Rice over Dawson?
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 9:26 AM EST
94 comments
I'm happy Jim Rice got in, he deserves it, but in comparison to Andre Dawson I'm not sure how he got in first. Two guys from roughly the same era and it doesn't appear close. Maybe someone else has a perspective I'm not looking at, but its hard to think this is any more than Rice played where people saw him and for most of his career Dawson did not.
Dawson played 21 years, Rice played 15 years
Dawson 438 HR, Rice 382 HR
Dawson 503 doubles, Rice 373 doubles
Dawson 1591 RBI, Rice 1451 RBI
Dawson 314 SB, Rice 58 SB
I've heard talk of Rice being a more "feared" hitter in his time:
Dawson 143 IBB, Rice 77 IBB
Both had tremendous throwing arms:
Dawson 157 OF Assists, Rice 137 OF assists
Awards:
Dawson:
1977 Rookie of the Year
1987 MVP (Top 10 - 3 times)
8 Gold Gloves
4-time Silver Slugger
8-time All-Star
Rice:
1978 MVP (Top 10 - 5 times)
8-time All-Star
2-time Silver Slugger
I'm more optimistic than ever that Dawson will get in at some point now.
0 recs |
94 comments
Email
Print
Comments
counting stats
I know counting stats go a long way with HoF voters, but Rice was a better hitter, I think. And he was on the ’75 and ’86 Sox pennant winners. Dawson a better runner, fielder and longevity. certainly Rice at his peak years stretch was a better hitter.
I wish Blyleven would make it.
by wobatus on Jan 13, 2009 11:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
I too, think Rice was the better hitter at his peak (better OPS by 50 points, incl. 20 pts better in slugging), but I also think Dawson is Hall-worthy. You should be optimistic of the Hawk’s chances. But I also agree with wobatus – please please let Blyleven get in there.
by journeymen on Jan 13, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice’s only advantage over Dawson was his bat. He was a terrible defensive player, and a very bad, slow runner. (Also, using assists as a way to compare a CF who played for years in cavernous Olympic Stadium and a left-fielder in Fenway isn’t a very good idea). As a hitter, Rice declined much sooner and received a tremendous boost throughout his career from his home park (career .320/.374/.546 at home, .277/.330/.459 on the road).
Seems pretty apparent from both the Dawson and Raines vote totals that the majority of BBWAA voters still think Montreal’s a team in the Dodgers farm system.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 13, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Raines
Way way way way way way better than either.
Belongs in the HOF right now.
by Galt on Jan 13, 2009 11:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
Rice and Dawson aren’t Hall of Fame quality. Raines is easily the best of the three.
Of course, most writers can’t be bothered to know anything about park effects, defense, baserunning, or OBP. Average, HR, and RBI are enough.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Near as good as Rickey....
For much of the 1980’s I would have rather had Raines on my team than Rickey. Nearly as much over all value, without the headaches of Rickey being Rickey. Rickey still clearly deserves the edge in HOF voting because of his longevity, but the numbers are surprisingly close (per PA).
Raines stole less bases, but with a higher percentage.
Raines had less OBP, but higher SLG% and more RBI per PA.
In 3000 less PA, Raines had 127 less HR, but 47 more triples.
Now that Rickey is in with a very high vote on the first ballot, hopefully voters will take a closer look at Raines on future votes.
PA BtWn OWP OPS+ WPA wOBA
10359 33.1 0.665 123 50.39 .374 Raines
13346 52.8 0.660 127 68.09 .386 Rickey
by acerimusdux on Jan 14, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For a 2-3 year period, Tim Raines might have been the best player in the entire sport
Slight exaggeration? Maybe. But he was pretty close.
The problem is that was 25 years ago.
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hawk is also
the only player on a last place team to win an MVP.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod
Also won it for a last place team, the 2003 Rangers.
by drwmsu1 on Jan 13, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot about that
but that emphasizes my point – if ARod is the only other player to do so – that’s a pretty special achievement (even though I think the MVP is an over-rated and usually mishandled award).
by slurve on Jan 14, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the reason is politics
still too many voters who base their selections on how long a guy has been on the ballot, how many years he has left on the ballot, how many other guys are going in that year, etc…..all meaningless garbage, but it has an impact for plenty of voters
just look at ricky – 28 people left him off their ballot……..he was an absolute no-brainer, but still 28 guys out there who are more interested in playing games then putting the best talent in the hall
it’s really a shame, but it’s been that way so long that it probably won’t ever change
by Wheelhouse on Jan 13, 2009 12:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Dawson
As much as Rice really didn’t deserve to get in, Andre Dawson is an even worse choice. Mike Cameron will be a more valuable player at the end of the year than Andre Dawson, and I don’t think any of us will be driving the Cammy for HOF bus.
Try, try, TRY to get past AVG, HR, and RBI when you vote for MVP of the HOF guys, please. It makes our sport look silly when you don’t.
In his last eight seasons, Andre Dawson topped a .316 OBP ONE TIME. Only 22 of the 138 players that qualified for the batting title last year had an OBP that low.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why?
does valuing HR, 2B, SB, RBI make our sport look silly? Its convenient to look at Dawson’s last few years, although he was a part time bench player for the last 3. I would guess most players in their late 30’s are not posting HOF numbers. In his prime, from age 22 to 33 (12 seasons) Dawson averaged 25 homers, 23 SB, 29 2B, 87 RBI. That’s longevity and excellent production in the pre-steroid era.
You would have to pretty young and never saw Dawson play to even remotely think Cameron is more valuable than Dawson. 143 IBB attests to the fact that Dawson was a feared and respected hitter in his era.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In that "prime"...
Dawson put up an OBP ~.329, and had a SLG over .500 four times in twelve years.
If elected, The Hawk would have a lower career OBP than all but FIVE Hall-Of-Famers—four of the best middle infielders of all time, and Brooks Robinson.
Getting on base is the most important part of run scoring. Dawson was TERRIBLE at it.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OBP
Obviously your main determining factor? Pretty narrow viewpoint.
Good thing your deal isn’t SLG, otherwise Gwynn and Boggs would have been in trouble.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good thing.
As I said, getting on base is the most important part of run scoring. If slugging percentage was the most important part, then that would be a stronger determining factor.
Gwynn and Boggs both had above-average SLG numbers, and stellar career OBPs of .388 and .415, respectively. Your argument is lacking something, yet I can’t put my finger on it.
Substance?
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just A Question.
Do you think Edgar Martinez is a HOF? I’m just curious as to what your answer is.
He has a career OBP of .4178. That’s 22nd all-time. His career OPS is .9333, that’s tied for 34th all time.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 13, 2009 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Another way to ask: Do you think one of the top 50 hitters of all-time should be kept out of the Hall of Fame?
by DrunkIrish on Jan 14, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No And No
Not sure if you are asking me or not. But I’ll answer anyway. No, I don’t think one of the top 50 hitters of all time should be left out of the HOF. I also don’t think Edgar Martinez is one of those guys.
Yes, before you ask, I prefer living in the stone age because crazy me I actually think production matters. To a degree, it’s not the be all and end all for me but it does matter.
When I look at his player page at baseball-reference.com I have a hard time seeing past his 162 Game avg. Yes, he averaged over a .900 OPS for his career but where’s the production? Where are the MVP’s? Only one top 5 finish? Was he even the best player on his own team? I don’t think so, but playing with HOFs himself really shouldn’t count against him though should it?
He made 7 all-star teams. But as the DH. Which brings me right to my other point. He’s a one dimensional player and that one dimension isn’t really HOF worthy. Look at his similar batters list. The only person in the HOF on that list is Orlando Cepeda, and if he isn’t the poster child for guys that don’t belong who is? Sorry, I just don’t see it.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 14, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll let somebody smarter than me (and you) reply to that
Says KC Star writer (and HOF voter) Joe Posnanski:
Next year’s ballot adds Edgar Martinez, who is honestly one of the best hitters in baseball history.
No joke. You know how many players in baseball history have 8,000 or more plate appearances and an OPS+ of 147? There are 26. And they are: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Stan Musial, Tris Speaker, Frank Thomas, Willie Mays, Manny Ramirez, Hank Aaron, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie, Jeff Bagwell, Jim Thome, Harry Heilmann, A-Rod, Edgar Martinez, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey.
Every single one of those 26 is either center stage in the Hall of Fame or is going to be real soon … except Edgar (and maybe Thome … we’ll have a LOT more to say about one of my favorite guys over the next few years). Maybe it’s because Edgar didn’t play a full season until he was 27. Maybe it’s because he spent most of his career as a DH. Maybe it’s because he was never full appreciated playing those late games on the West Coast. But two batting titles, three OBP titles, led the league in runs, doubles, RBIs and a bunch of other stuff. He really was an amazing hitter. We’ll see what the voters think.
Jim Rice isn’t fit to carry Edgar Martinez’ bats to the on-deck circle. Being better at something than almost everyone who ever played the game is worth a lot more than being a good hitter on a popular team.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 14, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Too Busy Watching Lost
First of all how do you know how smarts I am? I’ll let that one slide though. I’m well aware of where Martinez ranks on the OPS+ list. I spent at least 15 minutes looking at all of his stats on baseball-reference.com while I made my previous post. Including that one.
Personally, I think there’s more to the game than any one stat. Have you taken a look at his gray and black ink rankings? Not very impressive, especially the gray ink one. Look past his OBP and compare him to his contemporaries and what do you see? What era did he play in? He belongs in the hall of very good with everyone else.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 14, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More to the game than one stat.
OPS+ isn’t “any one stat”. It’s a measure of a player’s offensive effectiveness, adjusted for his league, park, and era. It’s a combination of many stats in a way that makes a lot more sense than looking at batting average and homeruns.
Look past his OBP and compare him to his contemporaries and what do you see? What era did he play in?
I’ll refer you to the previous paragraph, where you’ll see those questions were answered when I brought up OPS+ in the first place.
Have you taken a look at his gray and black ink rankings? Not very impressive, especially the gray ink one.
Gray and Black Ink numbers have relevance, but players with long careers have a distinct advantage in both. That’s especially true with Gray Ink. Take a look at Sandy Koufax’s Gray Ink number for an example.
Since you brought up the James HOF stats, don’t forget to check the HOF Standards/Monitor numbers. According to the HOF Monitor score, Edgar should be “a virtual cinch” to be enshrined.
Edgar’s HOF cred seems to be a litmus test for you, and the same is just as true for me. It’s a philosophy difference that isn’t likely to change for either of us anytime soon. I have a feeling I shouldn’t ask what you think of Raul Ibanez next.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 15, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Subject
I know OPS+ is adjusted for the league and park factors. I don’t see how OPS+ accounts for the era though. As in the 90s were an era of elevated offense.
I do see that he never led his league in SLG and led in OPS and OPS+ only once (1995).
But all that’s really beside the point though isn’t it? I knew from the very beginning that I would be unable to change your mind. Nor was I trying to. Just trying to explain why I don’t see him as a HOF.
It’s a philosophy difference that isn’t likely to change for either of us anytime soon.
That’s exactly why I asked you about Martinez in the first place. His numbers to me looked like the kind of guy you would think is a lock. Where as I obviously don’t see it. You could have saved yourself the discussion with a simple yes or no answer. Thanks anyway.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 15, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+ adjusts for era
because it changes relative to the league-average OPS.
I know OPS+ is adjusted for the league and park factors. I don’t see how OPS+ accounts for the era though. As in the 90s were an era of elevated offense.
A guy with a .900 OPS will have a higher OPS+ in an era where the offensive level is lower. The whole reason the stat exists is to compare players across eras.
Learning more about how you can apply modern statistics to help you compare players objectively could really change the way you look at baseball. It’s worth trying.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 15, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
Learning more about how you can apply modern statistics to help you compare players objectively could really change the way you look at baseball. It’s worth trying.
That is too funny. Yes, until yesterday I had never heard of any sabermetric stats. I also didn’t realize I wasn’t being objective. You should be praised for even attempting discourse with a backwards individual such as myself.
I’m going to try and make one last attempt to try and point out to you what I can’t see past. Fair enough? My quote:
I do see that he never led his league in SLG and led in OPS and OPS+ only once (1995).
Edgar Martinez’s best single season OPS+
was 185. That’s tied for 131st all time. Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? But what about when I tell you that it was tied for the 14th best OPS+ in the 90s. Or that it doesn’t even rank as one of the top twenty seasons during the years he played? Or that in that 500 plus season list he only ranks 4 times. Does that sound like one of the 50 best hitters of all time, your words not mine? No, it doesn’t.
Let’s look at his career OPS+. Tied for 41st all time. Quite impressive. Except he is behind some contemporaries like Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez. Some other guy named Bonds and a Berkman too. He’s tied with Vladimir Guerrero. He’s also one point ahead of Jason Giambi and 2 points ahead of Chipper Jones respectively. Again, I’m not feeling the one of the top 50 hitters of all-time love.
When I also make note of the fact that he’s currently tied with A-Rod though, arguably one of the best players of his generation I start to wonder why are we hung up on this one thing in the first place and what exactly it is telling us.
I feel like my original point stands. IMO he belongs in the hall of very good. No shame in that.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 15, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And WOW
Dawson was intentionally walked 143 times? For one thing, that says more about him being in terrible lineups than anything else, but you’re telling me that 25% of his walks all-time were INTENTIONAL?
No wonder the guy only even sniffed 100 runs twice.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HUH?
“you’re telling me that 25% of his walks all-time were INTENTIONAL?”
That’s exactly what I’m telling you.
Sincerely,
Barry Lamar Bonds
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry...
but Barry Bonds was intentionally walked 120 TIMES in 2004 alone. The reason it’s notable that 25% of Dawson’s walks were intentional is that it makes his unintentional walk rate all the more embarrassing.
Barry Bonds. Good God. Andre Dawson isn’t even a leper’s Barry Bonds.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's Funny
Through 1989 Bonds averaged 21 HR, 29 SB, 31 2B, 55 RBI
Remember Dawson’s prime numbers? Let me revisit those for you:
25 homers, 23 SB, 29 2B, 87 RBI.
In 1990, Bonds numbers changed drastically (+200 OPS), you decide why.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Because he turned 25.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 13, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny
You keep citing counting stats when everyone keeps mentioning that the counting stats really aren’t all that important.
Bonds averaged a .345 OBP in those years – a number Dawson exceeded only 3 times in his career. Bonds’ .803 OPS in his pre-25 years were also only .002 points lower than Dawson’s career average.
You are also the only person on the planet who is suggesting that he took any ’roids before the late ’90s.
Dawson’s numbers are also inflated by a the huge juiced ball year of ’87 when everyone gained retarded power (look at Boggs for example).
Dwight Evans belongs in the HOF before Dawson (and before Jim Rice too)
by Galt on Jan 13, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Somebody
Roll ol’ Babe out of his sleep and tell him 714 wasn’t all that important.
Wake up Dimaggio and tell him 56 was great, but hits are just counting stats and really aren’t all that important.
“You are also the only person on the planet who is suggesting that he took any ’roids before the late ’90s.”
You CANNOT be serious. I suppose you think Dutch, Dykstra and the ’93 Phillies were clean also.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah terrible
For most of his career he had the likes of Sandberg, Raines and Grace hitting in front of him. But you can draw your own conclusions on why he would be intentionall walked.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm obviously so young, I can't remember...
did teams used to go through the batting order backwards?
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cameron more valuable
now that’s just silly.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's that silly
For a decade Cameron was one of the 3 best defensive CFs in baseball. That’s worth at least whatever Dawson had over him offensively, though Dawson wins in most counting stats since he played longer (though Cameron has almost 200 more walks in 4000 fewer ABs).
by thejd44 on Jan 13, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Dawson was terrible defensively?
I’m wondering at this point what the average age on this board is, because you clearly never saw Dawson play.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
Hawk was one of the best at his position for at least a decade, which is what I hear many of the voters discussing. He was no Cameron in the field, but he was a great RF’er. That Cameron comp is still making me laugh. Silly kids!
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you should stop laughing...
and start putting stock in something other than your nostalgia. Dawson’s career wOBA is .353, while Cameron’s is .347. Cameron plays phenomenal defense at a PREMIUM DEFENSIVE POSITION (and isn’t just known for his arm), and is a better baserunner than Dawson was.
The point is, Cammy’s value is, at worst, pretty damn close, and yet the comparison seems ridiculous in your gut. Maybe you shouldn’t put so much stock in your gut.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...
Dawson’s value as a player was higher than Cameron’s ever was. It has nothing to do with “gut” Dawson played in a vastly different era and comparing the 2 side-by side only exposes your lack of understanding of how valuable Dawson was during his day to go along with your youth. Cameron is a very solid player, but Dawson was among the league’s elite when he played. When lining them up against their contemporaries, Dawson takes the cake and it isn’t close.
Cameron plays phenomenal defense at a PREMIUM DEFENSIVE POSITION (and isn’t just known for his arm)
Uh… Dawson was the premier CF’er in baseball when he was in Montreal. Cameron ‘s only advantage here is that he didn’t have to play on that mid evil astroturf they had in Olympic Stadium and he has been able to keep his knees. Cameron also has the advantage of modern medicine and conditioning.
Here’s a little something else to chew on:
1980 Dawson 3rd in NL VORP
1981 Dawson 2nd in NL VORP
1982 Dawson 7th in NL VORP
1983 Dawson 3rd in NL VORP
1986 Dawson 30th in NL VORP
1987 Dawson 18th in NL VORP
1988 Dawson 13th in NL VORP
The highest I saw Cameron was 20th, so obviously in comparison to his contemporaries, he is no Dawson.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Dawson was a great ballplayer. I know I will probably get blasted for saying this but statistics don’t tell the whole story in regards to the Hawk. He could hit for power, had great range in the field, had a cannon for an arm, and was a great on the base paths. Cameron is a good player but not at all in Andre’s league.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 13, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
stats don’t tell the whole story. Name one other player who’s teammate ace pitcher charged the mound after they got hit by a bean pitch?
For as much as I agree that the old mentality regarding how players are chosen for the hall is terrible – I’m equally (if not more so) fearful of the next generations “use” of better stats to determine who is HOF worthy. Just look at how poorly they are being applied in this thread alone…
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They're being applied...
to show that Dawson is NOT worthy of the HOF. I have yet to see an objective argument that shows he is, so I’d say things are hashing out just fine in this thread.
Anecdotes about teammates standing up for a beaned player are NOT good examples of an objective argument for Hall worthiness. Your road ends with a bronze bust of David Eckstein in Cooperstown.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the argument
Unfortunately for you, was not Dawson’s HOF worthiness, but then I guess I should have titled the thread…..oh wait, yeah I did title it correctly.
If Rice is in, they Dawson will be.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You haven’t seen anything objective? I think that in itself says you aren’t being objective. Like I’ve stated, a major criteria is whether a player was one of the best of his generation – VORP for the years I posted supports that he was just that. There have also been some other examples by others.
First things first – my exchange with you has been strictly based on the silly claim that Cameron is as valuable as Dawson was. My VORP example along with cluing you in that Dawson was an elite CF’er pretty well puts that to bed. I have not stated in this thread that I think Dawson belongs / doesn’t belong in the HOF. See what I mean about the younger generation mis-applying things now? For the record – I think he’s fringy, but completely agree with Husker that if Rice is a HOF, so is Hawk (you know, the entire premise of this fanpost).
Secondly – I never stated that Sutcliffe charging the mound makes Dawson HOF worthy. It was agreeeing with KBR that stats don’t tell the whole story about Dawson.
Again, my exchange with you has been in regards to Cameron v. Dawson, which you have abandoned in what appears to be an effort to turn this into something or exchange isn’t – a debate on whether or not Dawson is HOF worthy rahter than the Cameron debate. Your road ends with a tinfoil bust of Gary Sheffield in Bullshitville.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From his manager
"Dawson’s critics say his on-base percentage figure makes him unworthy of Cooperstown. But that doesn’t factor in what Dawson’s teams wanted him to do.
“There are guys that get on base and guys that drive ’em in. Andre Dawson, we wanted him to be an RBI guy,” former Expos manager Buck Rodgers told FoxSports.com. “We didn’t want him up there taking pitches a quarter-inch inside or a quarter-inch outside. We wanted him hacking. If the ball was a little up, go ahead.” "
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That might be the most asinine braindead retard quote of all time
Not directing that at you, Husker, but anybody who ever hired Buck Rodgers should be permanently barred from baseball for eternity.
Asking a guy to do anything but what he’s best at doing is pure stupidity.
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wins most counting stats
just because he played longer? Puh-leese. When was the last time Cameron had 49 HR’s in a season? – that’s 49 pre-steroid era HR’s.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Timing is important
The offensive environment wasn’t as good for Dawson as it is for Cameron. Cameron, while valuable defensively, is no where close to be one of the top offensive contributors of his era. Dawson was both one of the top offensive and defensive contributors of his era.
That being said, I still don’t think either belongs in the HOF. Nor does Jim Rice. One dimensional sluggers that don’t get on base at ungodly rate aren’t HOFers to me. I’d rather have a good defense guy who could slug, like Dawson, than a plodder who was a defensive liability like Rice.
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice was not a defensive liability. He wasnt anything special, but he was ok.
He did get on base at a pretty great rate, albeit not “ungodly.”
I think he’s a fringe guy. I wouldnt vote for him, but I dont get the outrage. He’s not the worst player in the HOF by any means, but he’s in the bottom quarter.
Dawson just didnt get on base at anywhere near an acceptable rate. He used a tremendous amount of outs. A tremendous amount – that hurt his team a great deal. His offensive performance in the context of outs made is really unimpressive. Dawson is also borderline to me, but I would put Rice in ahead of him.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To put it more succinctly
Dawson reached base from a walk or hit 3363 times.
Rice reach base from a walk or hit 3122 times.
Dawson played 5 more seasons than Rice(21 years to 16). I always have valued peak over longevity in a HOF discussion anyway… Im pretty ambivalent about Rice – though as I said I wouldnt vote for him, but Dawson I probably would not want to see go in.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
21 years
is a stretch. Dawson didn’t even play half the games in his last 3 seasons.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok,
but Rice had a couple partial season there as well. The same goes for injuries.
Lets go by games played and PAs.
Dawson
G: 2627
PA: 10769
H+BB: 3363
Rice
G: 2089
PA: 9058
H+BB: 3122
Dawson reached base safely only 241 more times despite having 1711 more chances than Rice. Rice also not only walked and got hits at a better rate but he also hit for a higher SLG (ie. hit more extra base hits). That’s a huge difference with the bat. Dawson was undeniably a better fielder, but there’s simply too much value for him to make up there with the glove and legs, although its close…
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Post
Thanks.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreement here
in that Rice doesn’t belong in the Hall either.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 13, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good thing
for him they must have taken your ballot away.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Jan 13, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I said I wouldnt vote for Rice
but I dont think its a crime he made it. Same thing goes for Dawson. They were both great players. In my estimation they came up a little bit short, but those were fine careers that should be remembered as such. I think Dawson’s bat is getting a bit overrated, but he looks like he’s on pace to make the Hall, anyway.
I have a hard time getting worked up about either of these guys, though. I find the people who are decrying Rice’s election as some sort of global calamity quite humorous. A far greater story was people NOT voting for Rickey, IMO. 28(29?) people not voting for Rickey Henderson for assorted insane reasons (“Im not a Rickey guy” “I dont believe anyone should be unanimous because the Babe wasnt” “I think he’s a HOFer, but not first ballot”) bothers me a lot more than 76% of the voters voting for a fringy HOFer like Rice.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I say he's on pace to make the Hall
because Dawson has broken that threshold (66%, I think?) where every player who has got that many votes has eventually made it.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Someone not voting for Henderson pisses me off a lot more than people bitching that Rice made it in. I can see the arguments for and against Rice. I can’t see any damn reason to leave Henderson off the ballot. Dude is only the all time runs scored leader. Why bother having a vote if your going to be an ass about it?
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 13, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More than that
Rickey is the all time leader in:
Steals
Runs
Walks
Leadoff HRs
Those are some major categories to be the all time leader of…
Bill James said it best (thought I cant recall if he was quoting someone or not) that if you could split Rickey in two you would have two Hall of Famers.
You know what else is funny? From ages 24 THROUGH 39 his most similar player by BBRef was Tim Raines!
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The stat
that kept him off most ballots was probably the one that shows he was 1st all-time in talking in 3rd person.
by slurve on Jan 13, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
That’s alskor’s favorite quality about Rickey!
Im sure youre 100% correct, though… and in fact, Ill go farther and say if he was my teammate or I had to report on him Id probably dislike him. I hope if I knew he was an ass and I had to report on him during his career and then I had to vote for the HOF that I could see past that… I cant say for sure, but Id like to think I could. He’s not a borderline guy who’s kind of an ass… he’s an inner circle HOFer with a strange personality… and is probably an ass. I dunno.
Rickey stories always crack me up, though.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
For 2 years, 1984 and 1986, he was not a defensive liability. For the rest of his career, he was really bad.
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All accounts (except yours, it seems) is that Rice was a pretty brutal defensive player
Though some of that was probably made worse than it should have been by playing in Fenway. Of course, his offense was greatly enhanced by that.
Dawson, which not quite HOF caliber in my opinion, is quite a bit more worthy than Rice, who absolutely doesn’t belong. Carlos Lee is only marginally worse than Rice, and nobody’s talking about him as a HOF candidate even if he plays at his current level for another 5 years.
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was a below average defender with a good arm
People seem to have this impression that he was a “brutal defensive player” but its a load of horseshit. Below average does NOT equal brutal. This “brutal defender” stuff is revisionist history.
The myth of Rice being a brutal defender is widespread, but there is no truth to it. He was a decent athlete and an okay defender. His contemporaries never considered him a brutal defender and there isnt much evidence for it now.
Read this article: http://jim-rice.blogspot.com/2003/02/in-defense-of-defense.html (Disclaimer: the article is very pro Rice and draws some flawed conclusions. I list it here because it collected a number of sources supporting my point)
“With George Scott injured and Yaz filling in at first base, Rice has played more in the outfield this season, and played it well.” Time, 6/12/1978
“…He became a better-than-average left fielder who could really play that Fenway Park wall.” Don Zimmer, RedSox.com, 1/29/2001
[Bill] James took the extra step of assigning letter grades to each player for their defensive prowess. Rice received a C+,
also from Bill James Abstract:
“Jim Rice wasn’t a bad outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.”
Jim Rice was not a great OFer… but that doesnt mean he was a “brutal defensive player.” His HOF candidacy obviously rested on his offense, but he did provide some value on defense. The common wisdom has deemed Babe Ruth a bad defender as well – Completely untrue. He was a legitimately great defender as a young man and was still pretty good when he became the fat, studder-stepping Babe we see in pictures.
The difference between the defensive value of Dawson and Rice pales compared to the offensive difference, IMHO. BUT AGAIN, I would NOT have voted for Rice. I just think he would belong before Dawson, considering Dawson wasnt that great a hitter. I think Dawson’s offensive production has been overstated quite a bit.
Carlos Lee’s numbers only resemble Rice if you dont account for the run scoring environment. Yet, if Lee plays at his current level for 5 more years I would imagine he would be a fringy HOF candidate. This was the best season of his career. Neutralized to a 715 run scoring environment, his line looked like .311/.365/.565. His OPS+ this season was 144 BUT his next highest was 127. Five more years of 125-145 OPS+ production and I can guarantee you people would be mentioning him for the HOF.
As a sidenote, I would mention that many articles that criticized Rice’s candidacy the past few years and analyzed defense used flawed methodology. In particular Jay Jaffe and the JAWS system at BP use a defensive metric as the basis (and also the basis for WARP) that does not use play by play data. Furthermore, these stats, as well as UZR, have been shown to have serious issues dealing with the Green Monster effect. UZR we know for a fact counts balls off the wall as in playable zones.
The case against Rice comes down to two things, for me, and neiher is his LF defense – which wasnt that bad. 1) His career was too short; and 2) He played 33% of his games at DH.
by alskor on Jan 14, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice over Murphy confuses me more
Very similar offensive players (one had more BA, the other had more walks to compensate for it), and they were both among the top offensive players in their respecitve leagues for about 5 years, both finished with about the same counting stats, both hit a wall in their early 30’s, but one was a statue in LF and the other was a gold glove CF. I’d have to think the difference in defensive value way more than makes up any difference they had in offensive value.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 13, 2009 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty clear
The voting system and results for the HoF and many other MLB awards are fucked. I don’t think I’ve got any other way to put it..
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on Jan 13, 2009 1:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Alan Trammel
One of the best SS’s of all time. Belongs in the hall. Got 17% of the vote.
And I’m down with Raines and then Dawson before Rice.
by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 13, 2009 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Right on
Trammel’s defensive contributions are tremendously underrated because he wasn’t as flashy as his shortstop contemporary (Ozzie Smith).
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 on Tram and Raines – they both should be in. Raines should have been an easy first ballot.
-1 on the Hawk over Rice.
by alskor on Jan 13, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
In all fairness, I don’t really like either the Hawk or Rice for the HOF… I’d just prefer the Hawk.
by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 13, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice is better than Dawson....
Dawson never came close to being the player Rice was from 1977-1979. But I agree on Raines and Trammel. Trammel is more borderline because his batting numbers were pretty meh for HOF; you really have to weigh his defensive and positional value heavily, and consider the era. But Raines should be a slam dunk.
by acerimusdux on Jan 14, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All of these guys
Trammel, Hawk, Rice, Raines, even Blyleven sit in the outer ring of the Hall of Fame anyway so who really cares if they are in or not.
"Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women and Irish Whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
by strums on Jan 13, 2009 6:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Raines
does not sit in the outer ring of the HOF. He was sensational. He has 800+ career steals and a was a leadoff hitter with a career OPS+ higher than Andre Dawson and higher than Derrek Lee, Derek Jeter, Carlos Beltran, Pat Burrell, Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee, and Justin Morneau
by Galt on Jan 13, 2009 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How does Blyeven sit in the outer ring
And not Jim Rice?
by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 13, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
rice
it is not the hall of numbers. it is the hall of fame. jim rice is more famous than those other players. if it was the hall of numbers half the players in the hall would fall short.
by svigen on Jan 14, 2009 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
slightly different...
But if rice is a hall of famer how exactly do you leave juan gonzales out?
by CDFAN on Jan 15, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Another mistake
by directly comparing players from different era’s.
by slurve on Jan 15, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ummm...
No, thats not a mistake. Thats a relevant comparison when we are discussing the hall of fame. Its not the hall of the 70s/80s. You cant make a direct statistical comparison but you can look at some context dependant numbers and each players overall skill set. Juan had a higher ops+, was a better defensive player(though not exactly at the top of his hall credentials either) The crux of the rice for the hall argument other than some mythical fear factor, is how highly he finished in mvp voting for a few few years. Juan won 2(one of which he had ABSOLUTELY no business winning though) and had 2 other top 5 finishes. Rice won 1 and placed in the top 5 5 other times. Juan won 6 silver sluggers to rices 2. Its an entirely pertantent question to ask what exactly separates rice from juan other than one playing in boston and one in texas.
by CDFAN on Jan 15, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Umm...
It’s not bad to question – but it certainly was phrased terribly as is your reasoning for putting Gonzales in outside of ops+. MVP’s are probably the only thing more arbitrary than HOF votes. They often go to the wrong person for all the wrong reasons – using them as a measuring stick for who should get into the hall is terrible.
Who’s keeping him out in the first place? He’s not even eligible yet… He’s fringy w/o most of the important milestone’s – despite playing in very offense-centric years. Less than 2000 hits and a very so-so HR total are sure to hurt him. If he gets in, it will be years from now and just barely.
by slurve on Jan 15, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not saying he should be in...
Just saying rice shouldnt. I just asked how if you put rice in you leave essentially a better version of the same player out. they were vary comparable and juan was just better. I agree about the mvps(as i said juan didnt deserve one of his) but thats a general argument used for rice.
by CDFAN on Jan 15, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Juan Gonzalez won't make the HOF
because he didn’t play in Boston. He was every bit the player Jim Rice was.
Neither of them deserve to be in though.
by DrunkIrish on Jan 15, 2009 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
