Updated ballot count.
This is it – my final tally. I’ve reached 120 ballots between published ones I found (with help from many folks, including the Tango and the indefatigable Repoz) and ones I gathered myself by talking to voters. That should push us up to around 20% of the total voting pool.
Without knowing whether or not there’s a skew to this sample, I’ll stick with what it tells us for predictions:
1. Goose Gossage will be elected to the Hall of Fame this year. He will be the only candidate elected.
2. If there are two players elected, the second one will be Jim Rice. However, it’s more likely that he will be elected in 2009 as he gains sympathy votes for his final year on the ballot.
3. Of the other players on this ballot, Blyleven, Dawson, and Raines will all eventually earn induction, but no one else will.
Also, my disclaimer: In response to a concern voiced in the comments by a Hall of Fame voter, let me emphasize that the totals below are a tally of published ballots and of ballots I have received from individual voters. It is not an official count.
As of 4:20 pm, Monday, 1/7:
| TOTAL | 120 | Pct |
| Gossage | 108 | 90% |
| Rice | 82 | 68% |
| Blyleven | 79 | 66% |
| Dawson | 79 | 66% |
| Morris | 58 | 48% |
| Smith | 44 | 37% |
| Raines | 42 | 35% |
| McGwire | 29 | 24% |
| Trammell | 29 | 24% |
| John | 22 | 18% |
| Concepcion | 16 | 13% |
| Murphy | 13 | 11% |
| Parker | 11 | 9% |
| Mattingly | 6 | 5% |
| Baines | 4 | 3% |
| Rose (write-in) | 2 | 2% |
Comments
102 Responses to “Updated ballot count.”
Leave a Reply
Keith-
I’m interested in your thoughts of Raines at 42% (not your thoughts his HOF candidacy–we know them).
For the sake of this inquiry, let’s say that the initial sample you’ve taken does truly represent all the ballots as a whole, and Raines does ultimately appear on roughly 42% of the ballots. Is this a number you are comfortable with as a first ballot number?
In other words, is 42% a decent enough number on the first ballot that it is reasonable to think he’ll eventually get in (as he obviously deserves to) at somepoint in the next X number of years? To me, it seems like 42% is a almost a little higher than I expected from the BBWAA members with a vote. Is it a stretch for me to feel at least a little bit encouraged that voters’ perceptions may be changing at least a little bit for the better?
Keith, I just read you most recent chat, and am now pondering your thoughts on Lou Whitaker. Is there anyway Selig or other higher-ups could demand an investigation into voters who said yes to white second basemen with stats inferior to “Sweet Lou” but somehow withheld support for Lou? And if racism is proven, 1) What recourse would Whitaker have? 2)Could these voters have their membership revoked? Thanks.
If I remember correctly, Ryne Sandberg had just 49% of the vote during his first year.
I’d guess that’s a pretty good base for him to eventually gain election. He’s got 14 years to convince another 33% of the voters that he deserves to be elected, and a good portion of that 33% is simply withholding their votes because they don’t think Raines is a “first ballot” Hall of Famer.
Plus within another 14 years, you’d think the BBWAA would add more sophisticated voters who would more properly appreciate Raines than the current membership does.
My guess is that 42% would be a positive sign for him.
I know most of Keith’s readership doesn’t believe Dawson is a Hall of Famer, but from my biased Cubs fan perspective, I really like that he appears to be getting solid support.
I’d love it if he finished with 70% in this balloting.
Blyleven started out under 20%, so there’s precedent for players starting low to jump up close to election. And I think Raines will get a bump next year as a non-first-timer.
IIRC, Gary Carter started lower than 40% and eventually made it in.
If Gwynn and especially Brock are “obvious” first ballot Hall of Famers, I don’t see how you keep Raines out. The arguments against Raines seem to be:
- didn’t reach 3000 hits (this is because he could draw a walk – he actually has more ToB than either Gwynn or Brock, and the second most of anyone eligible and not in the Hall)
- had a career BA of “only” .294 (same thing – .040 higher career OBP than Brock, .003 lower than Gwynn)
[...] So far, in the real voting, it looks like Goose Gossage is going to be the only player elected. See here for Keith Law’s tally of real ballots (and here for an older post by Law with more info.) I can’t believe Raines is so low, with just 40% of the vote. [...]
Certainly not suggesting that African-American candidates like Whitaker don’t suffer from a measure of racial bias . . . there may also be some 2B bias. Bobby Grich is another classic example.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_scott_boras_ego_has_yet_to_recover_from_.html?page=2
This is a link to a column by the NY Daily News’s John Harper. His votes are: Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, and Dave Concepcion. Don’t know if you’d seen this one. Love the blog!
Bogus arguments?!? Shocker……
Keith, this is enjoyable work by you, canvassing the ballots announced in print — but if your results are accurate enough, the Hall may promptly (in Hall terms — like, another five years) start requiring voters to embargo their ballots prior to the official press release, because if this IS accurate, you’re stealing Jane’s thunder and she won’t like that.
Bummy, perhaps 2b has been a position that has been unfairly ignored. But my question remains: If you can detect some inconsistencies amongst the voters, what sort of recourse would these players have, and to what sort of penalties would the writers face? If players like Rose and Jackson can be penalized for actions which ” stained” the game, surely you could (should) expect that writers encounter some degree of scrunity, right?
Keith…I also sent this over to Chris Jaffe. It was my 2005 early HOF ballot count. 94 were gathered.
Last year there was well over 100, but that included a mess of partials with voters giving their McGwire take and not completing the rest of the ballot.
Baseball Primer % on left/player/actual HOF % on right
75.5% – Sutter (76.9%)
72.3% – Gossage (64.6%)
62.7% – Dawson (61.0%)
59.5% – Rice (64.8%)
50.5% – Blyleven (53.3%)
44.6% – L. Smith (45.0%)
41.4% – J. Morris (41.2%)
22.3% – T. John (29.6%)
17.0% – Trammell (17.7%)
15.9% – Garvey (26.0%)
Repoz – thanks. Were all of these ballots published by the writers? Mine is a mix, probably 50/50, of published and emailed.
I don’t see any absolute gap greater than John’s 7.3; my current tally (92 ballots) doesn’t have anyone within 8 points of 75% in either direction.
As a voter, I am curious where these so-called “early returns” are coming from. I’m assuming this is an inexact canvas, since I’m certain no one has seen the actual ballots other than the BBWAA recording secretary. I do think it is somewhat misleading for people to think these numbers are “official” and would be interested in hearing an explanation. Thanks.
Jim: I’ve never referred to any of these tallies as “official” or “early returns” (scare quotes are particularly inappropriate, since I never used that phrase myself). More than half of the ballots included in this tally have been published by the voters themselves in their print or online columns. The remainder I received via email from the voters themselves.
“Were all of these ballots published by the writers? Mine is a mix, probably 50/50, of published and emailed.”
Keith, For the 2005 ballot above…I’d say just about all of them were “public ballots”.
Last year’s mess (I collected over 60 ballot articles that were mostly Pro/Con McGwire bits) included a few emailed into me from voters. I’m still combing through them (damn off-season moving!), but I had over 100 total last year.
Let me put it this way. Of non-active players who would you want as your closer? Of active players only Rivera surpasses him. The second best closer of all time doesn’t belong in the hall? Of course he does. If Fingers and Sutter, two very good but clearly lesser players, get in then Goose has gotta go in!
But Rice? C’mon, the guy was a terrible fielder, hit into more double plays than any other player in baseball over his career, and his teams won nothing. Compare him with Reggie Jackson and he falls far short. Compare him with Roy White….. White was a gold glover, had excellent speed, hit .290 with 90 RBI’s for those terrible Yank teams of ’69–75. Yes Rice was a great slugger, but he was more an Albert Belle than a Reggie Jackson. Does Belle belong in the hall? Nope, neither does Rice. Think about that.
Something of note, based on career stats:
Player A: .298/.352/.502 – OPS+ 128
Player B: .307/.358/.471 – OPS+ 127
Player A: 1 MVP 0 Gold Gloves
Player B: 1 MVP 9 Gold Gloves
Player A: Jim Rice
Player B: Don Mattingly
Now before you accuse me of being a blind Yankee fan/Don Mattingly lover (which of course I am), I just want to say that I do NOT think Donnie Baseball belongs in the Hall. I just find it odd that one guy is gonna get voted in on about 65% of ballots, while another would be lucky to be on 10%.
[...] But this is all a moot point when it comes to Tram’s chances anyways. Tram has been hovering in the teens since being on the ballot and actually saw his numbers at their lowest in 2007 when he only had 13.4% of the vote. My hope was that with a weak ballot he could have maybe gained some steam and broken the 30% mark. However, Keith Law’s unofficial tally has him improving, but only to 22%. [...]
Had to step in and defend Rice. First of all Mat you can put any numbers together you want(Rice backers are also good at it) but you can not compare Donnie Baseball to Rice in the manner in which you attempted. First of all by the time Don was just starting out Jim had already had his monster seasons. Therefore while they might of played against each other for a few seasons They are from different eras. By the time 87 came along A crazy long ball season Rice was all but done. I think players a (ton of them) such as Dale Suevm hit 30 or more HR. It was a joke. Take a look at league leaders from 76,77,78,79 Hardly anyone hit 30 if some one did it usually was Rice. Who cares about GG at 1b Palmero one one while not even playing there. K. hernandez,W.Montanez,M.Grace great defensive 1B with little power for the position.= no hof support. You can not hit 220 HR for a career and get in to the hall as a firstbaseman. There is only one way to play first base and that is swing that bat and Don did not do it well enough for long enough.
The Raines vs Rice logic is also stupid. Lets starting comparing players that played in the same era. I also read somewhere that M. alou was Rices equal.I dont care what the juiced ball/player stats say they can not be compared. Alou would hit about 18 hr if he played in the 70′s and Rice would hit about 45 if he played today.
In response to the Reggie comparison. Rice was a much better hitter. Reggie was a .260 hitter.Rice was also not a great fielder but worked hard to make himself an adequate fielder. I believe top 3 in all of baseball is assist over a 16 year period. Sure the g. Monster helped but you can not take it away from him. He did make those throws. Saying that Rice was a terrible fielder is not accurate. The double play stat is also crazy. It is what happens when you hit the ball hard often with men on base. Yaz is also high on the dp list but somehow gets no grief. Reggie on the other hand hit air more often than not and struk out almost 2,600 times. That being said Reggie is a deserving HOF player. he was money when it counted. Rice should be a HOF as well. Rice vs Roy White is so silly it does not even merit a response.
Matt, just for the heck of it, I’ll add in that Bill James also ranked Mattingly as the 12th greatest first baseman in MLB history in his Historical Baseball Abstract, ahead of a number of HOFers. I don’t think he’s a HOFer either, but I always throw his name into the discussion once I start hearing other marginal players mentioned.
cmorgan, I had the opportunity to see both Rice and Reggie play, and Reggie was the feared hitter because he was the more dangerous.
If Reggie had played his entire career in Fenway, and Rice had played his career in Oakland and New York, who would have had the higher BA? Rice was a lifetime .277 hitter away from Fenway, while Reggie was a lifetime .268 hitter on the road. Edge to Rice, but not as much as you’d think, and it ends there. Reggie is a much in all other areas.
Rice’s greatness was a product of Fenway. Reggie hit everywhere. Of his 563 career HRs, 280 were hit at home, 283 on the road. Playing in Oakland and NY for the bulk of his career depressed his career statistics by quite a bit beyond the HRs. During his five years in NY, he hit 66 HRs at Yankee Stadium, and 78 HRs on the road. His batting average was higher on the road, all of his key stats were higher away from the Stadium. And for his career, he hit 33% more doubles on the road than in his home park, because once again, NY and Oakland are not good hitters’ parks.
Now, imagine if Reggie didn’t play in parks that hurt his hitting, or even if he was lucky enough to play in a neutral park, but take that one step further and imagine if he played in a great hitter’s park, like Fenway, which increases offensive production by 20-25%. His numbers would be off the charts.
That’s the problem with Rice’s candidacy. He DID play her career at Fenway, and his final stats just aren’t that great. I don’t hold it against Rice that he had great stats at Fenway, because that should be expected, but if he was truly a great hitter, he wouldn’t be a .277/.330/.459 hitter on the road, compared to .320/.374/.546 at home. That’s a difference of 131 points in OPS (920 vs. 789).
Reggie’s four best seasons are better than Rice’s baased on OPS+.
Reggie:
189 (1969)
172 (1980)
166 (1974)
161 (1973)
Rice:
157 (1978)
154 (1979)
147 (1977)
141 (1983)
It’s even worse for Rice is if you expand their best seasons out to 140 OPS+ Reggie had ten such seasons, Rice had those four, and as we see, Reggie’s four best easily eclipse Rice’s. Reggie also produced those over a thirteen year period, showing dominance over a period of time, where Rice pretty confined it to six years, and really just three years, his peak.
The problem with these discussions is I find myself picking on the merits of good hitters, which Rice certainly was. Yet he wasn’t as good as many think, while Reggie was actually BETTER than most realize. As much as Rice was helped by where he played, Reggie was hurt.
There is no comparison. Reggie was a much better, and much more dangerous hitter than Rice.
I also saw both of them play and we will have to agree to disagree. Let me state again that I think Reggie is a deserving HOF member. Fenway does not increase offensive production by 25% come on! 15 % at best in some categories. But if you did see Rice you know that he did not hit cheap HRs. over the G. Monster. His power was to all fields and Fenway is very deep to center and right. (Except for right down the line in Rt.) If anything I would argue that the Monster robbed Rice more often. He hit many rockets off that wall that were singles or doubles that would of been HR elsewhere.
I can not blame a player for the ballpark in which he played. Rice was drafted by and played his entire career with the Red Sox. He was no mercenary.He was also many times the only African American on the Sox roster and faced the challenges of playing in Boston. Read Howard Bryants book Shut Out and you will get a sense of what he faced.
Reggie did play in NY with a very very short porch in right.Also in 21 seasons on many world champion and league championship teams Reggie had just 6 100 RBI seasons. Rice did it 8 times in 16 years. Reggie also struck out more than 100 times 13 seasons in a row and if it was not for the strike in 81 it would have been 19 in a row. Dont tell me that the batters hitting background for picking up the ball was poor where Reggie played because that streak included his stops in OAK, Balt,Ny and Cal. Reggie was one hell of a player and an even better Self Promoter. I think it was Catfish that said that the Reggie candy bar is the only one that tells you how good it is when you open the wrapper.Rice never had the Pr skill. Rice was the Frank Thomas of his time combining power and avg. Reggie was a winner. In my mind they are both deserving
“Rice was the Frank Thomas of his time combining power and avg”
I trust you are talking about the white Frank Thomas…because his numbers are a lot closer to Jim Rice’s than Rice’s are to the other Frank Thomas.
OPS+
107 – Frank Thomas (.266/.320/.454 – 774)
128 – Jim Rice (.298/.352/.502 – 854)
157 – Frank Thomas (active) (.303/.421/.561 – 982)
Rice was the Frank Thomas (active) of his Time.During Rice’s era he was like Thomas a power /avg guy.You HAVE to compare players to the players of Their time. Of course the Big hurts numbers wil dwarf Rice’s because of the contex of era.If you were to take 5 years of jims era and compare them to five of the Hurts it is shocking. From 1975 thru 1979 there were ecactly 0 70 hr seasons(by any player)0 60 Hr seasons 1 50 hr season and 6 40 HR seasons 47 30 hr seasons.In the years 98 through 2002 by comparison there were 2 70 hr seasons 4 60 seasons 5 fifty and 53 40 hr seasons and 130 times a player hit 30. A 40 or more hr seaon was accomplished 7 times compared to 64 times. It was a much different time!
During his time over a 12 year period Rice led ALL AL players in 12 different offensice categories including HR RBI Total Bases Slugging % Runs and Hits. When a player leads his league in just about every offensive category for a dozen years that is domination. If you include NL players (which makes no sence to me because Rice only played against them in All star games)Rice still leads in 5 categories and finishes second in eight others. In contex of his era he is a HOF player.
Numbers can be worked in many ways to prove an arguement but in no way can you compare the big hurt or Frank thomas of the 50′s and 60′s( Fine player but Never led his league in anything) to rice. They played in different eras under different conditions and the numbers do not translate. Does anyone think that Yaz had no power because he only hit 30 or more hr 3 times. Or that he was not a good hitter because he won a batting title hitting .301 in 68. Different time different numbers. It is about time for the stars of the late 70s early 80s to get some respect.
Frank Thomas, the real one, is a monster because of his super-high OBP. Walks is part of the “Hidden Game” that people gloss over, much too often. Making no mention of his walk total is ignoring an enormous benefit.
Batting average should never have been invented.
Thanks for accumulating this data, Keith. Since this post has moved off the home page, it may not be a bad idea to bump the thread up a bit.
Keep in mind that this is Rice’s penultimate year on the ballot. I suspect that he will come up short this year (as the data indicates), but will make it next year as some voters will feel pity as it would be his last chance. That, of course, is an absurd reason to vote for someone. That being said, unless you are a voter that advocates a very large Hall, the fact that anyone votes for Rice now is absurd.
Tangotiger
You missed my point. Frank Thomas (Big Hurt) is a first ballot no doubt about it hall of famer. But he and Rice played in different eras. I brought him into the discussion to point out that Rice wsa no Dave Kingman, Greg Nettles, Gorman Thomas,etc (typical 70s hr/rbi league leader that did not hit for avg.)He was a frank thomas type player of his era. Also the importance of a walk can be debated. Sometimes having a big lumbering slugger walk and than requires 3 base hits to score has litle value.In todays game where the 6 through 9 hiters can all hit the ball out of the park of course it is important but in Rices day those hitters were usually not .300 hitters with power like you see today.It was the middle of the order slugger who the offense looked to. (by the way the other frank thomas was a very good ball player and was in fact very real)
Phil D. I am wondering where are all of these players are going to come from in your theroy of a very large hall. Many of the 80′s stars have been ignored and the 90′s players have the steroid taint to their name,. See big mac. Anyone who refuses to vote in rice after comparing him to the players of his era is absurd.
#30:
I am not advocating a large Hall personally. Like most, I feel a player should have to be as good as the average HOFer (or so) to qualify.
That being said, if one were to argue in favor of a (reasonably) lower standard, I can respect that argument. Only under such a lower standard can Rice qualify. Of course, if you vote for Rice as part of a large Hall argument, you are compelled to also support Gossage, Dawson, Trammell, Murphy and John at a minimum. Everyone should support Blyleven and Raines, no matter what standard you advocate.
Jim Rice and the current player Frank Thomas are both African-American. Similarities end there.
Thomas’ career OBP to date is .421. Rice’s was .359. That is not a difference in eras. It is a difference in abilities.
c morgan, do you understand that OPS+ adjusts for eras? Comparing the Mattingly “era” to the Rice “era” as you have is meaningless.
Ronaldo
See above list of rice domination of alost every offensive stat during his playing time.I find that anything but meaningless. That is over a 12 year period. Don was great. But did not come close to dominating over 8 not to mention 12 seasons. That is the reason that Jim will probably get 70% of the vote and don will be in the 10% range. Don would have had a better showing if had not hurt his back and Rice would be in if he played one more year. Rice dominated his Era and Don was on a pace to and got hurt.
C Morgan, just wondering who you think is the better all-round player, Dawson or Rice?
Phil
Whose job is it to determine what an avg hofer is.There are hof players such as Kirby P. Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter, Gary Carter, Orlando Cepeda, you could go on and on that many believe can be compared to Gossage, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven,etc. I feel that way about those players. Why should one group get in when the other struggles to. They could get in without lowering any standards. Not everyone can be Babe Ruth or Hank Arron. The best players from each era should get in. Some players are blessed with long careers and compile stats Blyleven,Gossage,Yastrzemski,Brooks Robinson,Craig Biggio,Edie murray,Dave Winfield etc Whie others have shortened periods due to injury such as Sutter,Kirby Puckett,Sandy Koufax Ralph Kiner, Jim Rice,etc. Who is to say what group is more deserving? Anyone have any thoughts on Bobby Grich? he shuld have gotten more support . I also feel that luis tiant and catfish hunter were equals and thus both deserving.
Bob
I think that Dawson was a better all- round player but Rice was a better hitter. Dawson had the advantage of having a long career to pad his offensive stats. I believe that Dawson won 1 mvp and finished in the top 5 2 other times. Rice one one mvp and finished in the top 5 five other times.In my mind they are both HOF players. Dawson has many more years on the ballot and will gain momentum in coming years and certainly when Rice either gets in or runs out of time. Just like Gossage will now that suter is out of the way. Carlos beltran and Grady sizemore are better all-round players than Manny Ramirez and Albert Pujos but that does not mean that Manny and Albert are not Hof Players. Ralph Kiner is in the HOF and so is Ozzie Smith. I Know that many do not share my opinion of Rice and Dawson but they were 2 of the best during their time and should get in. Time is almost out for Rice. I will leave one more Rice fact to try to sway his doubters(just kidding. I know that is not going to happen) Among all major league retired players eligible for the hall only 9 have compiled as high a career Batting avg.(.298) and hit as many HR as Rice (that number will sky rocket with today’s juiced player) the nine are ruth, williams,aaron,foxx,gehrig,mantle,mays,and musial. You can harp about Fenway park all you want but he did it and it should not be diminished. thousands of players have played in Fenway,Wrigley,pologrounds shibe park(insert any park thought of as a band box you want)but only 10 palyers have done it and the other 9 are in.Rice certanly is the odd man in the group and is not of the caliber of those other 9 but who is?
I remember growing up watching Danny Tartabull, and he could really hit! He never hit a cheap home run, and was only grounding into double plays because he hit the ball so hard.
It’s easy to make claims that a player ‘looked great’ or ‘was a great hitter’, but you need to look at the real stats to understand if this was just spin doctoring or the truth. I do think the general opinion of a player should be considered when deciding who to induct in the HoF. The overriding factor should be a players performance as measured by stats, but I do think the perception of a player (i.e. their fame) should be considered on some level. To me, the HoF should basically be a history of the game, which factors in both the statistical nature of the game as well as the personality/’fame’ side. The problem is that by including this, the decision becomes completely subjective. Of course, it already is, so maybe its not a big change after all.
On a side note, Tartabull actually had a better career OPS+ than Rice (133 vs 128).
Chris
The baseball Hof is subjective. And I do agree that it should reflect baseball history to a degree that is why I believe Roger Maris should be in and while I am adding yankees Billy Martin great player and famous if not great manager.But you can not honestly compare Tartabull to Rice. Come on I dont care what the OPS+ is. Tartabull led the league in one category one time slg% in 91.And appeared in one all star game.
c morgan,
Those “dominant” stats are helped by Fenway park.
Look at Rice’s home/road splits, and explain them. Explain how someone so pedestrian on the road can deserve a spot in the Hall of Fame.
Keith, I just noticed Jim Henneman’s odd note. I say odd because you were quite clear on how these votes were being assembled. Makes me wonder if you have received any complaints from members of the BBWAA for trying to compile votes? Have you heard of any pressure/direction from the BBWAA to its members to not provide information to you? Obviously, any reporter who publishes his or her ballot in a news outlet can’t be stopped, but I’m curious if the BBWAA frowns on its members providing their indivudual votes to others.
It should be interesting to see how close your ballot count is to the final. I still have this feeling that there’s probably some like-voting segment you may not be tapping here that may cause Gossage’s, Blyleven’s and Raines’ percentage to decrease slightly, while Rice’s to increase slightly. We’ll see soon enough.
Ronaldo
As I stated earlier rice was the dominate player of his time. I dont care if rice played on the moon. His stats led the league over a 12 year period in almost every single offensive category! Last time I checked Fenway Park does qualify as a major league park. His accomplishments should not be taken away because of where he played. If so why dont we pull mel ott out of the hall. Take a look at those home/road splits. Or why dont we put every player who had to play in the astrodome into the hall. I am sure jose cruz, Terry puhl and bob watson would appreciate it. Rice bashers will never get it. We will have to agree to disagree.
C Morgan, thanks for opening up my mind. I can’t wait to push hard for Larry Walker, Dante Bichette, Andres Galarraga, and the rest of the 90′s Rockies. Should be good times. Good arguments.
“When a player leads his league in just about every offensive category for a dozen years that is domination.”
But in the age of free agency, when a player spends 12 years of his prime in the same league and we limit ourselves only to that stretch, he’s going to have a lot less competition for cumulative stat leaderboards. This is both because of players switching leagues and players whose careers don’t overlap perfectly (ie. Player A is a much better player than Rice, but is 3 years younger and only plays 9 of the chosen 12 years).
Alas, Dante Bichette was on the ballot last year and didn’t quite make it. Vinny Castilla and Ellis Burks are still up for consideration in the future. :p
Anyways, it’s discouraging to see Raines and Blyleven fall. I think Blyleven needs to finish with at least 60% if he has a shot of getting elected.
“I dont care if rice played on the moon. His stats led the league over a 12 year period in almost every single offensive category!”
Clearly you don’t understand the difference between being the dominate player of his time and having the dominate counting stats of his time.
You have contextualize these things. If I did play on the moon, that would not make me Hank Aaron. Rice should not get credit for being gifted with a very generous home environment. It doesn’t make him better as a player, it just inflates his numbers.
ESPN has posted their 15 ballots.
Gossage 100%, Rice 93% and Dawson 80%, were the only
three on 75% or more.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3177278
Keith, I just saw your colleague Jayson Stark’s ballot and it has several laughable features. He votes for 8 players, and still doesn’t vote for Trammell. That is ridiculous. His support for Rice features no statistical analysis.
The sentence that got me the most worked up however, was when he stated that Morris was the No. 1 pitcher on every team he played for. There is no basis in fact for a comment like that. In 1991, Erickson and Tapani were better, 1992 Guzman, Cone, Key were better, in 1993 he was the worst Jays starter, in 1994, his last year, he was the worst Indians starter. On the Tigers, there were also years they had better starters.
Keith, next time you see or speak to with Jayson, ask him about this comment. I thought he was above most of these lame brain arguments.
2 idiots still vote for Rose. Grow up. That argument is long over.
Revoke their ballot.
Interesting…McGwire’s pct. about same as last year.
I personally think winning an MVP and finishing in the top 5 Five other times makes him a dominate player. I guess all of the mvp voters were wrong. They could see the dominance. eventhough they hated Rice they voted for him anyway. If hitting at Fenway is so easy why did no other hitter or Rices era put up similar stats.
Is c morgan trolling? I am not sure whether it is the insistence that park effects don’t matter or the use of the phrase “dominate player” that gives it away. I’ll take the bait.
Why does where he placed in MVP voting matter? Are you unable to look up his statistics and evaluate them for yourself? Some of us don’t need to rely on the interpretation of a group of writers with a dubious track record at best when it comes to evaluating player value. The BBWAA gave Palmeiro a Gold Glove in a year he played less than 30 games in the field. Look at the 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2001 AL MVPs…the voters displayed a criminal lack of basic understanding of what makes a baseball player valuable.
Rice was overvalued during his career because people did not understand park effects or the importance of OBP fully. We now understand these factors better, why use votes from 30 years ago to evaulate him today?
Taken from Posnanski’s blog:
OPS+
Jim Rice (1975-86): 133
Fred Lynn (1975-86): 135 (worth nothing that these are the precise 12 years we’re talking about with Rice — he did not even have the best OPS+ among non-Hall of Famers on HIS OWN TEAM during that 12-year stretch).
“If hitting at Fenway is so easy why did no other hitter or Rices era put up similar stats.”
Fred Lynn at Fenway- .347/.420/.601-1.021
Jim Rice at Fenway- .320/.374/.546-.920
Lynn career OPS+ 129
Rice career OPS+ 128
When you factor in defense/base running.
Fred Lynn was the superior player…and he didn’t get a sniff of the HOF.
And Dwight Evans was basically the same hitter, only he fared better on the road and played for a lot longer. So right there in the Fenway outfield you’ve got two guys who put up Rice’s numbers in Rice’s era.
The MVP voters were wrong, but to be fair most people didn’t have a great understanding of the stats and what they meant back then(nor do they now obviously). And the same MVP voters are wrong again for having Rice close to the HOF in the two wrongs don’t make a right kind of way.
And I’d argue that Rice being a dick has actually helped his cause, since the whole “feared” thing is probably more a circumstance of writers being scared “crap”less of a mad black man in the 70′s. There are definitely no stats to back it up as Joe Posnanski clearly demonstrated in his blog.
The ESPN.com votes are a joke for the most part. It just shows that the Flat Earth Society members of the BBWAA still dominate at ESPN as well. It isn’t just how few vote for Raines and Blyleven (although he did receive 10), but how many vote for Rice, Morris and to a lesser extent, Dawson.
c morgan,
Juan Gonzalez won 2 MVPs, and finished in the top 5 two other times. Suffice to say anything you could say about how “feared” Rice was, you could apply it to Gonzalez as well. His counting stats are significantly inflated, relative to the peers of his day, by playing in Arlington, which is like Fenway in its effects.
Does Gonzalez belong in the Hall too? Because based on your arguments, the answer is yes.
i really hope mcqwire eventually makes it. i have no problem whatsoever if he roided. to me, it just means he sacrificed his body for the team.
Can I ask a basic question? What should the minimum threshold be regarding ops and the Hof. I am accepting the accuracy of sabermetrics over the outdated criteria ( .300, 400 homers etc)that has long been used to justify a vote. I can figure out starting pitchers, but I need a base with the hitters. Thanks for tolerating this remedial student.
Good for Gossage, he deserves to be in the hall. As for Jim Rice, I don’t think he is close but does not belong in the hall. Thanks for doing all the hard work!
Ronaldo
were you born after 1980. You must have been. Juan Gon was full of Roids and you know it. He will never get even 2% ov the vote. Nor should he. Rice was a clean player did not even get messed up in th coke problems of the 70′s early 80′s see Parker ,Raines,Molitor,Eckersley,the list goes on and on. character should count when determining hall credentials. This is America and everyone deserves a second chance but tha fact is if you are borderline and made mistakes you should not get the nod over a player who was borderline and a solid citizen. All of the players mentioned attoned for their mistakes but in the case of Parker and Raines it may keep them out. By the way 14 out of 15 espn writers with a vote voted for Rice. One last barb. The red sox would of never traded Rice for Gossage straight up at any time during Rices tenure nor would they of made the trade for sutter.Both Hall of famers or soon to be.(ok i will give you 88 89 when rice was just about done. sutter was as well.)
Ken Big mac sacrificed his body for fame and the almighty dollar.
Bill Dewey should of received more votes then he did. He was an amazing defender and great hitter.
c morg – maybe he did, but what do i care if it helps the team win games? now that they test, i want my players clean cause i dont want them suspended, but when there wasnt, why shouldnt i still support them after they put their health on the line to increase production?
and who cares about players doing coke? honestly. thats like 1000th on my list of things to care about. the fact that raines sought treatment and got clean and is an example to others means is a plus if anything.
as for rice, i dont know much about him but the numbers, since i was born after 1980, so i guess that means i dont think he should be in the HOF. what i find odd tho, is that ever rice supporter seems to be from boston, while everyone saying he is good just doesnt make the cut, has no reason to be bias.
Repoz
Correct me if I am wrong but did you take into account Rices entire career and just Fred lynn prime 75-809His red rox therefore fenway years). I think that you did therefore working the #. You can not just count Lynns prime against Rices prime and decline That is not a fair assement. While teammates. Therefore playing the same schedule. Rices numbers crush those of lynns. 73 more runs,180 more hits,72 more hr,26 more triples,148 more rbi, and even 4 more sb. lynn hit more 2b 45. Rice even stayed healthy enough to play 100 more games. I know lynn played hard therefore wad injured often. He is my all time favorite player.But those injuries cost him a shot an the hall. Rice was the superior offensive player head to head when comparing their Fenway careers in the proper contex.
I guess it shouldn’t bother me so much, but more and more it seems as if the BBWA is no longer qualified to vote on the Hall of Fame. I really wish the HoF would completely revamp its election system…perhaps by having voters selected by more meritorious qualifications, as opposed to membership in a trade group. The current system was set up for a time when games weren’t on TV and stats weren’t easily accessible. It’s time for the Hall of Fame to catch up with the times.
Bob,
I don’t have a numeric answer for you, but your post made me think of the coming era when borderline guys hang around an extra year or two hoping to reach that minimum OPS threshold. Hah!
Bobby Swift,
That just about nailed it. Well said.
I agree that the HOF needs to catch up with the times. In a game that is so statistically based when valuing players achievements, does it really make sense to have people with a/an english/literature/whatever based skill set to determine the merits of entry into the HOF. I think that’s part of the problem that has come up with the internet, that analytical people in other careers have an avenue to do the statistical analysis, which they can do much, much better because they that’s their backround or skill set. And the writers (or at least most of them) can’t handle this because it seems that writing fluff columns for 10-20+ years really jacks up ones ego (re. Bill Conlin) so they stay in their same old, wrong ways of valuing players. The fact that the BBWAA didn’t allow in Neyer or Keith shows how far off they are with reality and the new approaches to baseball discussion.
Good to see a DJF in the mix. Nice.
[...] Today is the scheduled announcement of the new inductees to Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame. JC Bradbury has a few comments on Mark McGwire getting left off a number of ballots. Keith Law has been keeping a running tally of published votes. The selection of retired players to the Hall, as well as active players for awards is fraught with controversy. Witness the choice of Frank Cooney for NFL MVP. [...]
Thanks John. I understand what you’re saying about English-types not being able to handle the mathematical heavy lifting required for statistical analysis, but not being able to do the actual calculations shouldn’t prevent anybody from being able to see the data and interpreting it rationally. I don’t really think you were exactly saying that anyway, but the thing about Conlin types isn’t necessarily that they don’t have the brain power to handle more intricate stats than they’re used to (though I might be willing to bet…), it’s more that they refuse to do it. Perhaps they figure it’s too late for them to embrace new ways of looking at the game. I imagine that for some people, especially those whose livelihood for decades has depended on their ability to analyse baseball, it’s got to be hard to come around to the idea that their whole careers are tied up in flawed statistics. That’s the kind of blow to the ego that a lot of people probably can’t handle– obviously. Anyway, considering the eligibility rules for Hall voters (10 years in the BBWAA), we’re still in for a long transition period as the dinosaur majority is slowly overtaken– hopefully that starts to happen in time for a deserving guy like Raines.
c morgan
“Rice was a clean player did not even get messed up in th coke problems of the 70′s early 80′s see Parker ,Raines,Molitor,Eckersley,the list goes on and on. character should count when determining hall credentials.”
1. One of the reasons Rice hasn’t made the HoF yet is because of his attitude with reporters of the time, who have HoF votes. Is a surly demeanor not part of your “character”, whatever the hell that means?
2. I’m not sure how you can say so confidently that Rice was a “clean player”, considering how ridiculously rampant amphetamines where in EVERY baseball clubhouse in the 70′s, 80′s, before, and after. Just because he didn’t take coke like Raines does not necessarily make him clean.
Perhaps The Beatles’ shouldn’t be in the R&R HoF because they took illegal drugs while writing/performing their music?
Yeah, I wasn’t indicating that they lack the brainpower but their job is to find and write good stories (not create new statistical analysis) and most seem threatened to accept new ideas that are from non-journalists. It doesn’t seem like it should be that difficult for writers to at least investigate the new stats that have been put out there and try to understand them. When you read stuff from, for example, Heyman at si.com that basically states that HOF credential should not be statistically based at all, they should lose credibility. And unfortunately since a guy like that is mainstream, the masses follow them.
Its like if I want to read a column that makes me feel like I went on a bender the night before, I go to your blog instead of keith’s. Doesn’t mean that Keith isn’t able to get drunk, but its not his strength. But he should be able to at least look at your columns and interpret accordingly.
[...] By most accounts, neither Tram nor Morris will be voted in this time around. (Nor will anyone else for that matter.) In time, though, Tigers fans can expect to see at least one of them enshrined. [...]
I am old enough to have experienced, first hand, baseball in the 70′s and 80′s. I only lived in Boston long enough to attend college. There were many great MLB players from this era that fans enjoyed and Jim Rice was clearly one of the most dominant. He belongs in the HOF. In considering statistics, one I find compelling is that Jim Rice was valued enough to consistently be among the highest paid players during his career. I understand that this is not a definitive argument, but the fact is that roughly two thirds of HOF voters believe he is hall worthy. I find it challenging to track with critics who summarily dismiss Jim Rice.
A snapshot of 1988 Salaries
Rank Player Salary
1 Carter, Gary $ 2,360,714
2 Smith, Ozzie $ 2,340,000
3 Schmidt, Mike $ 2,250,000
4 Rice, Jim $ 2,214,865 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
5 Murray, Eddie $ 2,142,904
6 Brett, George $ 2,138,661
7 Sutcliffe, R $ 2,070,000
8 Valenzuela, F $ 2,050,000
9 Clark, Jack $ 2,000,000
10 Mattingly, D $ 2,000,000
11 Murphy, Dale $ 2,000,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
12 Morris, Jack $ 1,988,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
13 Winfield, Dave $ 1,983,652 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
14 Bell, George $ 1,900,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
15 Dawson, Andre $ 1,900,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
16 Hernandez, K $ 1,850,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
17 Gibson, Kirk $ 1,833,333 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
18 Lynn, Fred $ 1,790,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
19 Molitor, Paul $ 1,775,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
20 Henderson, R $ 1,770,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
21 Sutter, Bruce $ 1,729,167 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
22 Guerrero, P $ 1,720,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
23 Ripken Jr., C $ 1,710,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
24 Boggs, Wade $ 1,700,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
25 Raines Sr., T $ 1,666,333 Â
Based on your salary argument then Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton should be in as well. I’m sold.
I think the biggest thing the Rice arguments (for & against) bring up is that valuation of players has been flawed in the past by writers, GMs, and, as an extension of those, the general public. Thus, its no surprise that Rice backers can never bring up why he should be enshrined based on “new” stats, only on “old” ones, which have in many cases been proven to misjudge a players value. Example, if you took a poll of what 2+2 equals and 2/3 said 5 because the poll was taken at a concert and the majority of your focus group was an acid, that doesn’t necessarily make it so does it.
As the previous posts went into, just because the BBWAA by and large is too lazy/ignorant/unintelligent/biased/old or Conlin (new term, i advocate it becoming part of the baseball vernacular) to look at advanced methods of statistical analysis doesn’t mean that the new stats are irrelevant but that the HOF voting is flawed.
If any Rice support can show me rate stats that take into account park effects that show Rice to be a HOF, I’m/we’re all ears.
So, Rice got 72.2% of the vote, which seems to add up to him getting in next year on his 15th (and final) attempt.
Robert – is that a joke? Jason Giambi will make more than David Ortiz next year, by a lot, does that make him a better player? It’s not like the stock market, where price somewhat indicates value in ‘real time’. A player’s on field production is obviously only one of many factors that goes into determining his salary. You conveniently ignored a few little factors like ‘multi-year contracts’ and ‘MLB service time’.
In 1998 Rice hit 15 HRs in 485 ABs and put up a ‘monster’ line of .264/.330/.406. Clearly, though, his ‘intangibles’ led him to be the 4th most valuable player in the league. I mean, look at his salary.
You probably find it challenging to argue with critics of Rice’s candidacy because you are wrong and have to cherry-pick statistics, take them out of context, and misinterpret them completely in order to support his candidacy.
Whoah, now. There’s a big difference between English/Literature majors and Journalism majors. The two don’t even use the same style (MLA vs AP). The BBWAA folks everyone rails against are j school guys, mostly. And, for what I’ve seen as a comp professor, and habitual reader, j school kids, by and large, can’t write.
But, in any case, I wanted to address something C. Morgan said earlier nn in this light. regarding park effect…: Or why dont we put every player who had to play in the astrodome into the hall. It would actually be interesting to look at a player like Jimmy Wynn to see why C. Morgan just hurt his case for Rice. Look at Wynn’s stats in the Astrodome, a ballpark that was undeniably an awful hitter’s park. We all know that Fenway helped Rice quite a bit. And we all know that the Astrodome hurt Wynn quite a bit. Wynn hit in an even worse era for offense than Rice, and nobody cares a whit for his HOF candidacy. Look, Rice simply isn’t as good as folks thought he was. He played in a huge market, put up high counting stats for a few years, and coasted off of his reputation for a long time. Even a mindless backer like C. Morgan has to acknowledge that the press can do a tremendous amount to help or hurt a player’s reputation. Look at the case of Kirby Puckett Vs. Albert “Don’t Call Me Joey” Belle. Both were execrable wife beaters, with demons out the wazoo. One smiled a lot on the field, and the other threw things at fans. One made the HOF, one didn’t. And the one who didn’t actually put up much better numbers. Rice benefits more from the writer’s who worship his “most fearsome presence” than from any actual dominance. He was a great generational player. He was not an all-time great. He deserves a spot in our memories, but not in the HOF.
Only two typos in that post. I give myself a B+… Keith: your color scheme makes links blend in, and leads me to say that the look of this page is “all art, no function.” Maybe the green color to the right would be better for links…?
So how does your count compared to the actual vote?
120 votes counted, 546 votes total (22%)
Gossage: 90% vs. 86% actual (+4% difference)
Rice: 68% vs. 72% actual (-4% difference)
Blyleven: 66% vs. 62% actual (+4% difference)
Dawson: 66% vs. 66% actual (0% difference)
Morris: 48% vs. 43% actual (+5% difference)
Smith: 37% vs. 43% actual (-6% difference)
Raines: 35% vs. 24% actual (+11% difference)
McGwire: 24% vs. 24% actual (0% difference)
Trammell: 24% vs. 18% actual (+6% difference)
John: 18% vs. 29% actual (-11% difference)
Concepcion: 13% vs. 16% actual (-3% difference)
Murphy: 11% vs. 14% actual (-3% difference)
Parker: 9% vs. 15% actual (-6% difference)
Mattingly: 5% vs. 16% actual (-11% difference)
Baines: 3% vs. 5% actual (-2% difference)
Everybody else: 0% vs. 0% actual (0% difference)
So, would this difference stay about the same for future years? That’s a good question to examine for next year.
If I could cherry-pick one fact, it would be this. The minute the Red Sox hired Bill James they broke some “curse.” And have the mainstream media figure out the correlation.
Bobby Swift – I respect your point of view. My comment was intended to be anecdotal and compliment the information already presented here. It was not my intent to present an entire case for Jim Rice’s enshrinement. I followed your HSAC link and saw that you have a significant body of work to back up your assertions. I look forward to reading “Improving Major League Baseball Park Factor Estimates”.
Ken ” who cares about palyers doing coke” I am sure that you have do not kids. If you did you would not want their heroes and the people that they rightly or wrongly look up too getting busted for coke and or other drugs. Then again in this Britney world that we live in maybe no one cares anymore.
Rice bashers With Jim’s showing in the vote he is a lock for next year. What player are you going to focus you wrath on next? Dawson? Larkin?I guess the Rice 15 years on ballott has at least given fans something to talk about .
Robert – I’m sorry if I came off as hostile, this HOF stuff really gets to me. Salaries are actually something I have not seen discussed in this context. It is another interesting factor to look at. As for our Park Factors paper, it won’t be published until April, but you can read the current version of it on our site.
c morgan,
Dawson and definitely Larkin are much better candidates than Rice.
All you’ve shown is that you are biased. You want Rice in. Good for you. Every time he is compared to a non-Hall of Famer, you find some difference between the two that, in your mind, is the dividing line between HOF and not HOF. Every time a flaw in found in his stats, you dismiss it as irrelevant, no matter how justified you are in doing so.
It must be nice going through life without having to critically think. I’m jealous.
c morgan, i really don’t think your kids are looking up to Timmy Raines and if they are he’s probably a good example for rehabilitation anyway. that’s a pretty lame argument statement. He screwed up when he was 20 years old and overcame it to be a good member of society. And its baseball, most people in the HOF are f@ckups. Even clean looking white guys like Molitor were going the way of the white pony back then.
And for next year I will bash whichever candidates HOF credentials are completely bogus and consist of “fear” and other subjective measures that completely misrepresent a candidates value versus their actual performance. Basically candidates backed by writers with a conlin towards statistics. I look forward to it, this has been good times during some boring work days.
Kudos to c morgan for pulling out the “Will Someone Please Think of The Children” card.
Will
That is very funny. I actually was laughing when I typed it. You got me.
Ronaldo
we obviously will never see eye o eye on Rice. You stated your case I stated mine. I think that OPS+ is overhyped and other stats HR/RBI/AVG etc still are important. 10 years from now there will be a new stat formula thet will change the way we view players. You have to view players in the contex of the time in which they played. Certain stats were more important in the 70′s than they are today.Walks and obp were not as important when no one was going to knock you in anyway. Get your head out of the stats books and put the abacus down and enjoy the game.
And now we have the “People who actually understand statistics are all nerds who live in their garages and don’t watch/like baseball” card. Well played.
C Morgan, while your stance on Rice could be construed as admirable, your advice to Ronaldo and to other adherents of sabermetrics was off-base. Quite frankly, I believe these posters are enjoying the game. The difference being that unlike you, they appear to have a natural curiousity that goes beyond the writings of page 6. And I do believe there is a correlation between the success of the Red Sox and Bill James being on their payroll. Do you?
Bob
You can not argue with success. I am sure that James like everyone else on the payroll had had a hand in it. However I think that the majority of the success has to do with the red sox front office stressing the importance of building a strong pitiching staff. also being in the same division as the yanks has caused them to spend more and spending $ is no guarente of success but it can obviously help. In all fairness it was a different time in the 70s only 4 teams made the playoffs and a team could have a great year and have nothing to show for it. the red sox won 83,97,99,91 games in the years 76-79. in those years they did not qualify for post season play(unless you count the 1 game playoff in 78. By todays standards they certainly would have been a wild card team in at least two of those years and who knows what would of happened. marlins 03 red sox 04 wild card winners. cardinals 06 83 win(i think). Today rarely the best team in baseball wins. this years sox and the 2000 yanks are probly the only 2 best teams to do it this decade.
as for my stance on rice. I will never understand the complete cast off of the facts that he led his league in almost every category over a 12 year period.( i know i know splits and ops+ i stated my stance earlier and i dont expect you to buy it) when you combine both leagues he still is the leader or in the top 3 in almost EVERYTHING.also6 top 5 mvp voting. not to mention that he was durable and played hurt and played hard.no stat for that.also when asked players of his time think that he is a hofer. I know my views are not popular on this keith law (rice basher)post.
C Morgan, if I am correct the firing of Grady Little for having Pedro go beyond his pitch count in 2003, and the Nomar trade in 2004 were both products of viewing stats, and viewing them well, at least from the sox view.
BOB
It is all part of the mix. If you looked only at stats the yankee historic flop in 04 seemed impossible. It had never happened in baseball postseason history. You have to look past the stats sometimes.
C Morgan, one last post for you. I think what you are missing from most of the posts is that people understand where you are coming from because we’ve all been in your situation before we were introduced to and had a chance to understand the new statistics. And I think we are mainly trying to get you to convert or at least investigate them more heavily because they really do tell the better and more complete story.
Its similar to you only using an abacus (since you brought it up before) to solve a problem with only addition and subtraction, while the rest of us are using those methods in addition to multiplication, subtraction, and differential equations. in this hypothetical situation (this is not reflective of the current argument, but an analogy) you can come up with something using your more simplified methods, but it almost certainly won’t be as complete and in the end “correct” as the answer using all available methods and techniques. To ignore the more in-depth stats that taken into account everything going on (era, parks, competition, etc) is really just cheating yourself (sorry I love the “your cheating yourself” phrase).
Many sites and books are great for getting up to date on the latest statistical measures and why they do a better job of evaluating player performance. I urge you and hopefully all HOF backers and Jim Rice fan club members to take a look.
Addition to previous post, add the jack morris fan club to that as well as the anti-timmy raines contingent. Thanks.
John
I have read them and still am not sold. Stats do not tell the whole story and never will. But I appreciate the banter. One last thing off the rice subject(cooperstown lock for 09) any difference between catfish and tiant? I know that your god bill james loves that discussion.
ok c morgan, stats don’t tell the whole story, so what exactly did Rice do to overcome his mediocre stats?
Did his leadership take the Sox to a world championship? No.
Was he an ambassador to the game? No.
Did he have any specific defensive ability that wouldn’t show up in the stats? No.
Was he a good baserunner? God no.
Was he a good situational hitter that could do the little things, like move runners over? No.
What part of the story are the stats missing? Enlighten us.
Ronaldo
Sounds like I hit a nerve. Rice played hurt and always played hard. There is something to be said for showing up day in and day out.He worked hard to be decent outfielder. I have already stated his assist stats (which I am sure that you have completly thrown out because of Fenway). I think that his statement after missing out this year speaks to what kind of person that he is. No sour grapes,no crying look at me. The arguement that he never won the big one therefore he has not a leader is stupid. I guess ernie banks,craig biggio, yaz, williams,helton,etc.(dan marino if you want to talk football) had no leadership skills. It appears that you love doing research. So read howard bryants “shut out” maybe it will enlighten you to the part of the story that your selected stats are missing.
“Rice played hurt and always played hard. There is something to be said for showing up day in and day out.He worked hard to be decent outfielder”
That is NOT a HOF resume. I can’t possibly see how that could put someone over the top in your mind.
As for the “he never won the big one”, my point is, if you’re going to give someone extra credit for that, you have to show some evidence. You can’t just say he was a leader. I personally think that attributes like these are so vague and indefinable that we shouldn’t use them at all, or only in very extreme cases. If you can show me, somehow, that Rice was one of the great leaders in the history of baseball, I might be willing to listen. But his stats are so very marginal that being a good clubhouse guy isn’t nearly enough to put him over the top.
We are looking to put the best of the best into the Hall. Rice simply doesn’t belong there.
He showed up every day and played hard.
He worked hard to be a decent outfielder.
A leader.
The kind of person he is.
That’s part of a HOF resume?
You are better than that C Morgan.
Regarding stats, the beautiful thing about baseball is that it is a series of individual efforts and thus we can really create means of evaluating players. Stats aren’t the only thing but should be 90% of the discussion.
The funny thing about Rice is that 10 years ago, when we had very little access to advanced methods of evaluating players, he was still dog poo in terms of getting into the HOF. How we can now have better means of evaluating, which show Rice to be non-worthy of enshrinement, yet he may get in next year. Baffling. I guess the “fear” he struck into pitchers really went up in recent year.
Hopefully people like Keith and Joe get more face time like yesterday and change people’s opinions of Rice, Morris, Raines, Santo, and maybe even Bert. The baseball HOF is the elite of the elite, let’s keep it that way.
We agree to disagree. but read the book. I know that it will be tough it has words in it not just numbers. What other hof players would you remove Perez? Carter? cepeda? Sutton? niekro?perry?B williams?(my god he is not even the best williams. throw him out).Maz? Irvin?catfish?fisk?sutter?drysdale?everyone voted in by the veterans? It would make for a very boring hall.luckly the voters feel the same and they are in. What I dont also understand is why backers of dawson,raines, blyleven,morris,rice attack each other . It is not a either or debate. Each one deserves induction. Are they the “best of The best”maybe not. Sometimes they were not even the best player on their own teams. but they defined an era and would make my hall of fame. I think that there is room for each. It appears that rice is in next year “simply doesn’t belong” or not.Dawson and blyleven with their momentum in 2010. Raines will have to wait about 12 years(thats a joke.He sould be in today).And life will go on. The self appointed guardians of the hall will have to deal.
(I hope that it is not lost in translation that I have enjoyed the debate and that my barbs are not ment to be personal.)
john
kieth yesterday also stated that steroids and peds do not help a player to become a better player. steroids and ped’s make you stronger thus inhancing your preformance.If strength (not to mention the recovery benefits) that these drugs bring dont help 1)why do the players use ( I think that a player know his body better and the effect that that they have better than any stat geek. 2) if strength does not matter why would any player work out at all.(i hope we can agree that these drugs can increase strength).Therefore if they increase strength they increase preformance.
as far is joe is concerned (i think he was the guy in the espn discussion with tim k.and steve p. If he feels that the numbers do not support Rice fine. But dont be a complete fool and say that jim had 2 good years on national tv. He said that rice 2 good seasons were 78 and 86. Come on even if you hate rice you cant honestly say that he had only 2 hof seasons. splits or no splits fenway or no fenway he had 3 years in a row with 200 hits and 35 hr and an avg over .300 to say he only had 2 good seasons is a joke. No more air time for that clown.
c morgan, I guess you’ve seen the double blind, peer reviewed clinical trials that prove PEDs do, in fact, improve baseball performance? Could you give us the link, please? I’m sure most of us haven’t seen those studies, because they don’t exist.
It’s people like you, c morgan, and the members of the BBWAA, that remind us all that there is still so much work to be done. Ignorance persists. Thank you, c morgan.
what are you done with me. I did not even get the chance to play the did you ever play the game card.