The "he grounded into tons of double plays" and "he wasn't intentionally walked a lot" things never bother me much in regards to Rice's Hall of Fame case. The facts that he didn't get on base a lot, didn't hit for enough power by Hall of Fame standards to make up for that, and didn't have a long enough career to make up for either of those deficiencies is sufficient.

Dan Shaughnessy's I.Q. is 127
Are you smarter than Dan Shaughnessy?

the other hand, Rice ranks sixth all-time in GIDP’s, an exceptionally astounding tidbit when you consider that Rice had 9,058 plate appearances in his career.

I realize that Rice hit into a lot of double plays, but it would be nice if Sullivan put Rice's GIDP numbers in the context not only of plate appearances, but also of how many GIDP situations Rice batted in. Especially if Sullivan is going to later use the men-on-base argument against Rice:

The second major component of a Shaughnessy Jim Rice Hall of Fame case contains statistical cherry picking that even the most hard headed flat-earthers would have to admire. Park factors don't matter, great on-base men that inflate your RBI totals don't matter.

Didn't they inflate his GIDP totals as well?

1) Playing home games in Fenway drastically inflates the value of his production. Hitting in the same lineup as players like Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans (a much, much better Hall candidate btw) inflates his RBI total. Context matters.

It's kind of disingenuous to trot out the Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans argument against his RBI totals after going on about his double plays. Two on-base machines, neither of whom run particularly well, directly in front of you will lead to a lot of GIDPs. His two highest seasons for DPs were with those two guys ahead of him.

Edit: What do you know, Ray and I are on the same page.

Fair critiques, guys. I treated them separately.

I brought up the GIDP only after coming across Shaughnessy's claim about managers considering walking Rice with the bases full. And I only came across THAT because I was addressing the "feared" stuff with the only metric I could think of, intentional walks. I mentioned the RBI totals being inflated as an entirely separate matter.

I suppose it was a bit obtuse. Thanks for pointing it out.

hey Pat, if you're who i think you are, I went to school with you (twice)

Setting aside the GIDP issue - I agree with Ray and SoS it needs more context - I don't suppose anyone has been able to get Shaughnessy to address the IBB issue.

I mean, how can you say he was "feared" when he CLEARLY wasn't intentionally walked that often... I mean, when a luminary like Geoff Jenkins is tied with him in career IBBs (with almost 4000 less ABs). You can't even really make the "pitch around" argument since Rice's walk rate was pretty consistently unimpressive.

Compare him to a guy like Vlad Guerrero - who seems to be petering out in his 30s (still a force, but he's nowhere near what he was in his 20s) - THERE's a hitter whose career totals show evidence of a significant "fear factor".

Compare him to a guy like Vlad Guerrero - who seems to be petering out in his 30s (still a force, but he's nowhere near what he was in his 20s) - THERE's a hitter whose career totals show evidence of a significant "fear factor".

That's also partially because there was no way to pitch around Vlad. If he could reach it, he could hit it. And when he could hit it, it went far. An IBB was the only way to ensure that he wouldn't drive one over the wall, even if you put it at eye level, or way down in the dirt.

I mean, how can you say he was "feared" when he CLEARLY wasn't intentionally walked that often... I mean, when a luminary like Geoff Jenkins is tied with him in career IBBs (with almost 4000 less ABs). You can't even really make the "pitch around" argument since Rice's walk rate was pretty consistently unimpressive.

Zonk,

I think the two are related. Because Rice wasn't terribly patient at the plate, pitchers were willing to attempt to pitch around him and hope he chased - which he did, a lot. I said this in a post yesterday. The comments about Rice being the "most feared" hitter in the league (strictly the AL, since the two leagues were really considered distinct in his era) aren't some imaginary construct. He was spoken of that way. But I think the idea was that Rice, at his peak, was the guy you most feared throwing a strike to, due to his combination of power and batting average. But he was also a guy you could get out if you got him to chase good pitches off the plate - thus, it didn't make much sense IBBing him.

He was spoken of that way. But I think the idea was that Rice, at his peak, was the guy you most feared throwing a strike to, due to his combination of power and batting average.

Sure - I would just say that the same could likely be said of someone like say... Larry Hisle.

i was initially skeptical of your explanation, SoSHially, but i looked at someone like Juan Gonzalez who I assume was feared, but also had lowish IBB's like Rice. So you may be on to something.

Although, if pitchers thought they could get Rice out pretty easily by inducing him to chase bad pitchers, they couldnt have been too terrified.

IBB depend somewhat on who's hitting behind you and relatively speaking how much more feared you are than they are. Rice spent his career hitting in front of Carl Yastrzemski – then Tony Perez, actually – or Dwight Evans, or Don Baylor. When Perez set his career high of 15 IBB in 1972, he was hitting in front of Denis Menke most of the year.

I doubt this is a huge factor, of course. For one thing, Perez was IBB'd 13 times in 1970 when he hit mainly in front of Johnny Bench, who was having a truly great offensive season. But "fear" worked in 1970 because Bench was very young, and Perez was the established RBI man. You walked Perez and took your chances with Bench (who proceeded to become the big RBI man as a result).

Although, if pitchers thought they could get Rice out pretty easily by inducing him to chase bad pitchers, they couldnt have been too terrified.

I don't think they were altogether terrified of him. I do think he was the guy they were most afraid of making a mistake in the zone against.

as I pointed out in a thread a year ago--Rice's DP totals skyrocketed upwards in 1982 and remained in the stratosphere--prior to that, he had never finished higher than 5th in the league and was often not in the top ten--starting in 1982, however, he was first (usually by a wide margin) for 4 straight seasons

Edit: What do you know, Ray and I are on the same page.

Don't get too used to it, since I don't plan on making a habit of it. :-)

Don't get too used to it, since I don't plan on making a habit of it. :-)

What, you think I'm not feeling a little squeamish by this turn of events? :)

Heh...

Soo... I just found out that Dan doesn't appreciate the validity of the comparison :-)

Look, I don't think Rice is a Hall of Famer either, but this argument of Sullivan's is just bogus:

What an insult to the managers of Rice’s day. He was far too enticing of a double-play candidate to intentionally walk with the bases loaded. Even If there are no outs, the bases are full and you feel you have to give up a run, don’t walk Rice. Just let him give you the two outs he probably will anyway.

The idea that Rice will "probably" hit into a double play with the bases loaded -- or anything close to that -- is flat absurd. And not only that, it's disingeuous. Rice came to the plate 234 times with the bases loaded. He grounded into a double play just 25 times in those situations.

There are enough legitimate arguments why Rice should not be in the Hall of Fame that people shouldn't have to go around making dishonest ones up. Rice was a very good hitter over his career, and was a HOF-type hitter at his peak. The problem is that he wasn't a HOF-type hitter for long enough -- not that he wasn't good. No manager should have been happy to face him with the bases loaded during his peak, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

The irony of this column is that Sullivan does exactly what he accuses Shaugnessy of doing: cherry picking stats (the RBI vs. GIDP thing w/r/t runners on base) and making disingenuous, bad arguments.

To be fair to Sullivan he did provide some context. As in noting that the guys who had more career DPs had a lot more PAs.

Just took a quick look at Rice, comparing him to Ripken. DP was in order in 22.9% of Rice's PAs and he grounded into a DP 15.2% of the time. Ripken had the DP in order 20.3% of the time and grounded into a DP 13.4% of the time.

Aaron (with some missing info) had the DP in order just under 22% of the time and grounded into the DP just under 11% of the time.

There are enough legitimate arguments why Rice should not be in the Hall of Fame that people shouldn't have to go around making dishonest ones up

I think the problem is that you have to convice people who have already accepted the poor arguments FOR Rice's candidacy. You have to speak their language. The language of dishonest arguments.

To be fair to Sullivan he did provide some context. As in noting that the guys who had more career DPs had a lot more PAs.

Yes, I noted that in #3, but it still doesn't provide all of the necessary context.

Just took a quick look at Rice, comparing him to Ripken. DP was in order in 22.9% of Rice's PAs and he grounded into a DP 15.2% of the time. Ripken had the DP in order 20.3% of the time and grounded into a DP 13.4% of the time.

Aaron (with some missing info) had the DP in order just under 22% of the time and grounded into the DP just under 11% of the time.

This provides some more context. We see that Rice grounded into DPs at a rate a little worse than Ripken (even adjusting for a greater percentage of opportunities) and at a rate much worse than Aaron.

But what is still missing is how Rice did relative to the league, not simply relative to Aaron (a great hitter) and Ripken.

In 1985 (his worst year), I have Rice up in a DP situation 28.1% of the time and hitting into one 20.5% of the time.

League rates coming up...

Hmm, I'm not sure how to find DP situations for the whole league.

Well if you take 2/3 of AL plate appearances in 1985 with a runner on first, it comes out to a DP situation 20.5% of the time, which would mean that the DP was then hit into 10.2% of the time. (This assumes that 2/3 of those appearances take place with 0 or 1 outs, which is not accurate, but is the best estimate I can make. I'm not sure how to break down the league totals by out AND base.)

I don't really see the problem. Of course RBI depends on context. If you're going to argue with people who recognize this fact, going into the DPs is not going to be necessary to make a case against Rice for the HOF.

On the other hand, if you're going to argue against people who willfully refuse to recognize the importance of base-context, then by all means bring out the "historic number of double plays" guns.

Hoist by their own petard, I say.

Now, if the purpose of a piece is to provide a fully objective analysis, then this is a bit of rhetorical trickery that should be avoided, of course. But that wasn't what the piece was supposed to be.

I think the problem is that you have to convice people who have already accepted the poor arguments FOR Rice's candidacy. You have to speak their language. The language of dishonest arguments.

Now, if the purpose of a piece is to provide a fully objective analysis, then this is a bit of rhetorical trickery that should be avoided, of course. But that wasn't what the piece was supposed to be.

Sorry, but I don't get this. People should be making objective, good faith arguments -- not stooping to the same level that they're complaining others have stooped to.

It was just a response piece. I am not trying to construct or de-construct the merits of Rice's candidacy as fluidly and cogently as I can. Just responding to typical CHB bullsh*t and mixing in a little snark.

If Rice was feared, why the lack of intentional walks?

If the bases were loaded when Rice was up, why not pitch to someone who might get you two outs?

Those were specific CHB assertions, not my starting point for discrediting Rice's case. I see your point, though, and appreciate what you are saying.

Now, if the purpose of a piece is to provide a fully objective analysis, then this is a bit of rhetorical trickery that should be avoided, of course. But that wasn't what the piece was supposed to be.

I guess my question (and this would go beyond Sully's article here), who are you writing for, the audience you have or the one you wish you had? If the folks who spoke that foreign tongue were spending their time at Baseball Analysts, then they would already understand that RBIs are context dependent. But if you want to give an honest rebuttal for the audience who will read your piece, you shouldn't be resorting to rhetorical trickery.

Can we just have a Hall of Fear and be done with it? I'd vote for Bo Diaz. His '81 Donruss card kinda scared me when I was a kid.

It was just a response piece. I am not trying to construct or de-construct the merits of Rice's candidacy as fluidly and cogently as I can. Just responding to typical CHB bullsh*t and mixing in a little snark.

Well, look. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh; I did enjoy most of the piece. But I stand by my assessment that (among other things) you needed to also concede that the increased runners on base in front of him also played a role in his elevated GIDP total (even if Rice was more prone to grounding into double plays anyway).

Much of Shaughnessy's reasoning is indeed absurd. (Managers "thought about" intentionally walking him... but didn't actually do it? Of what significance is that, anyway?) But the fair way to address the GIDP issue would have been to qualify the GIDP criticism with "Of course, the men on base in front of Rice did inflate his GIDP total -- but they also inflated his RBI totals."

Regardless, one shouldn't rebut Shaughnessy's fear argument by going overboard in the other direction to suggest that Rice would "probably" hit into a double play. Had you instead stated, "Hell, he may give you the two outs anyway," I wouldn't have complained. But it was all of the above issues, combined with this absurdity:

"Rice was an absolute out machine."

No. Rice was comfortably above average in getting on base. Referring to him as an "absolute out machine" is simply not a reasonable characterization of his performance, double plays or no. You can't fall into the trap of going overboard in denigrating his skills. Again, I think you've lost sight of the argument: the argument is not that he wasn't good; it's that he wasn't _great_.

You're capable of a lot better than this.

Looks like it's going to be another "winter of dissed content" WRT Rice.

Having read little of what's transpired on this most volatile issue but having felt (read: unable to ignore) the seismic tremors from many thousands of miles away, I think most everyone is overlooking some practical realities concerning Rice and the HoF.

If they put him in, the case for about twenty other players--both eligible by the front door and via that sputtering biplane known as the "post-1943 players Veterans Committee"--will suddenly go through the roof.

Ammunition will be freely available, passed out to all that ask for it, and the bullets will be flying. It will be a glorious, bloody war, and maybe 60% of the players who've been previously stymied from enshrinement will be inducted.

All that will transpire because of one mistake. Fourteen players will get in: thirteen guys who might've waited forever, and one who "shouldn't."

Only the purest of the pure would find such a real-life tradeoff to be unacceptable.

If they put him in, the case for about twenty other players--both eligible by the front door and via that sputtering biplane known as the "post-1943 players Veterans Committee"--will suddenly go through the roof.

well--that depends what you mean--if you mean the logical case, on paper, for about 20 (or 30) other players that were clearly as valuable as Rice

if you mean that it will actually have any effect on future elections (either by the BBWAA or Vets)--you're wrong

Rice's case this year (his last) is sui generis and is the result of a perfect storm of circumstances:

1.)the steroid backlash ("well, Rice's numbers aren't inflated like the current crop")

and

2.) this one is harder to fathom, but it's real, as evidenced by CHB (and a hundred other columns) that seem to have developed this absolutely bizarre notion that Rice has been unfairly kept out of the Hall because of the Stat-heads/moneyball/mother's-basement axis, and that this must be corrected

so--Jim Rice will be elected this year, and he won't be the worst player in the Hall, and his election will have no influence on future voting

Jim Rice became an established regular at the age of 22, played regularly until he was 35 and retired after a poor partial age 36 season. He played in 2089 games. His career triple crown numbers: .298/382/1451.

Albert Belle didn't become an established regular until he was 24 (in part due to his own behavioral problems). From there, he played regularly until he was 33, after which his career ended suddenly due to illness or injury. He played in 1539 games. His career triple crown numbers: .295/381/1239.

The main difference is the bulk supplied by Rice's play in his age 22-23 and age 34-35 seasons. He was pretty good (but not a major star) at 22-23 and kind of blah at 34-35. Rice did have more career RBI, but his top 4 seasonal RBI totals were 139, 130, 126, and 122. Belle's top 4 seasonal RBI totals were 152, 148, 129, and 126. And the 126 was in the strike-shortened 1995 season, and he also had 101 in the very strike-shortened 1994 season; that could easily have been another 140. (Rice also had a strike-shortened season in 1981, but he wasn't having a particularly good year.)

Of course, Belle played in an even richer offensive environment than Rice. But if you start bringing that up, then you might as well context-adjust everything and start asking about things like OPS+. I think you can probably guess where that leads. (Belle had four years with higher OPS+ than Rice's single best year.)

The positive case for Rice is essentially a peak case; its about how good he was in 1977-79. It has to be that as he crossed no career milestones that seem particularly important. And Albert Belle had a better peak.

(I don't think Belle is that good a match for Rice- higher peak, shorter career. A match I do like: Rocky Colavito.)

A match I do like: Rocky Colavito.

yeah--we went thoo this last year at this time-- ad nauseum

Rocky's my boy, BUT

1. he doesn't belong in the Hall

2. he was just as valuable (peak & career) as Rice

Don and Pasta -- I'm somewhere in between you. Rice's election wouldn't/won't result in the election of 10 or 12 more players. And it won't result in the election of 0 more players. It'll have an effect, but just a limited one.

Rice will lower the standards for the Hall, so that now HOVG players will have slightly stronger arguments. But they still won't have strong arguments. The voters as a group do still tend to compare each candidate to other HOFers at his position as a whole -- not to the weakest HOFers at his position. Jack Morris didn't go in just because Catfish Hunter got in.

Sure, there are probably some voters who say "If X is in, then Y should be," but I think as a voting block their reasoning is more expansive than that. Willie Stargell doesn't become irrelevant just because Jim Rice is in.

The other thing is that their lack of logic/informed analysis works both ways. They think Rice is better than he was. They're not going to think Jack Clark was as good. Clark wasn't Feared. Clark didn't have Eight 100 RBI Seasons. Clark didn't have several seasons in which he hit .300 or had 30 or 40 home runs.

Rice will lower the standards, yes; but it's not going to result in scores of players going in.

Clark wasn't as Feared.

Oh really?

Oh really?

Either you are misreading Ray or I am misreading you.

My point was that Clark was as feared as anyone. I assume Ray was channeling MSM rather than speaking for himself.

Clark was feared--Frank Howard was feared (more than Rice BTW, in his time--his Washington time, that is), Ted friggin Klusewski was feared in the fiddies

never used to be a HOF credential until--well read post #33

Clark was feared--Frank Howard was feared (more than Rice BTW, in his time--his Washington time, that is), Ted friggin Klusewski was feared in the fiddies

Nobody in the MSM has been trying (or tried) to build a HOF case for Clark or Howard in part on the basis that they were "feared." Clark received just 7 votes in 1998 and fell off the ballot; Howard received 6 votes in 1979 and fell off.

never used to be a HOF credential until--well read post #33

Your post #33:

2.) this one is harder to fathom, but it's real, as evidenced by CHB (and a hundred other columns) that seem to have developed this absolutely bizarre notion that Rice has been unfairly kept out of the Hall because of the Stat-heads/moneyball/mother's-basement axis, and that this must be corrected

I think you have your causality arrow backwards. The statheads rose up in response to the MSM pimping Rice's candidacy -- not the other way around. If Rice had fallen quietly off the ballot like Clark and Howard did, never to be heard from by the writers again, the statheads would have kept their slide rules to themselves.

If the MSM were pimping Andres Galarraga for the Hall, statheads would have rose up just the same.