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).]

One more MLB HoF thought

As previously (albeit infrequently) stated, we here at The Theorem like to point out quality reads from the world of sports. Here is a particularly attention-holding piece from Keith Law regarding Tim Raines' HoF candidacy as well as the composition of the HoF voting body.

And just for fun, compare Law's sophisticated research-based take to the ...... umm,.... different approach taken by Dan Shaughnessy regarding Jim Rice.

More recently, as he snared more votes, there was a backlash among new-age, basement-dwelling number crunchers who found flaws in Rice's résumé (always borderline by Cooperstown's lofty standards).... But the older writers had the benefit of being eyewitnesses. They watched Rice hit and saw the nightly fear in the visitors dugout at Fenway.

[Well-played.]

MLB Hall of Fame approaching dead-to-me status

I stumbled upon a Tim Kurkjian (who I normally quite enjoy) chat on espn.com today and assumed that I would find some solid arguments. Instead, I found this:

There is no denying that Dawson's career OBP (.323) is exceptionally low for a Hall of Famer, or a strong Hall of Fame candidate. But you're right; the emphasis recently, meaning the last 10-15 years, on OBP, doesn't help Dawson's case. Believe me, I love guys who walk a lot. I love guys who get on base. But occasionally, there is a player or two who will take a pitch that would normally be a ball and hit it for a two-run double. We cannot look past guys like that just because they don't walk all the time.

[Doesn't the exceptionally low *for a Hall of Famer* qualifier effectively negate this supposed "recent" emphasis on OBP? And if Dawson so frequently took a pitch that "would normally be a ball and hit it it for a two-run double," wouldn't his, ummm, OBP have been higher? Unless by "hit it for a two-run double" Tim actually meant "swung and missed."]

[Dawson] played as hard as anyone who ever played, he's one of the great character guys of the last 30 years. That means something to me.

[Well, I guess Albert Belle can go ahead and cross one name off of his pending campaign phone bank list.]

A really good stat guy told me yesterday that most Hall of Famers are better hitters at home than on the road, because they get comfortable in their home park.

[Seriously? A "really good stat guy" analyzed hitting with the use of the amorphous concept of "being comfortable" (as opposed to using, say, stats)?]

I think our best baseball fans understand that there is a difference between Babe Ruth and Jim Rice, Willie Mays and Andre Dawson. I don't think we need a tier system; we just need to understand that the greatest players of all time are in one category, and great players are in another.

[Category 1: Hall of Fame. Category 2: Owners of sports bars bearing their name.]

But they can all live in the same house in Cooperstown.

[Or we could do that.]

I voted for nine players. I voted for Dawson, Rice, Raines, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Bert Blyleven, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, and of course, Rickey Henderson. Again, I am way in the minority voting for nine guys. A good friend and fellow voter once told me that I'd better have a really good reason not to vote for a player, just in case he missed by one vote. If I don't have a really good reason, I vote for him. I have some friends who vote for ten guys every year, no matter what. I have other guys who won't vote for more than one or two, no matter what. That's the beauty of the Hall of Fame voting. Everyone has a different philosophy.

[Love it. Basis for voting: A career's worth of player performance < Tim not wanting to be *that* guy.

And given the topic, it seems like there are way too many "no matter what" and "Jack Morris" references in there, right?]

Hall of Fame Talk: Amusing to Me, Infuriating to Others (Nils)

MLB Hall of Fame results are out next week. Let's see how Tim Cowlishaw decided to vote.

I voted for five players, although the only one I know is going to make it for sure is first-year eligible Rickey Henderson.

[OK. Henderson is fine.]

The funny thing is that I voted for three others who will either make it or come very close – outfielders Andre Dawson and Jim Rice and pitcher Bert Blyleven....

[I'm not sure why that's funny, but I am curious to see why Cowlishaw thinks that these three are Hall of Famers....]

I think Rice, Dawson and Blyleven all are borderline Hall of Famers.

[Oh, OK. Kind of like Hall of Famers. Except not. Sold!]

Yes, Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award and pitched in only two All-Star Games. But pitching for much of his career for lousy teams, the great curveball pitcher won 287 games and threw 60 shutouts. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for any pitcher in any era.

[Then he's no longer borderline, I guess? Let's just move on. I'm sure that Nils is reading this now shouting "Borderline?!? Oh, I'll show you borderline!"

The arguments for and against (although most of them all kind of sound like "against" arguments to me) Rice and Dawson have been well-documented, but I liked how Cowlishaw contrasted them with his pro-Tim Raines arguments.]

Rice had a shortened run, but it was in impressive one. He was top 10 in American League slugging eight times, top 10 in homers seven times, top 10 in OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) six times.

[OK...]

Dawson was a much superior outfielder (eight Gold Gloves) who had some great hitting seasons that went largely unnoticed in Montreal. I loved in 1987 when he told the Cubs he would play for them at any salary. That earned him an MVP award while playing for a bad team.

[THAT earned him the MVP? Really? Him saying that earned him an MVP? Hall of Fame plaque, please!]

[Raines] had 2,605 career hits, and 3,000 hits always has been Hall worthy. Why didn't Raines get there? Oh, perhaps because he led the National League in walks seven straight years from 1982 through 1988. He also led the NL in singles, doubles and triples those seven seasons. No player in major league history has a better stolen base percentage than Raines' 84.7.

[A lot of "led the NL for seven straight seasons" in there, as well as a "No player in major league history has a better...." Sounds a lot more Hall-ish than "top 10 in the American League," or "[telling] the Cubs he would play for them at any salary," right?]