Quote:
Originally Posted by brewing
Bill, I find it interesting that Dwight Evans has an OPS .029 lower than Rice in the years selected as Rice's peak. Evans the far superior fielder and the guy no one mentions as a HoF candidate.
I think it's fair to consider numbers to an era, but it's not right to pick a range of years and say this guy had the most xxx. It's the same weak argument they make for Jack Morris. Most wins in the decade. Big deal! Of course they forget to mention he pitched on the winningest team of the decade.
I don't have the time right now, but a stronger case can be made for Whitaker, Trammell, and Richie Allen than Jim Rice.
|
I saw Evans' name listed there while compiling, and wasn't surprised at all. He's another guy I feel deserves a second look. Man, the Red Sox had some great outfielders in the 60s and 70s, didn't they? Yaz, Reggie Smith, Rice, Dwight Evans, Freddy Lynn, Tony Conigliaro.
As far as your comment regarding numbers within an era, I understand where you're coming from, Brent, but here it's a little different. Wins are a team accomplishment. You can have a 4.00 ERA and still win 20 games if your offense comes through with a lot of run support, just like you can have a sub 3.00 ERA, and win nine games if your offense stinks (think Nolan Ryan in 1987. He went 8-16 though he led the NL in ERA, strikeouts, H/9 IP, K:BB ratio, K/9 IP). Batting average, home runs, and total bases, are really individual metrics. RBIs are, of course, not, as other guys have to be on base for you to to drive them in. But when you look at a wide range of statistics, Rice is either at the top, or very near the top, for a twenty year span. And while the supporting numbers I put out there for Rice are hardly definitive (I would really need to get into a year by year breakdown, because no matter where one draws the lines when sampling a large amount of data, players with different starts, peaks, and ends are not going to match up perfectly for comparative purposes), they are a good start. And his 162 game average for his career is pretty darned good. How many players in that era could say they averaged .300 with 30 HR and 110 + RBI every single year?
Jim Rice is by no means the greatest slugger to ever play the game. I wouldn't put him in my top ten, and likely not in my top twenty. But he'd be up there. The man had some downright massive seasons, but the other ones were really good, too. Even when you examine a season like 1984, where he had a .791 OPS, he still drove in 122 runs. He's what I call sneaky good. Led his league in hits once, triples once, home runs three times, RBI twice, slugging twice, OPS once, and total bases four times.
He certainly wasn't the fielder Evans was, that's for sure.
When you have some time, make your argument for Whitaker, Trammell and Allen. I'd love to see your thoughts.