« Cry from the Deep | Main | Night Draws Near »

December 27, 2005

Rice and the Hall

I remember watching Jim Rice play for the Red Sox in the mid-80s. By then he wasn't nearly the threat he had been in his heyday, but he was still a fun player to watch, and his assumption of the left field position that had been Carl Yaztremski's and Ted Williams' before that seemed quite appropriate. It has been 17 years since Rice retired, and in that time he has watched from afar year after year as the Hall of Fame vote has denied him entry for 11 straight years. Now Sean McAdam argues it's time to right that wrong, citing Rice's numbers in the context of his career and making a reasonable case for Rice's admission to the Hall. But in the course of making his argument, McAdam makes a classic error that sorely undermines his case.

"Among all major leaguers, only nine players have compiled as high a career batting average (.298) and as many homers. They are: Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Stan Musial."

I don't have my stat books handy, so I can't check the accuracy of this, but we'll assume that McAdam's factual argument is correct. My question is, so what? Yes, Jim Rice is one of ten men to accomplish those feats. Bill James once described this as the "He's in the group" fallacy, and here's why: of the ten men in that 'group,' Rice ranks tied for ninth in batting average with Mantle and tenth in home runs, 93 home runs behind the number nine guy. He's only in that group because his stats are set as the minimums. Babe Ruth, who hit .342 and 714 home runs is in the group, but Albert Belle, who hit .295 and 381 home runs is out. You tell me: is Jim Rice more comparable to the Babe, or to Belle? Belle is out of the group because he hit for too low an average and too few home runs: he's three points behind Rice in average and one home run off the mark. Babe Ruth, who his 332 more home runs and batted 44 points higher than Rice is in the group. There's no doubt that's a great group of hitters. There's also no doubt Jim Rice wasn't in their league as a hitter.

That hardly makes him ineligible for the Hall. Rice's numbers were solid, and he was a great hitter for a dozen years. His entry into the Hall would not be dragging the Hall down by any stretch of the imagination. But arguments like McAdam's only serve to muddy the waters and detract from Rice's true accomplishments by creating arbitrary and silly groupings like that. McAdam has a number of good arguments for why Rice should be in the Hall. It's a shame he closed his argument with a bad one.