-
mandamin Did I miss the analysis showing that John is as worthy as Blyleven? I don't think he's even close. He has an argument, but I don't see how it's helped at all by a comparison to Blyleven. 118 to 110 in ERA+ means something over a long career. By PRAR, Blyleven is about John + 35%. By Win Shares, Tommy could have had two more MVP-level seasons and still been behind Bert. Other than win totals and being the Twins' last two color commentators, there aren't really any comparisons to be drawn there. The difference between what "we" are doing and what the Jim Rice Booster Club does is that it's an attempt to educate people, not snow them with revisionist crap like "most feared." A writer who comes around to the fact that Blyleven is a Hall of Famer is likely to make more considered and informed choices in the future. -
illgamesh I'm with mandamin on the John/Blyleven thing. Blyleven has John crushed in K's, in CG, has him beat in SHO, 2.8 K/B vs 1.8 K/B. The only area where John is really any better is postseason pitching. They both pitched great in the postseason, but John pitched about twice as many postseason games. Although Blyleven has two rings, and John has none.
I think one of the issues keeping Blyleven out is that an awful lot of players think he's a Tommy John, or a Jack Morris - someone who is borderline and is a matter of preference, whereas he's got a pretty undeniable case, in my opinion.
That said, I don't think people trying to put Rice in are "snow[ing people] with revisionist crap" about being most feared. There are some pretty good arguements in favor of Rice, and I'm pretty mystified by the sabermetrics' adamant opposition to his case. I wouldn't vote for him, but if he gets in, he's not going to be a huge mistake, he'll be slightly below average for a hall of fame corner outfielder. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I do think a lot of it is simple contrarianism.
-
mandamin I just wrote a long post in response, but I had a BBREF link in it, and it was apparently erased because my account doesn't qualify for links in comments. Stupid. But anyway.
What I showed was that if you make a list of corner OFs in the Hall or on the ballot and rank it by OPS, and then you remove Monte Irvin (for not being allowed into the league until age 30), the guys who are in for being managers and the guys on the ballot who will never make it in (Gant, Vaughn, etc.), Rice comes in 29th or 38. Six more of the guys below him are better for other reasons (Rickey for every reason imaginable, Raines and Keeler for defense and OBP, Goslin for longevity, Slaughter for missing his prime to the war, Brock for the 3000 hits and steals and longevity--though that one's close). That leaves Rice 35th of 38, ahead of only three terrible VetCom selections. Even giving him two of the guys ahead of him by OPS+--Hafey and Medwick--it's really hard to argue that he's only a little below average. I think Rice would be one of the two or three worst selections the writers have ever made, and the Saberheads' indignation is fully justified (and then some).
