perhaps we are selling jeans here.

Gary Carter best OPS+ - 146, 143, 138, 137, 126
Jim Rice best OPS+ - 157, 154, 147, 141, 136

Gary Carter: catcher. Jim Rice: left fielder.

It’s more than annoying than marginal guys who played a long time (like Gary Carter) have plaques

Forget about Rice for a second. Anyone who reads this site knows where I stand on his candidacy.

Anybody who writes that about Carter has no clue about baseball.

Looking at where I have Rice in my HoM notes and workups: I have trouble deciding on the exact ranking of Rice, George Foster, and Roger Maris. Rice has a little more career, but I like Foster's and Maris's peaks just a little better. Overall, they're close. And Rice never hit 50 HR, never mind 60. And Maris won two MVP's. And Maris and Foster both have ringzz.

Carter? Ask us what a marginal Hall of Merit catcher or half-catcher candidate looks like, and we'll give you Joe Torre, Ted Simmons, Bill Freehan, and Roger Bresnahan, all of whom we have elected. Carter is distinctly ahead of that group.

Carter? Ask us what a marginal Hall of Merit catcher or half-catcher candidate looks like, and we'll give you Joe Torre, Ted Simmons, Bill Freehan, and Roger Bresnahan, all of whom we have elected. Carter is distinctly ahead of that group.

Ted Simmons got 82% of the possible points, in a year where Niekro was the easy #1 for most. I wouldn't say he's marginal. In fact I don't see that Gary Carter is much ahead of Simmons, if ahead at all. Simmons had an OPS+ 2 points higher in 700 more PA, and his was more OBP heavy.

Damnit, I thought this would be about Jim Edmonds--who is a better Hall candidate than Rice.

Ellsworth, Maine has a newspaper? I knew they had a National Guard Armory, which had a beer machine which you could just reach up the chute and pull the beers out without paying, but a newspaper?

Carter wasn't feared, AROM.

However, he was loathed.

So what you're saying, kevin, is that Rice is a more deserving candidate?

That explains a lot.

Anybody who writes that about Carter has no clue about baseball.

Exactly. It is comments like that from his supporters -- and this is not the only one like that I have read -- which make root for the voters to turn him down.

It is comments like that from his supporters -- and this is not the only one like that I have read -- which make root for the voters to turn him down.

Exactly-oto, Quasimoto.

Simmons had an OPS+ 2 points higher in 700 more PA, and his was more OBP heavy.

And Carter caught nearly 300 more games -- Simmons was a DH for 279.

And Carter was a superior catcher.

But where were these supporters 13 years ago? You'd think Rice had gotten into the Delorean and gone back in time and hit a few more homers, taken some more walks, grounded into a fewer double plays. He's the same close but undeserving guy he was back in 1994. Where's this surge of support come from?

Where's this surge of support come from?

People always belly up when it gets close to last call, whether it's the right thing to do or not. And Ellsworth, Maine.

Ted Simmons got 82% of the possible points, in a year where Niekro was the easy #1 for most.

Carter got 97% of the possible points, in a year when saber-fave Bert Blyleven finished 2nd with 93%.

Where's this surge of support come from?

Only a theory, but the generation who were kids when Rice was at his best in the late '70s is in its late 30s-early 40s now, and is probably a much larger portion of the HOF electorate than it was 13 years ago.

(Edited to actually make sense.)

Srul, change the batteries on your humor detector, will you?

Just trollin', kevin, just trollin.

Simmons had an OPS+ 2 points higher in 700 more PA, and his was more OBP heavy.

And Carter caught nearly 300 more games -- Simmons was a DH for 279.

And Carter was a superior catcher.

Carter got 97% of the possible points, in a year when saber-fave Bert Blyleven finished 2nd with 93%.

Fair points both, and I do think Carter was better overall, but I don't think I'd call Simmons marginal. I think he's a pretty solid HoMer and should've been a pretty solid HoFer too.

There is no one in baseball I have more respect and affection for than Jim Ed, the man most responsible for sucking me wonderfully and inexorably into Red Sox Nation

Explains a lot...

Only a theory, but the generation who were kids when Rice was at his best in the late '70s is in its late 30s-early 40s now, and is probably a much larger portion of the HOF electorate than it was 13 years ago.

I think this is a good theory. I'm of that generation - I'm 39, 1977 was probably the first season that I really followed intensely. And there's a huge disconnect between how I remember Jim Rice being viewed when I was a kid and how good Jim Rice really was. There was this sense at the time that his 1978 season was legendary, him doing things that nobody had done in a generation or more. And now, you look back and you're like - WTF? George Foster hit more home runs the year before, George Brett hit .390 (OPS+ of 202) two years later, Dave Parker had a better season that very year. I was an Orioles fan and the idea that Ken Singleton was a better baseball player in the late 1970s than Jim Rice still seems weird to me even though if I look at BB-Ref or BPro's WARP or whatever it seems like it's probably true.

In a way, it's the mirror image of the Bert Blyleven case. The 1979 Pirates are one of the teams I still despise the most for beating my Orioles in the World Series - from their yellow square baseball caps to their Stargell stars to that damn Sister Sledge song, and before I started hanging out here, I guarantee you that I would have never remembered for a second that Bert Blyleven pitched for that team.

Not that I think this makes Rice a Hall-of-Famer or Blyleven not one. It's just very interesting to me to think about the difference in perspective now 30 years later.

But where were these supporters 13 years ago? You'd think Rice had gotten into the Delorean and gone back in time and hit a few more homers, taken some more walks, grounded into a fewer double plays. He's the same close but undeserving guy he was back in 1994. Where's this surge of support come from?

Let's look at his ballot support over the years (and ballot rank):
1995 - 29.8 (8)
1996 - 35.3 (7)
1997 - 37.6 (5)
1998 - 42.9 (4)
1999 - 29.4 (8)
2000 - 51.5 (3)
2001 - 57.9 (4)
2002 - 55.1 (3)
2003 - 52.2 (4)
2004 - 54.5 (5)
2005 - 59.5 (4)
2006 - 64.8 (2)
2007 - 63.5 (4)

His percentage went up in the late 1990s and in recent years. Both, IIRC, were weak periods for newbies on the ballot (not 1999, which one of the greatest years ever for newbies, but the previous years). Inertia helped Rice both times.

In more detail, he rose from 1995-2001 (1999 was a bad year for all backloggers as Brett, Fisk, Yount, Ryan, and Dale Murphy all entered the ballot at the same time). Then he milled about until the last few ballots, when he went up. His 2006-7 change was downward, but it's actually fairly impressive - backloggers as a whole lost 10% that year. He lost 2%.

When he showeed up, he came behind Schmidt (first ballot), Niekro, SUtton, Perez, Garvey, Oliva, and Santo. He was ahead of Bruce Sutter.

He rose to 7th the next year in 1996 - the first BBWAA ballot in a quarter-century to elect no one - because Schmidt wasn't on it. He passed up no one.

In 1997, he moved up to fifth. Oliva had run out of time. Steve Garvey had became the first guy he passed up.

He moved up in 1998 solely because Nierko had been elected the year before). He finished behind Sutton (he got elected this year), Perez, and Santo (who was in his last year on the ballot).

Up to this point, his rise in vote total had been largely caused by a series of weakly received newcomers. Dave Parker showed up in 1997, and that was the best competing outfielder. Gary Carter showed up in '98 (finishing behind Rice). It took the BBWAA to remember how good Carter had been in his prime. With no new players appearing on top of Rice, he rose up the backlog, garnering more attention and votes while those ahead either went in or dropped off the ballot.

1999 screwed everyone on the backlog. As a player whose value was so wrapped up in his offensive, Rice fell harder than most before the Brett-Yount-Fisk onslaught. Not only did he finished behind them & Perez, but fell behind Gary Carter and even Steve Garvey. At least he beat Dale Murphy. Still, 3 of the 7 ahead of him had gone in.

In 2000, without the 3,000 hit guys, he leapfrogged over catcher Gary Carter and Garvey into third. The two guys ahead of him (Perez and Fisk) went in ahead of him. Jim Rice was now the head of the backlog.

But he couldn't celebrate yet. In 2001, Winfield and Puckett entered the ballot, and made Rice look bad. Its bad enough competing against a 3,000 hit guy, but this was when Gary Carter began making his move, and writers finally really remembered how good he was in his prime.

In 2002, Ozzie Smith and Carter finished ahead of him. Smith went in and Carter was so close he was clearly the focus. Dawson showed up, but was lower than Rice.

In 2003, Carter and Eddie Murray went in, but Rice again was not head of the backlog as Bruce Sutter finished ahead of him for the first time forever. Sandberg showed up, but was behind Rice.

In 2004, Molitor and Eck show up and wentin. Sutter stayed ahead and Sandberg passed him up.

In 2005, Boggs showed up and went in with Sandberg, while Sutter neared the top.

In 2006, he was second only to Sutter.

In 2007, Gossage passed him up.

What's striking: he's a ballot journeyman. He's been passed up by Sutter, Gossage, Sandberg, and Carter. The only guy he ever passed up was Steve Garvey.

Another advantage: he's been the most popular outfielder virtually the entire time. The only outfielders to ever beat him were Tony Oliva (two years), Dave Winfield, and Kirby Puckett. The altter, of course, were only around for one year each. I guess you could qualify Yount and Molitor OFrs, but they're seen as IFrs and both only spent one year on the ballot.

Rice has been helped by being the default favorite outfielder, who has had the advantage of weathering two stretches where the newbies coming onto the ballot weren't well-received. The first weak stretch put him near the top of the backlog. The second will put him in, if not this year then 2009 for sure. If Andre Dawson entered the ballot in 1995, he'd probably be in Rice's position (or elected already).

I just find it amazing that he showed upon the ballot 8th, has been passed 4 people, has only passed one himself, yet is on the verge of election. That's sumthin', innit?

Explains a lot...

Given the fact that the author is a woman, I don't think it does. Unless, I suppose you're thinking about nipples or clitoris.

Let's look at his ballot support over the years (and ballot rank):
1995 - 29.8 (8)
1996 - 35.3 (7)
1997 - 37.6 (5)
1998 - 42.9 (4)
1999 - 29.4 (8)
2000 - 51.5 (3)
2001 - 57.9 (4)
2002 - 55.1 (3)
2003 - 52.2 (4)
2004 - 54.5 (5)
2005 - 59.5 (4)
2006 - 64.8 (2)
2007 - 63.5 (4)

Keith Law & my HOF ballot gathering smegalas both have Rice sitting at 65% now.

I'm not sure why it makes a difference who is on the ballot with Rice. It's not like the HOM where you rank the players in order. You are allowed to name 10 players as either yes or no. Unless you believe that there have been 10 better players than Rice every year until now, it doesn't make sense that he is getting more support now than then.

Keith Law & my HOF ballot gathering smegalas both have Rice sitting at 65% now.

Timpani Jim Ed, timpani!

New ballots in...Rice now up to 66%.

there's a huge disconnect between how I remember Jim Rice being viewed when I was a kid and how good Jim Rice really was. There was this sense at the time that his 1978 season was legendary, him doing things that nobody had done in a generation or more. And now, you look back and you're like - WTF? George Foster hit more home runs the year before, George Brett hit .390 (OPS+ of 202) two years later, Dave Parker had a better season that very year.

Ditto.

I mentioned something very much like this on Jim Rice's HOM thread
and was promptly told by some posters that my claiming that Rice was perceived as the dominant player in the late 70s was revisionist history-

which was hysterical, the view among some that Rice wasn't perceived as such is revisionist history.

I think Rice was continuously regarded as the most dominant hitter halfway through '78 right up until Brett cleared .400 late in 1980.

But where were these supporters 13 years ago? You'd think Rice had gotten into the Delorean and gone back in time and hit a few more homers, taken some more walks, grounded into a fewer double plays. He's the same close but undeserving guy he was back in 1994. Where's this surge of support come from?

The Red Sox PR department is pushing his candidacy.

In fact I don't see that Gary Carter is much ahead of Simmons, if ahead at all. Simmons had an OPS+ 2 points higher in 700 more PA, and his was more OBP heavy.

I've got Carter +87 career on defense, Simmons -24. That's the difference between a HOF catcher and the starting catcher for the Hall of the Exceptionally Good.

I have problems with catchers making the hall who weren't good defensively. That's their primary value. The offense is a bonus.

I greatly disagree with this. The defensive swing between the best and worst catchers really isn't that great from what I've seen on a year-to-year basis - not nearly as much as much as the other up-the-middle defensive positions.

I've got Carter +87 career on defense, Simmons -24. That's the difference between a HOF catcher and the starting catcher for the Hall of the Exceptionally Good.

I wasn't aware Carter had such a good defensive reputation. I've always known Simmons was knocked for his defense, but most sabermetricians seem to have the view that he wasn't much below average and that seems to confirm it. Either way, an about-average defensive catcher with a career 117 OPS+ in nearly 10,000 (!) PA is a pretty solid Hall of Famer, IMO.

I'm not sure why it makes a difference who is on the ballot with Rice. It's not like the HOM where you rank the players in order. You are allowed to name 10 players as either yes or no.

Yeah, but that's not quite how it works. Guys closer to the top get more attention, their backers become more vocal and they start convincing more people to vote for them. Logrolling, as it's calle.d

Also, though they can vote for up to ten players, a large majority of BBWAA members don't. I think most believe it cheapens the ballot to load it up. Prior to the late 1980s, there was never less than 7 names per ballot. Since then, there's never been more. The best example of this came in 1989. Bunning had 74.6% of the vote the year before, Tiant over 30% and Lolich around 25%. Then Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Kaat show up. You still had less than 7 names per ballot in 1989, but Tiant and Lolich were both under 10%. Strength of ballot & quality of newcomers strongly impacts how the backlog does. We can argue if it should, but it does. I just finished writing an article for THT that should go up Monday (barring table-related disaster on my part - crosses fingers) about this.

I just finished writing an article for THT that should go up Monday (barring table-related disaster on my part - crosses fingers) about this.

That's why Dag is my favorite BTF poster.

I wasn't aware Carter had such a good defensive reputation.

Carter with the Mets had declined a bit, he had trouble throwing. At his peak with the Expos Carter was awesome.

Take 1983 for example: 86 SB allowed, 75 CS, 10 catcher pickoffs, excellent at blocking pitchers (23 WP, 5 PB in 1261 innings). From 78-83 here's his runs saved: +8, +16, +12, +9, +10, +25.

Thanks. I'm especially proud of my table-related disasters, too. But not as proud as my ability to shoehorn a self-promotional comment about an upcoming article.

For example - sometime in Feb or March I should FINALLY get around to getting an article inspired by one of the great moments in Rob Neyer Message Board-dom - how the election of DiMaggio changed HoF elections forever.

For example - sometime in Feb or March I should FINALLY get around to getting an article inspired by one of the great moments in Rob Neyer Message Board-dom - how the election of DiMaggio changed HoF elections forever.

As in "Not first ballot..."?

I dunno what I'm going to call it yet. Maybe just "How Joe DiMaggio Forever Changed the BBWAA Elections." That's lame, but it get one's attention. I'm open to suggestions.

Turns out he's not the only guy to get elected too early - Mel Ott, Carl Hubbell, and a couple others were too. There was a general concensus that you should wait until after a player retires to vote for him, but no general agreement as to how long he should be retired. Hence the 26 year mess of no "first ballot" inductees.

I've got Carter +87 career on defense

What the heck is the symbol in AROM's link?

Let's try that again.

http://home.comcast.net/~briankaat/catchers19572006.htm

Link

Then Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Kaat show up.

And according to Fran Healy...Jim Kaat is still showing up on the ballot!

Simmons was every bit as valuable an offensive player as Johnny Bench. If Bench had been a mediocre defensive catcher rather than a great one, would he be a "marginal" HoFer?

How was this not about Jim Edmonds?

I have problems with catchers making the hall who weren't good defensively. That's their primary value. The offense is a bonus.

A bonus? A PA or a HR by a catcher means just as much as one by a 1b. Like every other player, a catcher's primary value is how many runs he adds to his team or subtracts from the other team.

By your logic Piazza is a borderline HOFer.

Simmons was every bit as valuable an offensive player as Johnny Bench

In some senses, perhaps; but their careers had very different shapes. Bench had those huge RBI-title seasons; Simmons was more consistent at a lower level. Bench established that he was a significantly better hitter, but could not sustain that level every year, mostly due to the wear-and-tear that catchers are prey to. Bench would have a HOF argument if he'd been a first baseman all his career (like Gil Hodges, a similar hitter); Simmons less so.

Simmons was every bit as valuable an offensive player as Johnny Bench.

Huh? Bench beats him by OPS+. Then again, we all use OPS+ too much around here. Looking at other aspects of the game, Bench stole 68 bases with 43 caught steals. Simmons had 21 steals with 33 times caught. Ouch. Bench GIDPd 201 times, once every 43.1 PA. Simmons hit into 287 double plays (11th most all-time), once every 33.7 PA. And in that Big Red Machine, Bench should've come up with runners on more often.

Going back to sabermetric stats for a second, despite having a career 10% longer, Simmons only had 80% as many batting wins as Bench. Bench has a much better offensive winning percentage. They had about the same number of runs created, but Bench had more per game, despite playing in (slightly) better pitchers' parks than Simmons did.

Bench easily had the best single season of either one.

In Simmons's defense, he has a six-point lead in OBP based on an 18 point lead in batting average. And . . . . . um, he hit 13 more RBIs in his career. . . he struck out a whole lot less and got HBP twice as often. . . . Simmons had a great offensive prime, from 1975-80. He created 17.3 batting wins. Bench's best offensive prime was 16.2. . . but that's about it: best six year prime he has a slight lead, and he was better at batting average.

I ain't seeing it, DCW3.

A little off the subject of who has the better offensive force, Bench had a 227 point advantage in post-season OPS.

A bonus? A PA or a HR by a catcher means just as much as one by a 1b. Like every other player, a catcher's primary value is how many runs he adds to his team or subtracts from the other team.

By your logic Piazza is a borderline HOFer.

Piazza's kind of a special case though, since he's such a good hitter that he's arguably the only catcher who would be a Hall of Famer even if he wasn't a catcher. I don't think even Bench would be a Hall of Famer if he put up the exact same numbers playing first base.

Catcher is the most valuable defensive position, and it's one of the very few positions you can be considered a valuable player even if you're not a very good hitter. So I think it's reasonable to have a higher defensive standard for catchers in the Hall than "go get em".

Piazza's defensive sucktitude was based on his bad arm anyway, he was pretty good at calling a game and keeping balls in front of him. If he wasn't good at that, someone would have surely put him at first base to save his knees.

Well, this is what I wrote when Simmons came up for the Hall of Merit:

On offense, Simmons is remarkably similar to Johnny Bench with a few lousy years added on. Bench had 8669 career PAs with a 126 OPS+. Simmons had 9685 PAs with a 118 OPS+. But take away Simmons's dreadful 1984 season and the three years he spent as a bench player with the Braves at the end of his career, and he has 8686 PAs with a 123 OPS+ (and a better OBP than Bench). That still gives a small advantage to Bench, but Simmons would probably get a little positional boost in that comparison that would narrow the gap somewhat--in his bad years, he rarely caught, so, excluding them, he spent a higher percentage of his career games at catcher than Bench did. Simmons never had a season with the bat like Bench's 1972, but outside of that season, his offensive peak is at least as good as Bench's.

If you remove 1984 and 1986-88 from Simmons's record, he's got 25.0 batting wins vs. 26.8 for Bench in almost the exact same number of PAs (and Simmons would still have a small positional advantage). So, "every bit as valuable" may have been a slight exaggeration, but it's very close.

In some ways the debate over whether I should have used the word "marginal" for Simmons reinforces the point I was trying to make in #5. However strong you consider his qualifications, he is a HoM/not HoF player - as are also Torre and Freehan. In fact, we elected Simmons, Torre, and Freehan fairly easily (Simmons first ballot, Torre second ballot, Freehan fourth ballot), while Bresnahan (who is HoF) took 80 years of debate. My point is that we think those four do belong - and Carter was better. (Simmons and Torre were better offensive players than Carter, but defense and "catcher bonus" change the order - Simmons wasn't all catcher, and Torre had some of his best years at other positions.)

For "submarginal" you'll have to check out the HoF/not HoM catchers, such as Ray Schalk or Rick Ferrell.

As for Keenan's offhand remark about Carter - yes, he should be slammed for it.

As a specific response to Dag Nabbit's post: yes, I do see Bench as a clearly better offensive player than Simmons (and Simmons a better offensive player than Carter), for reasons closely related to the ones Chris cited. I see Torre as a better offensive player than Bench, but Torre was only half a catcher, and nowhere close to Bench on defense. I see Gene Tenace as a better offensive player than Simmons and not that far behind Bench - but, like Torre, Tenace was also only half a catcher.

So you if remove Simmons's worst seasons and compare them with Bench's entire career . .. aw, you can't do that. You want to take out his bad seasons? Let's make it fair - Bench had a terrible rookie season, and was below his last two years. Take them out, and 28.1 batting wins vs 25.0 for adjusted Simmons.

Also, Bench only caught 32 games in those years while playing over 40% of his games at other positions. Whatever small positional advantage Simmons had just disappeared.

Bench was just plain better.

So you if remove Simmons's worst seasons and compare them with Bench's entire career . .. aw, you can't do that.

Why not? Simmons still has more PAs than Bench even if you remove those seasons. Let's say that, instead of retiring in 1983, Bench had stuck around for 1000 more PAs as a 1B/DH with a 73 OPS+ (which would correspond to what Simmons did in his worst years). Terrible, sure--but would it make him any less of a Hall of Famer?

So you if remove Simmons's worst seasons and compare them with Bench's entire career . .. aw, you can't do that.

Why not?

If I remove Player A's bad seasons from his career, and compare them to Player B's entire career including bad seasons . . . you've just made a crud comparison. It's apples and orange.

If you take out his at bats where he didn't get hits, and look at the remainder, Scott Servais smokes all these guys.

If Bench had played those extra seasons like I outlined in #49, would it have made his career less valuable or not?

Piazza's kind of a special case though, since he's such a good hitter that he's arguably the only catcher who would be a Hall of Famer even if he wasn't a catcher.

Piazza and Josh Gibson.

I don't think even Bench would be a Hall of Famer if he put up the exact same numbers playing first base.

Move Bench's offense onto my first base list and I have him a hair ahead of Gil Hodges and a hair behind Don Mattingly, and I have Hodges a notch or so ahead of Ron Fairly, Cecil Cooper, and Steve Garvey. But there are some non-HoF first basemen well ahead of that: Boog Powell, Keith Hernandez, Norm Cash, and way out in front of them, Will Clark.

So I agree that with the exact same numbers, he's probably not a HoF first baseman - but somewhere among Garvey, Mattingly, and Hodges does at least attract a little attention. The kicker is that he probably would have hit better as a 3rd/1st baseman. (See the career of Joe Torre for hints about how that might work.)

I know the discussion is long since over, but now that I'm back home and I have my spreadsheets, I wanted to bust this out. Here's the RCAP I have for Bench and Simmons for each year of their careers:



That last row is each player's career RCAP, excluding all below-average years for each. As a comparison, here's Gary Carter:

It just occurred to me, because of the mention of Josh Gibson, that if we didn't have reliable stats for Jim Rice, we'd be forced to think he must have been a really great player from all this anecdotal evidence. I know we have reasonable Negro League equivalencies, but it's a bit troubling.