Jim Rice
Posted by Andy on January 9, 2008
As much as I hate to credit Sean McAdam as a source, here are some tables based on some info I heard him give yesterday.
These are all summed Batting Season Finder results.
RBIs, 1975 to 1984, across MLB:
Cnt Player **RBI** From To Ages G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Positions Teams +----+-----------------+--------+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+-----------+ 1 Jim Rice 1063 1975 1984 22-31 1469 6453 5896 915 1786 270 68 303 447 62 1053 46 5 59 215 53 31 .303 .353 .526 .879 *7D/98 BOS 2 Mike Schmidt 1009 1975 1984 25-34 1482 6355 5222 1008 1403 253 44 370 1005 122 1254 47 12 69 92 136 71 .269 .387 .547 .934 *5/634 PHI 3 George Foster 995 1975 1984 26-35 1421 5949 5330 794 1507 228 37 286 526 90 1042 38 0 55 143 38 18 .283 .348 .500 .848 *78/93 CIN-NYM 4 Dave Winfield 929 1975 1984 23-32 1454 6141 5450 874 1590 266 55 232 610 111 723 15 11 55 149 161 57 .292 .361 .488 .849 *978/D3 SDP-NYY 5 Steve Garvey 914 1975 1984 26-35 1504 6385 5942 797 1795 302 28 187 332 88 659 17 30 64 172 71 49 .302 .337 .457 .794 *3 LAD-SDP 6 Greg Luzinski 900 1975 1984 24-33 1389 5766 4918 696 1349 263 14 250 708 79 1133 72 0 68 110 29 23 .274 .369 .486 .855 *7D/3 PHI-CHW
Total bases, 1975 to 1984, across MLB:
Cnt Player **TB** From To Ages G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Positions Teams +----+-----------------+--------+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+-----------+ 1 Jim Rice 3101 1975 1984 22-31 1469 6453 5896 915 1786 270 68 303 1063 447 62 1053 46 5 59 215 53 31 .303 .353 .526 .879 *7D/98 BOS 2 Mike Schmidt 2854 1975 1984 25-34 1482 6355 5222 1008 1403 253 44 370 1009 1005 122 1254 47 12 69 92 136 71 .269 .387 .547 .934 *5/634 PHI 3 Steve Garvey 2714 1975 1984 26-35 1504 6385 5942 797 1795 302 28 187 914 332 88 659 17 30 64 172 71 49 .302 .337 .457 .794 *3 LAD-SDP 4 George Brett 2667 1975 1984 22-31 1316 5758 5187 843 1649 339 98 161 818 491 95 352 10 18 52 92 123 66 .318 .375 .514 .889 *5/3769D KCR 5 George Foster 2667 1975 1984 26-35 1421 5949 5330 794 1507 228 37 286 995 526 90 1042 38 0 55 143 38 18 .283 .348 .500 .848 *78/93 CIN-NYM 6 Dave Winfield 2662 1975 1984 23-32 1454 6141 5450 874 1590 266 55 232 929 610 111 723 15 11 55 149 161 57 .292 .361 .488 .849 *978/D3 SDP-NYY 7 Cecil Cooper 2618 1975 1984 25-34 1368 5775 5352 783 1650 308 36 196 856 314 66 601 12 39 58 103 73 36 .308 .344 .489 .833 *3D BOS-MIL
Although Rice did have the benefit of having the second-most PAs across this same time period:
Cnt Player **PA** From To Ages G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Positions Teams +----+-----------------+---------+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+-----------+ 1 Pete Rose 6626 1975 1984 34-43 1511 5852 873 1760 332 40 41 542 668 66 354 48 21 37 120 90 58 .301 .375 .392 .767 *35/794 CIN-PHI-TOT 2 Jim Rice 6453 1975 1984 22-31 1469 5896 915 1786 270 68 303 1063 447 62 1053 46 5 59 215 53 31 .303 .353 .526 .879 *7D/98 BOS 3 Steve Garvey 6385 1975 1984 26-35 1504 5942 797 1795 302 28 187 914 332 88 659 17 30 64 172 71 49 .302 .337 .457 .794 *3 LAD-SDP 4 Mike Schmidt 6355 1975 1984 25-34 1482 5222 1008 1403 253 44 370 1009 1005 122 1254 47 12 69 92 136 71 .269 .387 .547 .934 *5/634 PHI 5 Robin Yount 6257 1975 1984 19-28 1442 5705 837 1641 309 67 126 687 412 28 605 13 68 59 116 135 53 .288 .334 .432 .766 *6/D MIL 6 Dave Winfield 6141 1975 1984 23-32 1454 5450 874 1590 266 55 232 929 610 111 723 15 11 55 149 161 57 .292 .361 .488 .849 *978/D3 SDP-NYY 7 Ken Singleton 6071 1975 1984 28-37 1446 5115 684 1455 235 19 182 766 886 85 860 10 16 44 174 8 14 .284 .388 .445 .833 *9D/7 BAL 8 Dave Concepcion 6066 1975 1984 27-36 1456 5484 638 1500 267 31 64 635 476 51 734 6 41 59 158 190 68 .274 .329 .369 .698 *6/534 CIN 9 Ron Cey 6031 1975 1984 27-36 1462 5179 708 1374 244 13 243 849 731 86 874 44 18 59 130 21 26 .265 .357 .458 .815 *5 LAD-CHC
I think it goes without saying that Rice was the best power-hitter in the AL over this 10-year period, although Schmidt edges him out as the best power-hitter in MLB. (Schmidt's got 67 more HR and a SLG that's 21 points higher.)
January 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Just a side note (curious about opinion of other people on it): wouldn't adding BB & HBP be more useful than just TB alone?
Also, how many people have led their league in power hitting over any ten-season span (for some reasonable definition)? Perhaps more to the point, how many of them are in the HoF? I don't know the answers, but it would put into context whether that conclusion is a reasonable argument for HoF enshrinement.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Absolutely adding BB & HBP would be more useful than just TB alone! It increases your total bases and your RBI's if you're less selective, but a batting profile of many official at-bats and few walks may not aid your team. Conversely, how many "outs" do you make over a season (second section of a B-R individual batter page) and what is their percentage to your plate appearances?
Mike Schmidt's 558 additional walks on the above report may not be quite as good as 558 additional singles (and, therefore, total bases). But those 558 times not swinging at the final pitch may have helped Schmidt to ground into 123 fewer double plays than Jim Rice, and that's worth something, too.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Its not just '75-'84. You can take any 10 consecutive seasons from '75-'87 and Rice will be the total base leader. In fact if you compare Rice from '75-'87 with George Brett who is the same age, their numbers are pretty similar. (With the exception of Rice's jaw dropping GIDP totals.) Of course Brett was an infielder ....
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/vST9
January 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Even though these stats are hand picked to emphasize Rice's strengths and ignore his weaknesses, and the 10 year period is likewise a selection with no significance other than to maximize Rice's accomplishment; I find it funny that he falls from the top of these lists when you take Fenway out of the mix.
Away games only:
RBI
1 Mike Schmidt 502
2 George Foster 479
3 Dave Winfield 470
4 Jim Rice 465
5 Steve Garvey 427
6 Greg Luzinski 386
Total Bases
1 Mike Schmidt 1462
2 Dave Winfield 1461
3 Jim Rice 1426
4 Cecil Cooper 1372
5 George Foster 1344
6 Steve Garvey 1327
7 George Brett 1266
January 10th, 2008 at 8:08 am
jrpaul is actually getting to my point. This entire post was written sarcastically on my part. Is it somewhat impressive that Rice leads all of baseball in these stats over this time period? Yes. But it's not very meaningful, actually. The period is arbitrarily well-suited to Rice's career, just like saying that Jack Morris was the Wins leader for MLB in the 1980s. Nobody bothers to mention that Morris was also 3rd in losses in that decade, or that if you instead look at 1981 to 1990, then Mike Moore is tied for the lead with Morris.
The problem with these arbitrary periods is that it confuses the issue when it comes to HOF voting. One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball--best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder--something like that. This argument that Rice lead MLB in certain stats over a 10-year period is a mirage trying to argue that Rice was the dominant player for those 10 years. Now, no doubt Rice was great, but he wasn't dominant for 10 years.
While it's true that he led MLB in total bases from 1975 to 1984, he led MLB in total bases just 3 out of those 10 years. (Not that leading MLB in TB 3 times is not impressive, but 3 is a lot less than 10.)
January 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
And to your last point, Andy, the metric of total bases is impressive, but total bases advanced (or whatever someone wants to call a more comprehensive measure) should be more impressive. We pay more attention now to total bases because it's easy to find or to compute, whereas factoring in walks and steals and hitting into double plays and the number of plate appearances takes more effort. Once upon a time, nobody knew what an on-base percentage was.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am
No argument from me, David.
By the way, in 1978 Rice led all of MLB with 406 total bases. The leader in the NL was Dave Parker, with just 340. And, get this, nobody else in the AL had even 300 total bases. That is totally crazy and whacked out to me. Does anybody have an explanation?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
After age 33, Jim Rice's OPS+ were 101, 102, and 70. Perhaps he was overworked within individual seasons. In any case, he was the only player to be in 163 games in 1978. That's one factor in the "most feared" reputation, endurance. When the pitcher looked up, that @#$#% Rice was always there, waiting.
Factor two: if you don't take many walks, you put more balls in play, and the more you put in play, the more likely you are to have high total bases. Ted Williams is 4th in career walks, 19th in career total bases. Barry Bonds led the league 12 times in walks, once in total bases.
And Jim Rice clearly ran hard out of the box at ages 24 and 25, because in each season he turned 15 of what might have been doubles into triples. If George Foster had hit 15 triples the year before (1977), Foster would have had 400 total bases.
A five-year summary of 300+ total bases for the AL: 1976, nobody; 1977, 8 players; 1978, Rice; 1979, 8; 1980, 7. These things can go up and down, depending on who's hot or healthy that year.
Another factor: George Brett played in only 128 games in 1978. In 1980, Brett's 298 TB in 449 AB is a % of .657, compared to Jim Rice's .600 in 1978. No knock on Jim Rice here. Going out there every day is good.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Andy in #5 you write "One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball–best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder–something like that."
Is Rice's problem that he spread his best years out? He finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting 6 times, just not consecutively.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Well, I don't know if that's a conscious problem in the minds of the voters, but I do think it might have a subconscious effect. A couple of recent entrants come to mind: Gossage and Sutter. Each had a period of a few years where they were THE MARQUIS PLAYER at their position (both happen to be closers.) I think that sort of definitive streak of being a dominant player really helps. SO I think that Rice, being more spread out, hurts him a little bit. If by chance he had happened to bunch those 6 years all together, he'd probably be in the HOF already. (Mind you, this "peak effect" is not present all the time. Lots of HOFers--Gwynn and Ripken come to mind right away--didn't have a specific peak where they were dominant.)
January 12th, 2008 at 7:43 am
[...] the talk on this post about Jim Rice’s peak years, and the general value of having a high peak to a player’s [...]