Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice elected to Hall of Fame

[SirFozzie]

Thanks goodness. Rickey was a shooin of course (I'd like to ask the 28 people who didn't vote for him why not), but I had real concerns that Jim wouldn't get in. He was the precursor of today's super strong sluggers.. (he was the only person that I've ever heard of who broke his bat by checking his swing)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Rickey Henderson sped his way into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot Monday, and Jim Rice made it in on his 15th and final try.

Henderson, baseball's career leader in runs scored and stolen bases, received 94.8 percent of the vote from the Baseball Writers' Association of America, well above the 75 percent needed.

Rice, among baseball's most feared hitters in the late 1970s and early 1980s, got 76.4 percent of the vote after falling just shy with 72.2 percent last year.

Henderson became the 44th player elected in his first year of eligibility. Rice was only the third elected by the BBWAA in his final year, joining Red Ruffing (1967) and Ralph Kiner (1975).

The pair will be inducted into the Hall during ceremonies on July 26 in Cooperstown, N.Y. They will be joined by former Yankees and Indians second baseman Joe Gordon, elected posthumously last month by the Veterans Committee.

Henderson was picked on 511 of 539 ballots and Rice was selected on 412, just more than the 405 needed.

Rice received only 29.8 percent of the vote in 1995, when he appeared on the ballot for the first time. He topped 50 percent for the first time in 2000 and reached 64.8 percent in 2006 -- the highest percentage for a player who wasn't elected in a later year was 63.4 by Gil Hodges in 1983, his final time on the ballot.

Andre Dawson fell 44 votes short with 67 percent. He was followed by Bert Blyleven (62.7 percent), Lee Smith (44.5), Jack Morris (44.0), Tommy John (31.7) and Tim Raines (22.6). John appeared on the ballot for the final time.

Mark McGwire, stigmatized by accusations he used performance-enhancing drugs, received 118 votes (21.9 percent) in his third year of eligibility, down from the 128 votes he got in each of his first two tries.

[MikeVic]

Go Rickey!!

[stevew]

Is palmerio still on the ballot? I really wonder if mcgwire will ever get in. Seems like his best shot would be to totally come clean? I think he belongs, but I can see why others don't.

[jeff061]

Finally, I don't have to listen to the never ending "Jim Rice's getting robbed cause he's an asshole to the press" talk around here.

[Subby]

Yay the Hall of Pretty Good gets another inductee!

[Atocep]

Tim Raines only got 22% of the vote. :(


I'm watching the coverage on ESPN/ESPNews and Tim Kurkjian said runs scored is the most underrated stat in baseball.

I'm sure everyone here will be surprised by this, but Steve Phillips' case for Jim Rice was "most feared hitter" and that was about it. For Rickey Henderson it was stolen bases, stolen bases stolen bases. I'm glad they had Keith Law and Joe Sheenan on to make him look like a dumbass.

[ISiddiqui]

:mad: @ Blyleven not getting in!

[Fonzie]

:mad: @ Blyleven not getting in!

+1

[Atocep]

I'd also like to add that while Steve Phillips was talking about Jim Rice I tried to switch over Sportscenter, but they had Joe Morgan and Peter Gammons talking about Rickey and Jim Rice. I really didn't know what to do at that point so I switched back to Steve Phillips and turned the volume down.

[mckerney]

:mad: @ Blyleven not getting in!

+2

[Maple Leafs]

Tim Raines only got 22% of the vote. :(

Bangs head on desk.

[Subby]

As bad as letting Rice in is, what imbeciles leave Raines and Henderson off of their ballots? Aside from Corky, of course.

[albionmoonlight]

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

[Draft Dodger]

I'm looking forward to Henderson's speech.

[Logan]

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

This annoys me more than anything. Either a guy is a HOF or he isn't. I could understand it more in the NFL when they say they are taking 4-8 players a year or whatever.

[Atocep]

I have to say, the Rickey stories never get old.

Steve Phillips said that he told Rickey he had won some team award for the Mets and was trying to see what he'd like as a gift. He asked for "one of those things Madden drives around".

Buster Olney told a story about Rickey calling up a team's GM once when he was a free agent and saying "on behalf of Rickey, I'd like to inform you that Rickey is available".

[RendeR]

Have to say that for once I don't have a real complaint with the inductees. Still a few people that ought to be there though.

[lighthousekeeper]

+2

+3, f rice.

[molson]

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

In the case of Rice, he was extremely unpopular with writers (because he was a jerk). Those feelings cool off over time, old writers leave and new come in, etc.

[MikeVic]

Where's KSyrup to shit all over Rickey!

[Ryan S]

Is palmerio still on the ballot? I really wonder if mcgwire will ever get in. Seems like his best shot would be to totally come clean? I think he belongs, but I can see why others don't.

Palmero will not be eligible for another couple of years.

[Crapshoot]

The ignorance of the BBWAA is demonstrated once again - Tim Raines is far more of a HOF'er than Jim Rice will ever be. Hell, if Rice is in the HOF, lets add Dante Bichette (stole that quip from BP).

[Crapshoot]

Btw, anyone who voted against Rickey ought to have his ballot taken away. He's one of the 20 best players of all time; maybe 10 best.

[rowech]

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

[PilotMan]

Btw, anyone who voted against Rickey ought to have his ballot taken away. He's one of the 20 best players of all time; maybe 10 best.

QFT

[korme]

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

However, not in this era when we're constantly learning more about the steroid era, Rice's numbers look more impressive.

[Crapshoot]

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

Whaa? That's idiotic. The qualifications don't change from year to year; a bunch of old geezers revelling in their self-importance is irrelevant to that. I do agree that 15 years is ridiculous; 5 seems fine to me.

[Crapshoot]

However, not in this era when we're constantly learning more about the steroid era, Rice's numbers look more impressive.

Jim Rice had an OPS+ of 128, adjusting the band-box he played in. That's compared to his era, not anyone else. He was also awful defensively as a LF. He is not a HOF'er by any regard.

Simply comparison, Ellis Burks had an OPS+ of 126; is anyone calling for Burks in the HOF?

[Subby]

Better mustache than Burks.

[MikeVic]

http://www.kevhines.com/media/RollieFingers.jpg

[Mustang]

I'm ok with 15 years although, not with voting every year. After 15 years you can at least get some perspective of players vs the next generation that has just finished up. Although, probably should be more of a voting eligibility years 1 and 2, then at 5, 10 and 15 while increasing the cutoff %....

As for not getting in right away, baseball writers are a bunch of cranky bastards. You could have a guy hit 1,000 hrs with a career batting average of .400, took public drug tests and cured the sick at home games with his own sweat and he probably would only get 99.9% of the vote on the 1st ballot because he liked fish sticks and some writer in Nebraska doesn't trust anyone who likes fish sticks...

[JediKooter]

Damn, Dave Kingman didn't make it.

[Warhammer]

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

[MikeVic]

When's Julio Franco up for the HOF?

[SirFozzie]

2012 I think

[ISiddiqui]

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

Raines:

Tim Raines Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml)

123 OPS+ with 808 stolen bases and only 146 caught stealing (that's an 85% success rate over his career) and very good defense in 23 seasons.

Dawson:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml

119 OPS+ with Ok defense and, of course, no where near the SB (314 and 109 CS) in 21 seasons.

I think the amount and success rate of Raines' stolen bases should easily get him in over Dawson, who was basically a similar hitter, but more focused on power and Raines was more focused on getting on base (Dawson had a career OBP of .323).

[rowech]

Neyer's take on Dawson versus Raines...

Rob Neyer Blog - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3827958&name=Neyer_Rob)

[Buccaneer]

Did they vote anyone out yet?

No one gets 100%, it's one of those traditional things.

[Logan]

A stupid tradition.

[adubroff]

I think the amount and success rate of Raines' stolen bases should easily get him in over Dawson, who was basically a similar hitter, but more focused on power and Raines was more focused on getting on base (Dawson had a career OBP of .323).

The thing with Raines and Dawson is more that Raines blunted his career with coke and Dawson's was blunted with knee trauma. I also think there's a lot of people who compare Raines and Henderson, find Henderson to be a better candidate, and then don't consider that maybe he's still enough better than the next guy (maybe it's Kenny Lofton?)...

[Buccaneer]

The 1936 Voting Results


Name Votes PCT
Cobb, Ty 222 98.2%
Ruth, Babe 215 95.1%
Wagner, Honus 215 95.1%
Mathewson, Christy 205 90.7%
Johnson, Walter 189 83.6%
Lajoie, Nap 146 64.6%
Speaker, Tris 133 58.8%
Young, Cy 111 49.1%
Hornsby, Rogers 105 46.5%
Cochrane, Mickey 80 35.4%
Sisler, George 77 34.1%
Collins, Eddie 60 26.5%
Collins, Jimmy 58 25.7%
Alexander, Grover 55 24.3%
Gehrig, Lou 51 22.6%
Bresnahan, Roger 47 20.8%
Foxx, Jimmie 21 9.3%
Terry, Bill 9 4%
Kling, Johnny 8 3.5%
Criger, Lou 7 3.1%
Brown, Mordecai 6 2.7%
Evers, Johnny 6 2.7%
Chance, Frank 5 2.2%
McGraw, John 4 1.8%
Schalk, Ray 4 1.8%
Simmons, Al 4 1.8%
Bender, Chief 2 0.9%
Jackson, Joe 2 0.9%
Roush, Edd 2 0.9%
Baker, Frank 1 0.4%
Bradley, Bill 1 0.4%
Clarke, Fred 1 0.4%
Crawford, Sam 1 0.4%
Daubert, Jake 1 0.4%
Dean, Dizzy 1 0.4%
Elberfeld, Kid 1 0.4%
Gehringer, Charlie 1 0.4%
Hartnett, Gabby 1 0.4%
Mack, Connie 1 0.4%
Marquard, Rube 1 0.4%
Rucker, Nap 1 0.4%
Vance, Dazzy 1 0.4%


Back when it was truly the Hall of Fame. If you decry the "tradition" of votes not being 100%, then it would also make sense to be against always getting in on the first vote (for obvious candidates).

[molson]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

[Atocep]

I actually started wondering today, if Rickey Henderson never existed would Tim Raines be seen as a sure-think Hall of Famer? Well, maybe not sure thing, but I think he'd probably get in within the 1st 3-4 years on the ballot. As it stands now Raines' best bet is already with the veterans committee.

[Atocep]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

You're reaching Colin Cowherd levels if you want to bring "fame" into play here.

Dawson won the most bullshit MVP award of my lifetime. Derek Jeter is a multi-time gold glove winner. Do we really want to use awards to judge a player's Hall of Fame candidacy?

[ISiddiqui]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

So... then... Albert Belle? He was Top 3 in AL MVP voting for 3 years in a row.

[molson]

So... then... Albert Belle? He was Top 3 in AL MVP voting for 3 years in a row.

I'm just using it as a guideline, I'm not advocating a cutoff (just like I wouldn't use a specific OPS+ number as a firm cutoff).

Belle absolutely had a HOF career going at age 30. He just fell off a cliff after that. If he was as likable as Kirby Puckett, he might have gotten in anyway. He was an elite slugger of his time, but his quality years were even smaller in number than Rice's.

There's lots of different perspectives on this. MVP voting tells us how often a guy was elite at the time he played, both in terms of actual performance, and the perception at the time. The perception isn't irrelevant. I think the HOF should be bias in favor of players who were on good teams, and were a huge deal in the public eye when the played. A guy on a HOF plaque should scream out "big deal" in the way Bert Blyleven just doesn't.

The HOF is museum/tourist attraction.

[Buccaneer]

You're reaching Colin Cowherd levels if you want to bring "fame" into play here.

Dawson won the most bullshit MVP award of my lifetime. Derek Jeter is a multi-time gold glove winner. Do we really want to use awards to judge a player's Hall of Fame candidacy?

The most stupidest criteria is number of All-Stars. It's not as bad as the NFL but many players got be an "All-Star" due to popularity (i.e., on-field stats), guilt/nostalgia (old timers), injury replacements or ballot box stuffing.

[rowech]

Especially given the fact that each team must have one player representive.

[Swaggs]

The most stupidest criteria is number of All-Stars. It's not as bad as the NFL but many players got be an "All-Star" due to popularity (i.e., on-field stats), guilt/nostalgia (old timers), injury replacements or ballot box stuffing.

...or being the Pirates' token selection.

[ISiddiqui]

Belle absolutely had a HOF career going at age 30. He just fell off a cliff after that.

That isn't exactly correct with regards to Belle. He had great years at age 31 and 32. He fell off a cliff after that.

Like.... Jim Rice (though with Rice, it was after he turned 33)!

He was an elite slugger of his time, but his quality years were even smaller in number than Rice's.

Not true. I'd argue that Belle's quality years were greater than Rice, a great deal moreso.

I think the HOF should be bias in favor of players who were on good teams, and were a huge deal in the public eye when the played.

Why? Doesn't that basically make it bullshit to anyone who follows a smaller market team or a great player on a bad team?

A guy on a HOF plaque should scream out "big deal" in the way Bert Blyleven just doesn't.

I can't imagine someone who looks at what Blyleven did during his career and doesn't think that's a "big deal". I mean the guy is 5th all time in career strikeouts, after all. Isn't that something we love about Nolan Ryan so much? All the K's?

The HOF is museum/tourist attraction.

It's also supposed to honor baseball's best. Unless you are saying it should go the way of the BCS in how it is perceived.

[kcchief19]

The ignorance of the BBWAA is demonstrated once again - Tim Raines is far more of a HOF'er than Jim Rice will ever be. Hell, if Rice is in the HOF, lets add Dante Bichette (stole that quip from BP).
Jim Rice had an OPS+ of 128, adjusting the band-box he played in. That's compared to his era, not anyone else. He was also awful defensively as a LF. He is not a HOF'er by any regard.

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

I won't argue that MLB Hall of Fame voting makes a lot of sense but it is what it is. If Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson weren't 100% vote getters, no one should be. I don't really want the character of that changed. Compared to all the halls of fame, baseball's is the toughest to get into and I'm fine with that.

Given that, I'm fine with anyone leaving Henderson off their ballot. The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams. Everybody got rid of Rickey eventually and it was usually for a good reason. He was the ultimate me first, team second guy in baseball history.

[ISiddiqui]

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

Using it in addition, not as more important. Rice, in contrast, doesn't have the SBs or the defense.

You add the OPS+, SBs, and defense for Raines and it adds up to a more impressive package than just Rice's hitting.

[molson]

I can't imagine someone who looks at what Blyleven did during his career and doesn't think that's a "big deal". I mean the guy is 5th all time in career strikeouts, after all. Isn't that something we love about Nolan Ryan so much? All the K's?
.

Blyleven just isn't a particularly compelling figure in baseball history.

You're arguing what you think the Hall of Fame should be, I'm discussing what it is.

[ISiddiqui]

The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams.

Let's be fair. Most of those teams were when Rickey was in his late 30s and just wanted to find someone who'd pay him what he thought he was worth to play.

[ISiddiqui]

Blyleven just isn't a particularly compelling figure in baseball history.

You're arguing what you think the Hall of Fame should be, I'm discussing what it is.

And what we are arguing is that what the HoF is is crap. And it seems by your arguments that you don't mind what the HoF is.

[kcchief19]

:mad: @ Blyleven not getting in!
+4

The thing about the baseball Hall of Fame you can rely on is that there certain benchmarks that are almost guarantees for the hall. Strikeouts alone should get him there but the 287 wins should have made it a lock. Year in and year in the '70s and early '80s he dominated in allowing runs and WHIP. If hadn't played on sucky teams most of his career, he would have won 13 more games and we wouldn't be debating this.

[molson]

And what we are arguing is that what the HoF is is crap. And it seems by your arguments that you don't mind what the HoF is.

Then why do you get so fired up about who's in and out if it's "crap" anyway?

Everybody has different opinions. Those different than yours aren't "crap".

I happen to like how the HOF does it. It's just based on gut feel, I'd rather not see guys that just accumulated stats for many years for bad teams. I'd rather see guys that were larger than life, big stars, were important in the history of baseball, were excellent on the field, and weren't total asshats. Just my preference.

I'd probably vote for Jack Morris over Blyleven. Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered amongst the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

[ISiddiqui]

Because we want it to be better. Just like those who think the BCS is crap, want to make it better (either by expanding it or changing it).

When those different opinions are at odds at what the institution holds itself up as, then yes, its a crap opinion :p.

[molson]

Then why do you get so fired up about who's in and out if it's "crap" anyway?

Everybody has different opinions. Those different than yours aren't "crap".

I happen to like how the HOF does it. It's just based on gut feel, I'd rather not see guys that just accumulated stats for many years for bad teams. I'd rather see guys that were larger than life, big stars, were important in the history of baseball, were excellent on the field, and weren't total asshats. Just my preference.

I'd probably vote for Jack Morris over Blyleven. Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered among the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

[Crapshoot]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

Reinforcing the initial idiocy of the writers (these are the guys who gave Morneau the MVP in 2007, when he was the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on his team!, or who Raffy the Gold Glove for playing 28 game) is not a particularly good way to do anything.

Pray lets compare Rice to Burks:

Rice: .298/.352/.502, good for an OPS of .854, OPS+ of 128
Burks: .291/.363/.510, good for an OPS of .873, OPS+ of 126

Career, counting stats:
Rice: was worth 29 wins above the league average hitter, Burks was worth 26. That's an advantage in counting stats for Rice, but he had a 1000 extra AB in which to do it

Defense: Any way you slice it, Rice's defense was awful; he was a LF from the day he started. Burks may not have been great, but he was a credible CF for most of his career, and played RF well into his later years, all with significantly more defensive value than Rice. A CF with an OPS+ of 126 is significantly more valuable than an LF with an OPS+ of 128; Burks had to man Coors Field for a big chunk of that (perhaps the biggest OF in baseball), while Rice had Fenway.

Now, you can certainly argue that Rice had better longevity than Burks, and that Burks injuries reduced him, but the idea that Rice is significantly better than Burks is just ridiculous.

[Crapshoot]

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

I won't argue that MLB Hall of Fame voting makes a lot of sense but it is what it is. If Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson weren't 100% vote getters, no one should be. I don't really want the character of that changed. Compared to all the halls of fame, baseball's is the toughest to get into and I'm fine with that.

Given that, I'm fine with anyone leaving Henderson off their ballot. The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams. Everybody got rid of Rickey eventually and it was usually for a good reason. He was the ultimate me first, team second guy in baseball history.

I don't think you understand the tools in question; OPS+ is a decent snapshot measure of offensive, but it favors high slugging, relatively low OBP types over high OBP leadoff types; a fairer metric would probably use OBP*1.4 (depending on the year and run environment), + Slg. It does not not value great defense and high efficiency SB, both of which Raines excelled at, all while playing a significantly more demanding position (would you argue a 128 OPS+ SS is worth the same as a 128 OPS+ LF?).

[Buccaneer]

Because we want it to be better. Just like those who think the BCS is crap, want to make it better (either by expanding it or changing it).



or reducing it (both BCS and HOF).

[molson]

Reinforcing the initial idiocy of the writers (these are the guys who gave Morneau the MVP in 2007, when he was the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on his team!, or who Raffy the Gold Glove for playing 28 game) is not a particularly good way to do anything.

Pray lets compare Rice to Burks:

Rice: .298/.352/.502, good for an OPS of .854, OPS+ of 128
Burks: .291/.363/.510, good for an OPS of .873, OPS+ of 126

Career, counting stats:
Rice: was worth 29 wins above the league average hitter, Burks was worth 26. That's an advantage in counting stats for Rice, but he had a 1000 extra AB in which to do it

Defense: Any way you slice it, Rice's defense was awful; he was a LF from the day he started. Burks may not have been great, but he was a credible CF for most of his career, and played RF well into his later years, all with significantly more defensive value than Rice. A CF with an OPS+ of 126 is significantly more valuable than an LF with an OPS+ of 128; Burks had to man Coors Field for a big chunk of that (perhaps the biggest OF in baseball), while Rice had Fenway.

Now, you can certainly argue that Rice had better longevity than Burks, and that Burks injuries reduced him, but the idea that Rice is significantly better than Burks is just ridiculous.

Burks was never considered among the best players in the game. That's what writers look at. Though your comparison to Burks is definitely a strike against Rice, no question.

Peter Gammons, a longtime Rice HOF supporter, made an interesting point today. Rice did was he was supposed to do at the time. He was paid to hit the ball very far, as often as possible. And regarding what was considered important in THAT era, he stands up very, very well. As an example, if you're from an era where Batting AVG is all that mattered, and you hit for average, why should you be evaluated using advanced sabermetrics that were developed much later? Maybe you should, if what we're rewarding here is pure performance and value to a team. But I don't think that's what the HOF chooses to do, and I understand why.

Rice was an all-time, great slugger. He didn't walk as much as some comparable guys today, in an era was the walk wasn't very highly regarded. But he finished #1 or #2 in slugging% 5 times. That's something of a manufactured stat, but I can't find anybody who's done that outside of Bonds and Ruth.

[ISiddiqui]

Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered among the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

:eek:

In my opinion, your opinion is crap, because of statements like this :D.

And remember that's my opinion, so you can't say that my opinion, that your opinion is crap, is crap. :D

[ISiddiqui]

He was paid to hit the ball very far, as often as possible. And regarding what was considered important in THAT era, he stands up very, very well.

What in the Hell does that matter? Vince Coleman was paid to steal bases, which was considered important in THAT era, and he stands up very, very well.

Hall of Famer?

[Subby]

Rice was an all-time, great slugger.
Career .502 slugging percentage puts him 89th all time. He also had the benefit of playing in Fenway.

He is not an all time great slugger. Your statement is wrong. Please try and deal in facts and leave the anecdotal unicorns and rainbows to the sell-out sportswriters.

[Atocep]

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

We'll attribute the first number in each column to player A and the 2nd number to player B. I'll also give credit to Jay Jaffe from BP for doing the initial comparison of these two players.

Avg.: .338/.294
OBP: .388/.385
SLG: .459/.425
EQA: .307/.307
HR: 135/170
SB: 319/838
TOB: 3,955/3,977
TB: 4,259/3,771
R: 1,383/1,517
RBI: 1,138/980


The players seem pretty even. Player A's 500ish edge in total bases is more or less made up by Player B's significant edge in stolen bases. Player A is Tony Gwynn, who received 97.6% of the vote in his first year of eligibility. Player B, of course, is Tim Raines. A guy that hasn't even broken 25% in his 2 years on the ballot.

[ISiddiqui]

Great analysis and looking at those numbers how Raines can be denied is ridiculous.

[sterlingice]

http://www.kevhines.com/media/RollieFingers.jpg

Rollie *is* the mustache Hall of Fame :D

SI

[lungs]

I guess I understand that it is called the Hall of FAME. It just doesn't mean it's the Hall of Best Baseball Players.

Which is pretty damn stupid.

Jack Morris or Bert Blyleven?? My goodness.

[molson]

Career .502 slugging percentage puts him 89th all time. He also had the benefit of playing in Fenway.

He is not an all time great slugger. Your statement is wrong. Please try and deal in facts and leave the anecdotal unicorns and rainbows to the sell-out sportswriters.

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

[lungs]

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

Then you have people like you that throw 'nerd' into the argument to discredit it.

[ISiddiqui]

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

Finishing #1 or #2 in SLG for 5 years should carry more weight than career SLG? A Hall of Fame career should be built on simply 5 years of topping the league? You arguments have to make sense in order to avoid being called a "moron", you realize.

If Rice, now, had five years where he was blowing everyone away to a point no one had seen in that era, like SLG% in the .700s, that's something (of course then his career SLG would be much higher). OTOH, Rice's best SLG% year (1978) is 302nd all time.

[Subby]

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.
I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career. That's hardly cherry-picking.

You don't deserve the Hall of Fame based on five CHERRY PICKED years of your career.

[Samdari]

Raines:

very good defense in 23 seasons.

Dawson:

with Ok defense and,

I think you are biased in your defensive evaluations:

Raines - no gold gloves in 23 seasons

Dawson - 8 in 21

[johnnyshaka]

I became an A's fan because of Rickey. I'd always check the box scores to see how many bases he'd stolen the previous night because to me, a 6-7 year old kid, the stolen base was the most exciting play in baseball. I had those old Topps/Opee-chee (sp???) sticker books and remember one year where there was like an 8-sticker picture of Rickey in the midst of stealing...it was awesome. Sure, he's asshat but what kid cares about that so long as he's doing what you love best...stealing bases??

Growing up in Ottawa I was primarily exposed to the Jays and Expos and therefore have a soft spot for guys like Raines, Dawson, and even Gary Carter. I wonder if Dawson and Raines would be in the HoF already had they started their careers anywhere else but Montreal, or Toronto, for that matter? Let's face it, Carter's already in because of his life after Montreal and he even wanted to go in as a Met so how much were Raines' and Dawson's careers hurt by the lack of attention the Expos got or were able to generate around the league...or I guess around the US??

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Raines and/or Dawson deserve to be HoF'ers but maybe their legacies would be somewhat different if say Raines played for the Whitesox for 15 years instead of 5 and Dawson spent most of his time in a Cubs uni...no??

Obviously the "statheads" would disagree but I think those guys might sit higher up on the lists of some of the voters simply because they would've probably heard their names menitoned more often than they likely did while they toiled away in Montreal.

[RedKingGold]

I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career. That's hardly cherry-picking.

You don't deserve the Hall of Fame based on five CHERRY PICKED years of your career.

I do heart you.

Me thinks molson might have a better argument if his terminology done get better.

[Big Fo]

I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career.
:lol:

Going by McGwire's decreasing number of votes I guess him, Bonds, and Clemons might have a hard time getting in. It'll be weird years down the road when the all-time leaders in hits and home runs are left out.

The Raines backers have made some good arguments in this thread, it's bizarre to me that he gets so few votes.

[Crapshoot]

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

No, he's pointing out that you're full of shit; there are things that correlate with success, and other's that do not. You made a stupid claim, and he pointed out why it was stupid; calling him a stat-nerd or anything else just is a display of your own ignorance. If you say the sky is orange and I say the sky is blue, are we supposed to settle on a mid-point in order to compromise?

[Crapshoot]

Wheel of mystery Hall of Fame contenders | U.S.S. Mariner (http://ussmariner.com/2009/01/12/wheel-of-mystery-hall-of-fame-contenders/)

A very very good read.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I like the Bill James quote about Rickey:

"If you could split him in two, you'd have two Hall of Famers."

[larrymcg421]

Well, we had "nerd" thrown out already. It's only a matter of time until someone invokes "mom's basement".

[gstelmack]

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

[lungs]

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

But Rice didn't play as well as many think. I wonder how famous he'd be had he played elsewhere. More due to Fenway being generous, before Boston folks start jumping on me. But yeah, playing in Boston did help.

[ISiddiqui]

I think you are biased in your defensive evaluations:

Raines - no gold gloves in 23 seasons

Dawson - 8 in 21

... we are basing defensive prowess on Gold Gloves?!

I take it you believe Derek Jeter is one of the great defensive SS's of our time?

[johnnyshaka]

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

Well, I guess it should be "Hall of best baseball players" if we are going to get literal. And how do you determine who the best baseball players are? I would think stats would be the best place to start, no?

[ISiddiqui]

But Rice didn't play as well as many think. I wonder how famous he'd be had he played elsewhere. More due to Fenway being generous, before Boston folks start jumping on me. But yeah, playing in Boston did help.

Yep. The whole premise behind the sabermetric "nerds" (as they say) is to dispel common knowledge that just doesn't stand up to the facts.

The Hall of Fame is generally accepted to mean the Hall of the Best. How do you determine who is the best? I'd argue that in depth statistical analysis is, by far, the best way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

To wit: I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Jim Rice wasn't one of the best of his time period, even if the window is small (~5 years). However, his career OPS+ matches modern luminaries like Ryan Klesko, John Olerud, and Tim Salmon.

[ISiddiqui]

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

On the other hand, that's only 20% of the total and baseball, being around for over 100 years (or something like 90 since the end of the dead ball era), you may expect that.

In the Top 20, for example, only 3 are active players, and one is Barry Bonds, who it is arguably is still active. The other is Frank Thomas, who may be retiring soon enough. And in the Top 30, the only addition among active players is Manny Ramirez (in a 4 way tie for 22nd).

There are more active players down the list, but remember a lot of them are in their early 30s, which means as they go on with their careers, their skills will diminish (though these days with modern training, it may be less pronounced than earlier eras) and they will fall back. For example, I don't expect Travis Hafner to stay at 61st (currently with an OPS+ of 142 at 31 years of age).

[molson]

I actually didn't mean "nerd-stat" as an insult, I do agree that the evolution of statistical analysis has given us accurate tools to evaluate a player's contribution to his team. (Though I don't believe it's given us a cut-off where everyone above a certain number is worthy and everyone below isn't...There's still limits to any evaluation tool). And the HOF goes far beyond, pure on-field performance. I realize ISiddiqui, that you don't agree with that, and that you think the HOF should exclusively reward statistical performance, but that's a minority opinion. You're entitled to it. But it's just an opinion. I don't believe Peter Gammons is a moron. He's just looking at this, like me, in a different way that you don't accept.

I'm really surprised at the douchebagery in this thread though, and how certain people get so personally offended at contrary opinions.

I'll duck out to the civil discussion of the MLB thread...oh wait...

[larrymcg421]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the HOF should exclusively reward statistical performance, but that if someone has attained fantastic statistical performance, then they should probably be in. That doesn't mean other factors can't be taken into consideration.

[sterlingice]

I've never quite understood the Raines argument. He was a little before my time so I only saw him towards the second half of his career.

Or maybe I've never heard it so could someone paint the picture to me? He looks like a nice leadoff hitter, but is a career .810 OPS even for a good fielding center fielder HOF credentials? Or a 123 career OPS+? That's nice, but when I think HOF CF, we're talking, again Ricky, who was like Raines but with power and even more speed, or someone like Griffey.

I'm not disagreeing that he should be in the HOF- I just have never seen a good, cogent argument presented for him other than that he's a poor man's Ricky Henderson. I loved watching Dawson for the Cubs, but I never felt I was watching a HOF'er. But, again, I saw him in the second half of his career. But, the point with saying that is that the argument made between Dawson and him doesn't really convince me either.

So, what's the scoop on Rock? If I were a HOF voter, why should I vote for him? Educate me :)

SI

[MikeVic]

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

To wit: I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Jim Rice wasn't one of the best of his time period, even if the window is small (~5 years). However, his career OPS+ matches modern luminaries like Ryan Klesko, John Olerud, and Tim Salmon.

Olerud should be in the HOF.

[kcchief19]

I don't think you understand the tools in question; OPS+ is a decent snapshot measure of offensive, but it favors high slugging, relatively low OBP types over high OBP leadoff types; a fairer metric would probably use OBP*1.4 (depending on the year and run environment), + Slg. It does not not value great defense and high efficiency SB, both of which Raines excelled at, all while playing a significantly more demanding position (would you argue a 128 OPS+ SS is worth the same as a 128 OPS+ LF?).
Then why didn't you use OBP*1.4 as your argument saying Rice doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame over Burks, then aguing for Raines? My main point was that the statisticians who created OPS+ and live and die by these stats would tell you that stolen bases and defense are highly overrated, which makes it illogical to use OPS+ as measuring stick then arguing that stolen bases and defenses can make up for an OPS gap.

You lost me at the end there -- what does a SS have to with it? You are aware that Tim Raines and Jim Rice were BOTH left fielders aren't you? Raines played a more demanding position? They played the same position.

Frankly, I think at the end of the day Rice and Burks are more or less equal. I would give Rice a slight edge simply based on eras and intangibles. Anyone determining Hall of Famers based solely on statistics and not on intangibles and analysis of the statistics is not going about it the right way. Players are more than just agate type.

[ISiddiqui]

So, what's the scoop on Rock? If I were a HOF voter, why should I vote for him? Educate me :)

123 career OPS+ and 808 steals (with an 85% success rate).

For comparison, Rickey Henderson had a career OPS+ of 127 (and of course, 1406 steals). Oh, and Rickey had a career .820 OPS ;).

[ISiddiqui]

My main point was that the statisticians who created OPS+ and live and die by these stats would tell you that stolen bases and defense are highly overrated

Overrated does not mean useless. What they counsel is that the cost of being caught stealing is far higher than the benefits of stealing a base. Therefore, steals are less valuable because you have to factor in the caught stealing as well. For those players with very high success rates (like Raines or Henderson) those complaints are not that pressing.

[molson]

Me thinks molson might have a better argument if his terminology done get better.

I'm sure that's true, I know I certainly haven't been able to articulate it properly.

[johnnyshaka]

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?


I'll take a stab at this...times have changed. More money in the game means more guys want a piece of the pie and whether that means guys are working harder to make themselves better (legally or otherwise) or better athletes are taking an interest in the sport instead of say, joining the military or playing another sport. Also, with more money comes more responsibility in terms of training (players take much better care of their bodies than they used to and that will continue as new research continues to show how to get more out of the human body for longer) and also being more responsible off the field. Long gone are the days of smoking and drinking before, during, and after a game.

Another big factor has to be the influx of foreign talent, primarily from Latin America. Add to that the effect of expansion and you have more teams, more good players, and therefore more guys on the leaderboards.

Simply stated, today's athletes are "professional" athletes and look at it more like a job because of the money involved and because it's a lucrative business, there are more guys willing to do whatever it takes to make it. That's not to say that Ted Williams wasn't a professional, but he was the exception, not the rule.

[sterlingice]

123 career OPS+ and 808 steals (with an 85% success rate).

For comparison, Rickey Henderson had a career OPS+ of 127 (and of course, 1406 steals). Oh, and Rickey had a career .820 OPS ;).

Well, you just showed me that Raines has a 15% worse OPS than Ricky (27/23 not 127/123) and has less than 60% of his steals. That's not quite a compelling case. Sell me better. :D

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Well, you just showed me that Raines has a 15% worse OPS than Ricky (27/23 not 127/123) and has less than 60% of his steals. That's not quite a compelling case. Sell me better. :D

SI

Considering Rickey may be one of the Top 20 players of all time, that's not bad. Especially when considering steals wise, Raines is 4th since the modern era and only 84 steals behind Ty Cobb. How about we take someone who has 15% less OPS than, say, Stan Musial (who is at 159... or rather 59)? :D

Question is, how many steals (at an 85% success rate) impresses you ;).

In addition you have the list a little bit higher which shows Raines as similar to Tony Gwynn.

[Logan]

Olerud should be in the HOF.

You probably think Ed Sprague and Juan Guzman should be in too :).

[MikeVic]

You probably think Ed Sprague and Juan Guzman should be in too :).

I never much liked Sprague. But Guzman, sure!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'll take a stab at this...times have changed. More money in the game means more guys want a piece of the pie and whether that means guys are working harder to make themselves better (legally or otherwise) or better athletes are taking an interest in the sport instead of say, joining the military or playing another sport. Also, with more money comes more responsibility in terms of training (players take much better care of their bodies than they used to and that will continue as new research continues to show how to get more out of the human body for longer) and also being more responsible off the field. Long gone are the days of smoking and drinking before, during, and after a game.

Another big factor has to be the influx of foreign talent, primarily from Latin America. Add to that the effect of expansion and you have more teams, more good players, and therefore more guys on the leaderboards.

Simply stated, today's athletes are "professional" athletes and look at it more like a job because of the money involved and because it's a lucrative business, there are more guys willing to do whatever it takes to make it. That's not to say that Ted Williams wasn't a professional, but he was the exception, not the rule.

I'll buy this as true, but would it have an affect on OPS+ as time goes on? Wouldn't pitchers be "improving" at roughly the same rate as hitters?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

On the other hand, that's only 20% of the total and baseball, being around for over 100 years (or something like 90 since the end of the dead ball era), you may expect that.

In the Top 20, for example, only 3 are active players, and one is Barry Bonds, who it is arguably is still active. The other is Frank Thomas, who may be retiring soon enough. And in the Top 30, the only addition among active players is Manny Ramirez (in a 4 way tie for 22nd).

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?

There are more active players down the list, but remember a lot of them are in their early 30s, which means as they go on with their careers, their skills will diminish (though these days with modern training, it may be less pronounced than earlier eras) and they will fall back. For example, I don't expect Travis Hafner to stay at 61st (currently with an OPS+ of 142 at 31 years of age).

Your last point is definitely a good one, one that I didn't appreciate. It will be more instructive to look at recently retired "steroid era" hitters in a few years than active ones.

[JPhillips]

George Foster for HOF!

[larrymcg421]

I will support any criteria that will get Dale Murphy in, no matter how crazy it needs to be.

[Fighter of Foo]

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?


Perception and length of career.

[johnnyshaka]

I'll buy this as true, but would it have an affect on OPS+ as time goes on? Wouldn't pitchers be "improving" at roughly the same rate as hitters?

Well, I guess with the "improvements" players have been trying to make over the years...legal or otherwise...maybe batters have figured out how to increase their advantage. So, the question is, in our era, has steroids helped batters more than pitchers? IMO, yes, it has.

Also, I think with OPS becoming so popular over the last couple of decades batters have started to shift their mindset to swing for the fences and not worry about striking out. Striking out used to be frowned upon and and a hit was a hit. Meanwhile, a pitcher's focus has never really shifted from trying to get the batter out. I mean, that's the main objective, right? If you have good stuff you try to strike out as many guys as possible or else you do your best to make sure they don't hit the ball hard...that's been the mantra for every pitcher, ever.

[ISiddiqui]

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?
---
Your last point is definitely a good one, one that I didn't appreciate. It will be more instructive to look at recently retired "steroid era" hitters in a few years than active ones.

As I said, I don't think the percentages are all that out of wack, when especially, with modern training, you have players playing longer. Bonds is listed as active (though he may not be, and in previous eras he'd have retired already), someone like Frank Thomas probably would have retired a few seasons ago, Jason Giambi and Jim Thome would be ready to hang 'em up, Piazza is already retired, and someone with as many injuries as Griffey has had would have been gone a while ago in an earlier age.

In addition, currently, 100th rank OPS+ is 136. I would be very interested to see how many players played themselves out of being above that number by their end years (George Brett and Al Kaline, who just missed, most definitely).

Of course the most interesting thing is, if there are a greater % of great OPS+ hitters in this generation than ones past, it may tell us the prevalence of steroid use. Because, after all, OPS+ adjusts for era factors. It may indicate that only a few used steroids and those were the players that had high OPS+ numbers. Or better training for the super-stars may explain it (instead of an injury making them far less of a player, it can be healed to make them good as new... imagine Griffey, Jr.'s career in the 50s, without access to modern medicine or training methods).

[ISiddiqui]

Also, I think with OPS becoming so popular over the last couple of decades batters have started to shift their mindset to swing for the fences and not worry about striking out. Striking out used to be frowned upon and and a hit was a hit.

:confused:

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

[rowech]

:confused:

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

Half of OPS is not OBP. More like 1/3 of it for many hitters. Your OPS going up more is well worth the risk of striking out more if you bump up your slugging percentage more.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know of many hitters who have a .300 OBP and and a .600 SLG (which would be more 1/3rd).

Maybe more like 4/10ths, but it's close to half.

Regardless, I don't think hitters are looking to bump up their OPS and that's why they are swinging for the fences.

[rowech]

I don't know of many hitters who have a .300 OBP and and a .600 SLG (which would be more 1/3rd).

Maybe more like 4/10ths, but it's close to half.

Regardless, I don't think hitters are looking to bump up their OPS and that's why they are swinging for the fences.

I was talking more about the top players. Last season it looks to be around 40-45%.

[johnnyshaka]

:confused:

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

Hitting a slow roller to 2B and grounding into a DP doesn't do anybody any good either and that's why I'd rather the K everytime.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?


Did some research and found an interesting article last year by Buster Olney on this. I think it's Insider, though.

Buster Olney Blog - ESPN (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&entryID=3193056)

Highlights:

And if you think that Adjusted OPS+ is a set of numbers that generally creates a level statistical playing field for all of the eras of baseball, then you'd have to ignore the following. Of the top 63 players all time in OPS+, there are:
Nineteen players who performed the bulk of their careers in the years leading up to 1920.
Eight players who performed the bulk of their careers in the years from 1920-1939.
Seventeen players who have performed the bulk of their careers from 1990-2007.
And a total of 17 players from the 50-year period of 1940-89To repeat: According to Adjusted OPS+, there are an equal number of players, among the top 63 of all time in the statistic, in the 50-year period of 1940 to 1989 as there have been in the 18-year period from 1990 through 2007.

Part of the reason, of course, is there are more teams now. But part of the reason is that in years in which there is less offense, generally, it is more difficult to create a plus/minus disparity in this statistic. From 1940-1989, there were a total of 11 league leaders with Adjusted OPS+ numbers of 200 or higher; there wasn't a single Adjusted OPS+ leader of 200 or higher from 1981-1991. Since 1992, there have been eight leaders of Adjusted OPS+ of 200 or more in the NL alone, and nine overall.

Let's go one step further. In the 16 seasons since the start of the 1992 season, there have been only three instances in which an Adjusted OPS+ league leader registered less than 171. But in the 50 years prior to that, there were 42 instances in which a league leader was at 170 or lower. If you don't think that Adjusted OPS+ is a statistic that skews toward the elite players of the Steroid Era, well, then that's your story and you're sticking to it.

Either the players today are much more awesome than they've been in the past, or OPS+ is not that great across eras.

[Subby]

The problem with the Rice arguments is that the pro-induction folks are using non-quantifiable metrics. "Most feared hitter of his era" and "best power hitter of his era" and whatever else folks come up with tend to work great as soundbites, but when you dig a little deeper they don't hold a lot of water.

Then when these arguments are harpooned, you get the standard litany of comebacks - "stat nerd!" or "douchebagery (sic)" or whatever else. There is no credible argument for Jim Rice's inclusion in the Hall of Fame that includes how he performed over his ENTIRE career. None. You get a cherry-picked data set of five years and that's it. And name-calling.

[ISiddiqui]

Did some research and found an interesting article last year by Buster Olney on this. I think it's Insider, though.

Buster Olney Blog - ESPN (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&entryID=3193056)

Highlights:
[/list]Either the players today are much more awesome than they've been in the past, or OPS+ is not that great across eras.

SOME players are much more awesome compared to the field. If everyone was much more awesome, you wouldn't have high OPS+ numbers, since it is relative to the field.

And I think Olney makes the golden point right in his article. There are more teams today and the increase in expansion means that a lot of players who would be in the minors otherwise are in the major leagues. Which means the best players are competing against an average value that may be lower than it otherwise would be.

Second, why "Top 63"? Who makes a cut off at that point?

Thirdly, I've always thought Buster Olney was a bit of dolt regarding statistical analysis. This paragraph in the article (at least as much as I can see since I'm not an "Insider") seems to confirm it:

So if I understand the argument from some e-mailers: If you criticize Rice's candidacy by relying on Adjusted OPS+, through which Rice fares badly, that's analysis. But if you support Rice's candidacy citing home runs and RBI, then it's cherry-picking.

Mostly because it appears he doesn't realize that Adjusted OPS+ is normalized for park and era factors and HRs and RBIs aren't, and RBI is HIGHLY dependant on what the rest of your team does. Using RBI is just a bit silly knowing what we know about the statistic (ie, penalizing someone for low RBI totals when everything else is high is basically penalizing the player for having bad teammates).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Thanks for continuing with this Siddiqui. I'm actually agnostic on Rice in the HOF, but am intrigued by this OPS stuff. So if modern day OPS+ is inflated due to expansion, is there any utility in comparing OPS+ across eras? I see this done all the time.

[Subby]

**This space saved for when Andre Dawson gets into the Hall of Fame ahead of Raines**

[ISiddiqui]

Thanks for continuing with this Siddiqui. I'm actually agnostic on Rice in the HOF, but am intrigued by this OPS stuff. So if modern day OPS+ is inflated due to expansion, is there any utility in comparing OPS+ across eras? I see this done all the time.

All OPS+ is basically OPS adjusted to era and park effects. So it isn't really comparing across eras, its comparing how much better were you than your peers. You can use it to compare across eras by saying this player isn't much better than the average player in his time than that player was.

Of course, though, the corrollary to expansion, now that I think about it, is there is a far bigger pool to draw from. Not just black players, but far more Latinos and now Asian players are coming into the majors. So one must control for that as well.

The problem is that all you can really do is compare players in the era they are from. You can't really judge how Babe Ruth would have done if the Negro Leagues were abolished and all the black players were allowed in the Majors. So the only way to really judge across the eras would be to measure how much better than the mean of their era was a player.