In 1995, Jim Rice made his debut on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot. He would remain on the ballot for 15 years, sparking one of the loudest Hall of Fame debates of all time. In one sense, the debate ended in 2009, when he squeaked out 76.4% of the vote to gain entry in his last year of eligibility. In another sense, it continues to this day. The debate is not merely about Jim Rice; it is about the old systems of player evaluation against the new.
During his career, Jim Rice seemed like a sure-fire Hall of Famer. A three time home run champion, eight time all-star, and 1978 American League MVP, he routinely captured people's attention. Rice certainly has strong traditional stats: a .298 / .352 / .502 slash line, 382 career homers, 1,451 RBI's, and 2,452 hits. In his only World Series (1986), he batted .333 with six walks in a losing cause. To most people of his day, Rice was considered Hall-worthy.
And then Bill James and his sabermetrics hit the scene in the mid-1990's.
Right when Rice was making his debut with the BBWAA, James was starting to make a name for himself, and all throughout Rice's time on the ballot, new sabermetrics were popping up that seemed to devalue his career. The advanced statistics heavily penalized Rice for not walking and for hitting into double plays. And Rice did hit into a lot of double plays - 315 of them, eighth on the all-time list, leading the Majors every year from 1982 through 1985 - which really undercuts his value.
In addition, Rice did not walk much: only 6.6% of the time unintentionally. His high batting average somewhat makes up for his lack of walks, giving him a .352 OBP, a respectable number but not one that particularly stands out.
On the defensive side, Rice had decent fielding percentages, but was revealed by James to have below average range in leftfield (2.16 RF/9). He also made over 500 starts as a designated hitter, which further ate into his value.
In terms of WAR (the king of the advanced stats), Rice sits at 47.7 for his career, including -8.0 on defense. Typically, the advanced statisticians expect Hall of Famers to fit between the 60-70 range or higher. In short, the new statistics did not like Rice as a Hall of Fame candidate.
What should we think of all this? Is Jim Rice deserving of his Hall of Fame plaque? Are the new statistics truly superior to the old, or is this a case where conventional wisdom wins the day?
