so far agreed. (Though I fear that will change this year.)

Then how do you explain Medwick, who had an inferior career to Rice?

How are you getting Rice over Medwick? (And, no, "He played for the Red Sox" is not actually a valid argument.)

I would think, as a libertarian, you would be in favor of Rice just inducting himself.

You really oughtn't to use the word "think." It borders on perjury.

He did use subjunctive mood, which implies it's contrary to fact.

You really oughtn't to use the word "think."

Yes, but shouldn't people oughtn't to use the word "oughtn't"?

the voters have so far agreed. (Though I fear that will change this year.)

That's not true either. Most of the voters have been voting for Rice. He just hasn't gotten to the majority threshold needed for induction.

Of course you ar 100% wrong. The voters have agreed with the fact he doesn't belong is self-evident because he isn't elected. Your observation that he has more than 50% of the votes is 100% irrelevant bewcause that isn't what is nbecessary for election. SInce he hasn't been elected, the writers have agreed that he isn't worth election.

He had 1000 less plate appearances in an era where 30% of his career was played against old men, career minor leaguers and cripples.

Really, kev, you are a biologist, you should stay away from math yourself.

Medwick spent just about 17% of his career "against old men, career minor leaguers and cripples", so stop it.

Rice shouldn't be in.

He had 1000 less plate appearances in an era where 30% of his career was played against old men, career minor leaguers and cripples.

Closer to 900, really, but it's a good point; on the other hand, Medwick played in an era during which the regular season was only 154 games.

Medwick was clearly the better hitter for his career, and had the better peak as well. Though I agree that the league was tougher in Rice's era. (Though Medwick dominated the '30s, not the '40s, as you seem to suggest.)

The point is that it's difficult to get Rice over Medwick, and, yet, you state with certainty that Medwick was inferior to Rice. And Medwick is a weak HOFer.

That's Rice: comparable to the weak HOFers. It's not a strong argument, and when we consider that Rice is not close to the head of the pack among those standing outside the door, the argument for him becomes virtually untenable.

Actually, I'm more than 50% right.

No, you just don't understand "limits testing".

I can't say I am surprised.

Ducky Medwick is easy to explain, if not defend. He won an MVP. He won a Triple Crown. He was the dominant hitter when his team won a 7-game World Series. He won a batting title, and was in the top three 6 times. He had ten .300 averages in a row. He won three consecutive RBI titles, and came in second in the two adjoining seasons. He was the starting LF in eight All-Star Games. The Cardinals sold him to the Dodgers, and the very next season, the Dodgers edged the Cardinals for the pennant. And Medwick still has a weak case.

Jim Rice would need Rick Burleson and Rich Gedman co-chairing the Veterans Committee to match that resume.

Closer to 900, really, but it's a good point; on the other hand, Medwick played in an era during which the regular season was only 154 games.

He also didn't get to extend his career by 33%, the way Jim Rice did, by being hidden at DH.

Medwick also was done (for whatever reason) by the time the War came. Medwick reminds me of a meaner version of Vladimir Guerrero (a lot meaner) but with a much shorter peak.

I could give a fat rat's arse about Jim Rice, but really, why the angst over him being left out of the hall? Yea, he's better than some of the guys already in, but so are alot of other players. His reputation is based solely on counting stats, and his best showing there is in GIDPs.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when Tony Perez was inducted, and he has at least as good of a case - not quite the OPS+, but a much longer career - in fact, the difference in their numbers is Perez's last 7 years (1800+ AB at a still not horrid 102 OPS+).

There is none.

There's also shouldn't be any of him getting in either.

I only posted when you argued (incorrectly) that Rice was better than the worst 4 lf in the hall, and thus should be in. You are the one showing angst. Add in that the 4 you listed had reasons to stand out, even if they shouldn't be in, and you're looking silly. Especially since you are yet again failing to address the multiple posts arguing that Rice is behind too many better players who aren't in the Hall. You can argue that things like high batting averages, setting records for stolen bases, being considered an innovator, etc shouldn't matter for the Hall of Fame - but if you do, that commits you to arguing that only the best players should get in. Which means that your arguments about Medwick, Manush, Brock, and McCarthy are irrelevant. And Rice is still on the outside looking in, since there are a lot of players better than Rice who aren't in the Hall, and should be inducted before him. Unless you believe that the Hall should be a heck of a lot larger than it is now, Rice just isn't a good candidate. OTOH, if you believe that the stories of the players matter, the accomplishments they had (things like no hitters, triple crowns, great postseasons, records, impressive raw statlines, etc.) well, then the four players you brought up actually beat Rice.

Deluding yourself about those 4 guys doesn't change the fact he was at least the equal of all of them.


Except Medwick. For all your angst, Rice's peak wasn't the equal of Medwick's, and his career wasn't good enough to merit getting in without an impressive peak.

And yet again, you ignore the point that Rice is far from the best candidate not inducted into the Hall.

Probably because you have no answer to it.

So how big do you think the Hall should be? Should every player better than the worst player inducted be in the Hall? If so, then the honor becomes insignificant, especially if you reject (as you seem to be doing) any credit for being an innovator, or for setting records.

I could give a fat rat's arse about Jim Rice, but really, why the angst over him being left out of the hall?

Basically that a bunch of sportswriters who thought they were watching a HOFer when they grew up are upset that a bunch of statgeeks (and most members of the BBWAA) think Rice is unqualified and that he was overrated by these sportswriters.

It doesn't have to be. His career was longer and better.

Not much longer, and not actually better. But thanks for playing.

I'm not ignoring it. I just think it's kind of irrelevant. The way the Hall is set up, there are always going to be players that some people believe should be in but are excluded and others who are excluded but are believed by others should be in.

So why focus on Rice? There are dozens of players who fit either description.


Because he's the player who should only be in a greatly expanded hall who is currently being championed in the press.

But you are the one who showed angst by throwing out idiotic insults early in this thread.

Why are you so concerned about Rice making the Hall? None of your arguments have shown him to be even close to a slam dunk HoFer, after all. Your best arguments have been that he wouldn't totally embarass the Hall. For years in the Dodgers newsgroup I would argue against people who felt that Garvey should be in the Hall of Fame, even though I'm a Dodger homer. Are you so blinded by your Red Sox Fandom that you shut your mind down about Red Sox players? You know, it's possible to be a fan of a team and still maintain an open mind.

Equally so, Ray, we also have a bunch of 20 and 30-something statgeeks who never saw Rice play but are nevertheless upset that a majority of baby boomer sportswriters think Rice should get in.

Kevin, I'm a Red Sox fan, and Rice was my favorite player growing up -- and I didn't even start watching him until 1986 (when I was 13). Rice remains one of my two or three favorite players to this day. I wish he had a strong argument for the HOF. But it's just not so.

The 20- and 30- somethings you refer to simply don't want the HOF standards to be lowered by seeing Rice inducted (an event which now seems likely) and feel that Rice is down the list of most deserving candidates. And he _will_ lower the standards, unfortunately.

Here's something you can play. It's called "A History of the United States During World War II".

Check out the chapter Our National Pastime Takes a Backseat to the War Effort.

As you yet again ignore the fact (pointed out repeatedly in this thread) that Medwick's value came in the '30s, not during the war.

And of course, how is this different than Rice's not having to play the field for a large chunk of his career?

This statement is hopelessly wrong.

Yet you haven't actually posted any evidence on that. The only evidence you've posted is that Rice might be better than the four worst left fielders in the hall. You yet again fail to address the many posts about how there are a lot of players better than Rice who aren't in the Hall.

As I will repeat now for the 1398th time, I'm not. I just think it's kind of pathetic that so many statheads pucker up their buttcheeks at the thought that Rice will get in next year, as though that makes one infinitesimal smidgen of a difference over the overall quality of the inductees,


That's utter bs of course. You wouldn't be getting so emotional about people disagreeing with you if you weren't concerned about Rice making the Hall. Face it, you are a Red Sox fanboy, upset that people would deny Rice's admission to the Hall of Fame. Until you show the same level of emotion about players from other teams making the Hall, that's all you are.

Ray, he won't. As has been stated many times, there are several outfielders int eh Hall who weren't as good as Rice. As such, he'll raise the standard, if he becomes the worst player who is ever subsequently let in.

For somebody blasting others in this thread for their mathematics, you don't have much in the way of mathematics skills. Anybody below the Hall average for left fielders would LOWER the average for left fielders. Even if they aren't the worst ones in the Hall.

Ray, he won't. As has been stated many times, there are several outfielders int eh Hall who weren't as good as Rice. As such, he'll raise the standard, if he becomes the worst player who is ever subsequently let in.

That's not raising the standard. Being better than the average HOFer, not the worst HOFer, raises the standard. Rice will be near the bottom of the Hall. And in particular, near the very bottom of modern inductees. That lowers the standard.

EDIT: Someone who isn't as good as Roy White obviously doesn't belong in the Hall.

I give up. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

True. You're hopelessly outclassed yet again.

I'd prefer it if you didn't apply your own immmature emotional tendencies to me.

You were the one who started the personal attacks Kevin. Don't pretend otherwise. Mature posters rely on arguments. You didn't.

Oh, and if by "standard" you mean that Rice wouldn't be the worst in the Hall, so freaking what? You then have to argue that the Hall should include everybody better than the worst. Otherwise, standard would mean "average" to most people - and Rice fails at that. So, are you committing to saying that EVERY player better than the worst player in the Hall should be in? Please answer this, or stop posting.

C'mon kevin, that's a ridiculous definition of "raising the standard".

I happen to like the pick of Effa Manley, but let's say for the sake of argument that she was a completely worthless pick. Or better yet, let's just imagine someone who was elected as an executive or owner, but actually did more harm than good--like Comiskey or someone.

By your logic, that would me that the hall should elect most of the 6 billion people on the planet since they would "raise the standard".

Medwick vs. Rice? Meh, let me know when we get to the Killebrew vs. Garvey or the Heilmann vs. Colavito debate.

I certainly agree with your overall point that Rice isn't qualified for the Hall, Srul, so I don't mean to pick out one comment; but I don't think the above (which I've heard elsewhere as well) is a valid criticism.

Jim Rice hit .277/.330/.459 (.789) outside of Fenway.
The league hit .271/.337/.407 (.744) during Rice's career.

So Rice's road OPS was 45 points higher than the league OPS, which in itself would mean that Rice was better than a mediocre hitter on the road -- but the above comparison actually hurts Rice in a significant way, in that his non-Fenway numbers are being compared to a league average that includes Fenway, one of the best hitters' parks in the league over his career. So he's even better than that comparison shows.

There are many valid arguments against Rice being in the Hall of Fame. But I don't see that he was a mediocre hitter on the road -- not compared to the league, anyway. Mediocre for a HOF outfielder? Sure. But, then, he was a mediocre hitter overall for a HOF outfielder.

I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peaves. Mediocre is not necessarily a synonym for "poor" or "below average." Mediocre contains parte of "medium" for a reason; mediocre is another term for average. I'd say an OPS within 50 points of the average could be construed as being an average performance - within one standard deviation, I think.

I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peaves. Mediocre is not necessarily a synonym for "poor" or "below average." Mediocre contains parte of "medium" for a reason; mediocre is another term for average.

It's my pet peeve too, and I run into it far more frequently than I should.

why focus on Rice?

Because Rice is the poster boy, as a hitter, for a bunch of oversights/errors in analysis common to the mainstream media: ignoring positional value, ignoring park, ignoring OBP, ignoring defense, ignoring career length, cherry-picking endpoints, and falling in love with a poorly-defined term like "feared."

And of course, when you do all or most of these things, Rice looks like a really good HOF candidate, so people are writing hundreds of articles that at best offer poor analysis and at worst, abuse people for daring to actually see the more complete picture, and linking them here. If the number of articles about Rice were written about Jack Morris, it would be the same way for him too.

But forget comparing him to other marginal HOFers for a moment. What is the true picture when looking at Rice's career?

Rice was one of the top 5 hitters in the AL for three years, and once (1978) was the very best hitter in the league. Other than that, he was a very good (not elite hitter) through his age 33 season. After that, 2 average offensive years and one terrible one. He provided practically no defensive value as a poor fielder playing one of the weakest defensive positions. He provided practically no value on the bases.

If that, in a vacuum, looks like HOF resume to you, you have a very large hall. That's fine; the ideal size of the HOF is merely aesthetics. But as passionate as anyone can be about Rice, they should be more passionate at the far better players that are outside looking in. And when people are championing a less-worthy player so disproportionately, it sounds less like good faith, and more like an agenda.

I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peaves. Mediocre is not necessarily a synonym for "poor" or "below average." Mediocre contains parte of "medium" for a reason; mediocre is another term for average.

Yes. And that's exactly how I was using it. To mean "average."

That's why I cited the league average -- and said that Rice was *better* than that.

By the way, one of my pet peeves is people who can't spell "peeve" lecturing others as to the definition of commonly used words.

I'd say an OPS within 50 points of the average could be construed as being an average performance

And I wouldn't.

50 points of OPS is the difference between Ken Griffey Jr. and David Justice:

Griffey: .290/.374/.553 (.927 OPS in a .765 run environment) ==> 140 OPS+
Justice: .279/.378/.500 (.878 OPS in a .765 run environment) ==> 129 OPS+

That's a difference of 10 points of OPS+, which, over a career, is significant.

why focus on Rice?

Because Rice is the player under consideration for the Hall of Fame right now. When the next mediocre one-dimensional slugger with a short career whose skills are summed up solely by triple crown stats comes up for consideration, focus will turn to that player. Is George Foster coming back on the ballot anytime soon?

Basically that a bunch of sportswriters who thought they were watching a HOFer when they grew up are upset that a bunch of statgeeks (and most members of the BBWAA) think Rice is unqualified and that he was overrated by these sportswriters.

I do wonder why they don't take note that the people actually responsible for not voting Rice in are the somewhat-older sportswriters who were older and wiser at the time Rice was actually playing, and who continue to not be impressed by the enthusiasm of people who were too young to be objective during Rice's actual career.

Mediocre means "moderate to inferior in ability", not "average". It is possible to be both average and mediocre, but the connotation is clearly negative.

Not only is Kevin dumb, but he's also illiterate; I'm not the one who wrote the statements being discussed in this dialogue on the meaning of "mediocre."