Let’s Try This Again

The subject today is the Jim Rice debate, again, only this time I promise to be nice.  There will be no curses in this post. 

In fact, I won’t even give the name of the person I’m talking about, or offer a link to the particular chat in question, because I just don’t need that headache.  I’ve been chewed on enough, appropriately to at least some degree, for the tone of my last Rice post, and I’ve seen others given a fair ration of grief as well for espousing similar views, even though they did so in a far more polite manner than I did.  I’d rather not invite that sort of melodrama again, so you’ll have to find the correct chat and analyst yourself.  If that makes it more difficult for anyone out there to follow-up on the discussion, I apologize in advance.  

This is not going to be another post that explores the subject of whether Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame or not, because I think the various views on that are now widely known.  Rather, I’d like to discuss why there may be a perception among some people, like Peter Gammons for instance, that certain sabermetrically-inclined writers are making an example of Jim Rice this year. 

Yesterday provided us with a prime example of how this belief may have come to be.  A prominent baseball analyst was conducting an online chat, and was asked the following question:

“Q: ranking in order please….Joe Carter..Jim Edmonds..Dwight Evans..Andre Dawson..Willie McGee..Jim Rice.”

“A: As HoF candidates? Hm. Edmonds, Evans, Dawson, Carter, Rice, McGee.”

Forget most of the names you see there and focus on just two.  Joe Carter ahead of Jim Rice.  A pecking order I have never seen before, anywhere.  At least not from anyone who was being serious.

Now, realize that this was in the middle of a two-hour chat in which roughly 10% of the 125-odd baseball-related questions or answers focused on whether or not Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame.  I say “questions OR answers” because in some cases the question would be about a completely different player’s Hall of Fame case but the analyst would inject Rice into the answer for no apparent reason.  For instance:

“Q:  Is Fred McGriff a HOF? “

“A: No, unless Jim Rice is the new standard, in which case, yes. “

And later…

“Q:Is Albert Belle deserving on HOF entry?”

“A: No, but again, he’s a better candidate than Rice.”

You see my point.  For some reason, the analyst in question decided to bring the topic back around to Rice.  Beyond those specific answers, the high percentage of Rice-related Q&A in the chat tells you the direction the analyst wanted to steer the conversation.  At one point about halfway through the chat, 1400 was cited as the number of questions submitted to that point, so we can presume something north of 2000-2500 were asked by the end, roughly 70% of them being about baseball.  I have serious doubts that 10% of those baseball questions revolved around Jim Rice’s Hall of Fame qualifications, but that’s the proportion that appeared in the chat, every one of them unflattering.  Now, I’m presuming that it was the analyst who was selecting the questions to answer.  It’s possible that’s not the case, but if so, that’s not the norm for this particular website given other chatters’ comments in the past.  I think it’s safe to say our analyst was driving the choice of questions, in which case I can see where people would draw the conclusion that the analyst had an anti-Rice agenda of some sort that he wanted to pursue. 

This conclusion is supported by the tone of the answers given.  In not one of those answers was there any sense of a conciliatory attitude on the subject.  By that I mean that there was never a placating response like, “Well, Rice was a fine player, I just don’t happen to think he reaches HOF standards.”  Instead, all answers were aggressively negative.  Words like “ridiculous” and “absurd” and “scoundrel” were used to describe Rice’s supporters and the arguments they make on his behalf.  He labeled one famously combative Rice supporter “Raggedy Danny”, an obvious insult of the guy’s looks.  In short, there was an overt negativity involving anything related to Rice that went well beyond what would be expected in a truly balanced or unbiased discussion.

Compounding this situation is the answer cited above where the analyst ranks Joe Carter as a better Hall of Fame candidate than Jim Rice.  To be frank, that strikes me as a dishonest response.  I have never heard any sabermetrically-inclined writer or analyst cite Joe Carter as a better ballplayer than Rice until yesterday.  The prevailing sabermetric measurements simply don’t come close to supporting that conclusion:

WARP3: Rice, 83.2; Carter, 65.4

Win Shares: Rice, 282; Carter, 240

EQA: Rice, .294; Carter, .273

OWP: Rice, .627; Carter, .514

OPS+ : Rice 128; Carter 105

Even when we get to their respective fielding numbers as left fielders, Rice rates out better:

Rate: Rice, 97; Carter, 94

RAR/G: Rice, .064 ; Carter, .027

RAA/G: Rice - .034; Carter, -.050 

Neutralizing traditional statistics give us the same view.  Here is the average neutral-context 162-game season for each player:

Rice: 191 hits, 96 runs, 29 homers, 111 RBI, 52 walks, 4 steals, .298/.352/.501/.853

Carter: 164 hits, 87 runs, 30 homers, 107 RBI, 40 walks, 17 steals, .262/.309/.469/.778

Now, obviously none of this has much at all to do with whether or not Rice himself is qualified to be a Hall of Famer, but it should be abundantly clear that he was, at the very least, a better player than Joe Carter.  I mean, this really isn’t all that terribly close, whether you’re using traditional statistics or advanced ones.  Rice was a much better hitter.  Neither was a plus defender, but it was Rice who was slightly better.  Rice led his leagues in far more categories and garnered far more awards and honors than Carter.  The only things Carter had going for him that Rice didn’t was some better baserunning ability, about a half-season of extra longevity, and one huge World Series moment.  (Carter was also more flexible defensively, I suppose, in that he also played a fair number of games at other positions, but he wasn’t good at any of them - Right Field, 625 games, 95 Rate; Center Field, 432 games, 97 rate; First Base, 308 games, 94 rate - so the value of that flexibility is somewhat suspect.)

In short, I find it very hard to believe that the analyst in question, or any other sabermetrically-inclined analyst for that matter, honestly feels that Joe Carter is more worthy of the Hall of Fame than Jim Rice.  If so, he certainly has virtually no statistical evidence to support him, which is precisely the argument he made earlier in the same chat about a certain Rice supporter.  What I believe happened is that he simply got caught up in the fervor of several strong anti-Rice comments he had already made and decided to stretch the point even further by giving Carter the better side of the comparison. 

Regardless, I think it doesn’t serve his overall point very well.  If his goal is to make it abundantly clear that he believes the BBWAA is on the brink of making a mistake by electing Jim Rice to the Hall of Fame, then he’s not helping his cause by giving the appearance of having a clear agenda to bash Rice’s credentials and supporters, even if that means straining credulity to do so.  All that is likely to do is lead to the same sort of conclusion Gammons noted, namely that certain writers and analysts seem to have an axe they feel the need to grind in regard to Jim Rice.  That may not be the case, but that’s the appearance that is being given by the type of behavior on display from this analyst and others who have chimed in on the debate.

I can’t help but wonder what purpose they think they are serving through these tactics.  I mean, if you despise the fact that certain members of the BBWAA are not only “inventing” arguments in Rice’s favor but are also being openly belligerent and condescending as they do so, what on Earth do you have to gain by following suit? 

Ah, much better than last time.  Not a swear to be seen.