Of course, there are complications, like who was batting behind Rice

That's a big complication.

I wonder though, who were the players most often pitched to after someone else received an intentional walk?

In 1978 Rice was the most feared hitter in the game, he also had Yaz batting behind him- Yaz was coming off a 28 homer 102 ribbie season, and was widely seen as a future HOFer, and though clearly in decline was still a more effective hitter than the collection of crap that batted behind Bonds in 2004 (AJ Pierzinski, Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Feliz... (Giant 5th place hitters batted .255/.317/.389 in 2004- Bonds was intentially walked 120 times- that's a crime- Sabean should have been fired back then- the league average 5th hitter batted .281/.356/.478).

I don't think this kind of approach is tremendously productive. If you explore the assertion that Rice was the "most feared hitter in the game" at one time, the better approach seems to research what people in the game were writing and saying at Rice's peak -- not an easy task, but I'm sure a few days of even searching through the Sporting News archives at PaperofRecord.com could shed some light on the subject.

This kind of subjective assertion isn't subject to a Rob Neyer-style "Tracer," where one can spot something specific in the statistical record or in a boxscore and proclaim, "Aha, that's bunk!" Instead, if one is unfamiliar with how Rice was regarded at the time, it seems necessary to call upon the opinions of people who observed him at the time to confirm or refute that claim of his stature, or else to note that most-feared-hitter is a nice title to hold but ultimately not outcome-determinative for Rice's HoF candidacy (or shouldn't be).

How about creating a stat called "fear points" based on the hitter behind you when you get walked? Bonds gets next to no fear points for being walked ahead of BenGIDP Molina, but Schmidt gets a few for being walked in fron of Luzinski, Rice for being walked in front of Yaz. We can also deduct fear points when the guy in front of you is walked. Maybe not much of a penalty to Garret Anderson for Vlad being walked in front of him, but if GA gets walked intentionally, that's a penalty for whoever the Angels bat 5th. Handedness has to be an issue too.

DD, check out the NYT archives. Murray Chass had an article about Rice that talks about his strength, long goplf drives, tape measure shots in BP and such. Boswell also had an article around 77 or 78 but I don't know how many folks have access to that one.

Jim Rice ... was widely regarded as the dominant hitter in baseball, or “The Most Feared Hitter in the Game” for most of his career, 1975-1986.

These aren't the same thing. I don't think that Jim Rice was ever regarded as "the dominant hitter in baseball" outside of 1978. That's not exactly what people meant when they talked about Rice being "feared".

I wonder though, who were the players most often pitched to after someone else received an intentional walk?

I'll answer this question with another;
Who did the Giants put behind Bonds most often this decade?

Who did the Giants put behind Bonds most often this decade?

Victor Conte with an injection?

After 1979 or so I know that the Brewer staff, which wasn't any great shakes, respected Rice but didn't fear him. Everyone knew that if you got him to pull one on the ground it was a double play.

I know that Rice's homer total against Milwaukee was one of his lower totals in over 700 plate appearances. And while his rate stats against the Brewers look solid I am confident the bulk of that performance was done before 1980. I can remember too many times Jimmy killing a Red Sox inning against the Crew in 1982, etc.

It was George Brett who got walked in the bottom of the 9th with nobody on base in the AL during the 80's. Not Jim Rice.

Getting walked with nobody on, or with the bases loaded should get lots of bonus points. Like a triple word score in scrabble or something.

Is calling Rice "The Most Feared Hitter in Baseball" being held in the proper context here? IMO, pitchers didn't necessarily fear that Rice might get a hit his next at bat, but feared that he might hit a line drive up the middle and kill them! Just my two cents worth.

No question that during the core of Rice's career that George Brett in the AL and Mike Schmidt in the NL were far more feared, speaking as a Blue Jay/Expos fan during that era. Rice I always saw as a very good hitter but never as being in the Brett class. Figured he'd go to the Hall back then (along with others like Mattingly and Strawberry) but when he retired with under 400 HR I figured that was that for his HOF shot. Guess I was wrong.

Are we calling Rice "The Most Feared Hitter in Baseball" in the proper context here? IMO, pitchers didn't fear him as in he might get a hit his next at bat. No, pitchers feared him for the fact that he might hit a line drive up the middle and kill them! Just my two cents worth.

BTW, I used to think the same about Harmon Killerbrew as a kid

Damn...double post

The period where Rice really had a claim as "the most feared hitter in baseball" was the late '70s. I agree that Brett was clearly more feared in the 1980's, but in the late '70's, it went the other way. My guess is that most people's memories around here are from the '80s, not the '70s when Rice was at the top of his game.

Take Milwaukee, since Harvey raised it. I can understand if Brewers pitchers didn't fear them in the 1980's, but if they didn't fear him in the 1970's, they should as hell should have. That's From 1977 to 1979, the three years prior to Harvey's comment, Rice's batting average was .428 against the Brewers. I'm guessing they weren't thrilled when he was coming to the plate.

The period where Rice really had a claim as "the most feared hitter in baseball" was the late '70s. I agree that Brett was clearly more feared in the 1980's, but in the late '70's, it went the other way.

From 1975 through 1979, again removing 8th place hitters, Rice was 42nd in IBB.

From 1975 through 1979, again removing 8th place hitters, Rice was 42nd in IBB.

But managers thought about walking him far more often than that.

We know this, and know that it's important, because Dan Shaughnessy told us so.

Diz:

And while his rate stats against the Brewers look solid I am confident the bulk of that performance was done before 1980.

Thanks for the added validation. Rice was impressive before 1980.

And then he wasn't.

The more the Rice advocates write and speak the more foolish they appear. It's becoming somewhat laughable.

Personally, I think Rice is the last gasp for the "But he was" this crowd. Because going forward too many fans AND writers will have a background in how to better assess a player's value. Rice's campaign is predicated purely on legend.

Facts have a nasty habit of exposing legends to being mortal.

The more the Rice advocates write and speak the more foolish they appear. It's becoming somewhat laughable.

Personally, I think Rice is the last gasp for the "But he was" this crowd. Because going forward too many fans AND writers will have a background in how to better assess a player's value. Rice's campaign is predicated purely on legend.

Facts have a nasty habit of exposing legends to being mortal.

Bingo.

I think pitchers "feared" notching only one out and not two.

I normally like THT, but this article is pointless. IBBs, as JPWF13 and others pointed out, are a product of who is batting behind you. With a loaded Red Sox lineup, Rice didn't get walked much. If you put a guy like Manny in the Giants' awful lineup in '08, he'd get a ton of IBBs. Does that make him a better hitter?

What bugs me is the same writers complaining about all of the juiced HRs since the 1990s still look at the stats from the 1970s and 1980s, and don't have a clue as to who are the "best players".

The writers seemt to get the "slam dunk" cases like Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan, etc, but not the guys who were the best at their positions, best in the league, etc, but didn't manage to get 3000 hits, 500 HRs, 300 wins etc. The HOF shouldn't be just about "round numbers". It didn't use to be that way (Jim Palmer got in, deservedly so). I've heard writers/announcers argue whether "if Pedro Martinez retired today, I don't think he'd be an HOFer".

Why do voters seem to prefer the Don Sutton, 20-ish very good years, to a Pedro who puts up nearly a decade of historically great years (plus some very good years, but not 20)...

Rice's greatness isn't at the "historic" level, but he was certainly one of the best from 1975-86. When I go to Cooperstown, I'd like to see the best players from my childhood inducted:

Jim Rice
Alan Trammell
Rich Gossage
Tim Raines
Orel Hershiser

plus some guys who aren't on the ballot:
Luis Tiant
Ron Santo

Would it be so awful to enshrine great players who didn't get those nice "round numbers"? In a way, I'm happy Palmiero got caught. He achieved those "round numbers", but no one ever considered him one of the "best in the game" (especially if you look at MVP voting, AS games etc).

Why do voters seem to prefer the Don Sutton, 20-ish very good years, to a Pedro who puts up nearly a decade of historically great years (plus some very good years, but not 20)...

I disagree that they do. Sutton went in, but not until after he sat on the ballot for a number of years, with people debating whether his 300 wins was enough to earn his ticket considering he wasn't what people consider great. Pedro, I suspect, will go in first ballot with or without getting to any career win milestones, but of course it's too early to say.

The argument of the anti-Rice voters is not about his failure to reach certain round numbers, but that we disagree he was one of the very best of that time period. Personally I prefer Andre Dawson and Dwight Evans. For the all-around game, not for any specific numbers.

I normally like THT, but this article is pointless. IBBs, as JPWF13 and others pointed out, are a product of who is batting behind you.

Agreed. Yet people in this thread still point to Rice's number of IBB from 1975 to 1979 as if it has any meaning at all. Rice batted before a hall of famer - you don't think that's going to influence IBB?

Almost all of us can agree that Rice is overrated by the main stream media, but the efforts of people to argue that he wasn't feared in the late 1970's is just absurd in my view.

It's not just his IBB, it's his BB.

Facts have a nasty habit of exposing legends to being mortal.

Or as the "modern" journalist said in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".

Almost all of us can agree that Rice is overrated by the main stream media, but the efforts of people to argue that he wasn't feared in the late 1970's is just absurd in my view.

It is absurd. A more logical tactic would be to say "so what"? I'd rather honor the players who did the most to help their teams win than those who were the most feared.

I'm sure nobody was ever afraid of Ozzie Smith, but again, so what?

It's not just his IBB, it's his BB.

Walks do not equal fear. Reggie Willets walks more often than Vladimir Guerrero. It has nothing to do with the level of fear, or respect. Its just an approach at the plate.

It is absurd. A more logical tactic would be to say "so what"? I'd rather honor the players who did the most to help their teams win than those who were the most feared.

This is fair. I think Rice was a hell of a player who did a lot to help his team win - but for only a short period of time (1977-1979), and there are a lot of players who are pretty damn good for three years. Fear is related to quality as a hitter, which is why people bring it up, but once again, Rice was only worthy of that fear for a little while.

I became a baseball fan in April 1979.
Jim Rice was by far the most feared hitter at the time and remained so for many years much more than Reggie Jackson or George Brett
Schmidt had a bad 1978 and hit for a low average so it took a while for him to gain respect

Rice didn't strike out that much and looked rather explosive at the plate
Being a black man with a moustache made him even more scary
Dave Parker had a similar persona in the NL

Dave Parker had a similar persona in the NL

Except when he was flailin' and bailin' at Steve Carlton's slider. It was a sight to see. You are right about Parker's persona, which made the confrontations with Carlton even more remarkable.
Parker was awesomely scary, for FBI's reasons plus he was monster-sized for that period.

Why do voters seem to prefer the Don Sutton, 20-ish very good years, to a Pedro who puts up nearly a decade of historically great years (plus some very good years, but not 20)...

Why the hell do you assume this? Sutton took 5 ballots to get elected. Koufax went in first time. Dizzy Dean took 10 ballots, but was elected the first time he would have been eligible under today's rules (he last pitched in 1947, got elected in 1953). Catfish Hunter, who didn't have anything like a decade of historically great years but was nonetheless a peak candidate, got in in three.

Pedro will get in first try, with over 90% support.

(27), (28)

Can't think of any player that is worthy of fear that struggled to have a career high on the order of 60 walks. Pitchers, coaches, opposing managers apparently didn't share the fear.

If Rice was "feared", wouldn't that evince itself in his late and close (and related) stats? Anyone have those handy?

All this talk about Rice being the most feared hitter in the game for three years makes him sound like his era's equivalent of David Ortiz. And not even Red Sox fans think David Ortiz is going to have a Hall of Fame case without at least five more overwhelming seasons, which is quite unlikely.

I've heard writers/announcers argue whether "if Pedro Martinez retired today, I don't think he'd be an HOFer".

I don't believe you. Any writers/announcers who think that do not have the power of speech.

Why do voters seem to prefer the Don Sutton, 20-ish very good years, to a Pedro who puts up nearly a decade of historically great years (plus some very good years, but not 20)...

They do not. See 22 and 30. Martinez will make it easily.

In my memory, Jim Rice hit the longest HR I ever saw. Yankee Stadium, 1984, I still say it went over the white facade in left field. They say no ball has been hit out of the Stadium, and I think a ball over that wall has to be out of the stadium. I guess a ball hit that far would also be at least 550 feet. Well, that's what I saw, what can I tell you.

I don't know if he deserves the HOF. Maybe not, but I won't be upset if he makes it.

Who did the Giants put behind Bonds most often this decade?

Victor Conte with an injection?

In the Billiard Room?

Who did the Giants put behind Bonds most often this decade?

Victor Conte with an injection?

In the Billiard Room?

With a double-headed Louisville Slugger?

I don't know if he deserves the HOF. Maybe not, but I won't be upset if he makes it.

It's how I feel about Dale Murphy and Dave Concepcion. I saw both and they're both borderline (and I tend to vote "No" on borderline cases).

I know Concepcion's numbers look pretty weak today, but at the time, he was one helluvan (heh) amazing player. His hitting was considered exceptional at the time.

He's definitely one of those players who garner a 'yes' on the Keltner List question about whether he was better than his (traditional) numbers might suggest. From 1973-82 he was 177 RCAP ... that's a terrific ten year run. A league average bat from a superb fielding shortstop for a full decade was exceptional back then.

Best Regards

John

BB-ref's lineups feature is such a nice thing. I had to look up the Giants in 1969 and 1970 when Willie McCovey was setting records for IBB. Mostly the really good and/or really famous other hitters in the lineup, such as Bonds or Mays, batted in front of McCovey. Behind him were guys like Jim Ray Hart, Ken Henderson, Dick Dietz, and Jim Davenport. Dietz was kind of OK in '69 and Henderson was pretty good in '70, but some of these guys were having bad years. Handedness also figures into this: Henderson (actually a switch hitter) was the only other lefty bat in the entire lineup. Presumably all of the RHP in the league said from the beginning of the game that McCovey was the one guy they didn't want to pitch to. (And they would have been right to say that. Go take a look to appreciate what kind of monster McCovey was.)

I always thought that Jack Clark, 1987, ranked very high on fear. His IBB total for the year was a mere 13, but the "UIBB" or "pitch around him" instances were extremely high. In particular, I remember the walks going up sharply after the all-star break. (OK, that's checkable. BB by month: April 13, May 23, June 26, July 41 (!), August 27, Sept. mostly hurt.) Clark was, of course, the only power threat of any kind in that lineup, and he was batting with lots of RISP and lots of open bases (thanks to SB). They were walking him to get to Willie McGee, who was hitting about like McGee usually hit. And McGee got 105 RBI from all of those opportunities.

Dietz was kind of OK in '69 and Henderson was pretty good in '70, but some of these guys were having bad years.

Some of those guys were indeed having bad years. But, dude: Dietz was freaking phenomenal in 1970, with an OPS+ of 152, and Henderson's that year was 129, which is more than "pretty good." And Henderson and Dietz were the #5 hitters in 137 games in 1970.

Who did the Giants put behind Bonds most often this decade?

Jeff Kent. Followed by Ray Durham, Benito Santiago, Edgardo Alfonzo, and Pedro Feliz.

-- MWE

OK, Steve - you know those teams a lot better than I do, and somehow I didn't even see the 1970 Dietz line. I missed that one. So even with decent "protection" in 1970, they still walked McCovey 137 times, 40 of them explictily intentionally (and probably many more UIBB). And well they should have.

It turns out that both Dietz and Henderson drew a ton of walks themselves, which would have passed some of the resulting RBI opportunities down to guys like Fuentes and Lanier who didn't do much with them. The team led the league in BB and in runs scored. (First in runs scored, last in runs allowed, and 16 games behind an early version of the Big Red Machine that didn't have a good 2B.)

Rice, for his career, hit .306/.373/.502 in high-leverage situations (LI of 2.0 or greater, 1067 PAs), which is a fairly typical performance for a hitter like Rice in such situations. However, from 1977-1979 (226 PA) he hit .380/.453/.690 in those situations, with 98 RBI - that's an impressive performance.

-- MWE