Jim Rice >> Babe Ruth

Amidst the many strained pro-Rice arguments, I had not actually heard the one shot down by Tracy Ringolsby in the Rocky Mountain News.

Amid the debate over Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy came a missive from a New England fan who wanted it known that "Jim Rice's offensive stats for his first 10 years in the Majors were better than Babe Ruth's."

[Right off the bat there are a few reasons why this is a stupid pro-Rice HoF argument:

First, why the arbitrary "first 10 years" cut-off? Why not just say "Jim Rice had a better fifth season than Babe Ruth," or "Jim Rice was more productive in the 1980s than Babe Ruth was?" Ruth played 22 seasons. Rice 16. At age 36 (Rice's final season), his OPS+ was 70. At age 36, Ruth's OPS+ was 218.

Second, in Ruth's first five seasons, he had a total of 678 ABs. Rice, on the other hand, had 2,533 ABs (including 677 ABs in 1978). You know what Ruth was doing in those first five years instead? Throwing 1,057 innings (over 211 per year, and with respective ERA+ of 68, 114, 158, 128 and 121).

Third, even with that whole "being a full-time pitcher" thing, as a part-time hitter, Ruth still hung OPS+ of 50 (in only 10 ABs), 189, 121, 164 and 194 in those first five seasons; while Rice put up OPS+ of 89, 127, 120, 147 and 157.

You know what? I'm not even going to go through the rest of the article. Ringolsby agrees that the argument is stupid, but the rationale is solely that the eras were different (as opposed to, you know, that Ruth was a *lot* better than Rice).]