danfergis
2005-12-06 21:40:16 UTC
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?
Here's what Bill James wrote circa 2001:
White never hit .300 but hit .290 four times, never drew 100 walks but
drew 95 and 99, never drove in a hundred runs but drove in 94. He did
everything well. Still, while acknowledging that he was a good player,
I may be the only person who rates Roy White ahead of Jim Rice, George
Foster, Joe Carter, and several Hall of Famers, so I suppose I should
tackle this rating head on. Let's do Jim Rice ... let's compare Roy
White, 1968-1972, to Jim Rice, 1975-1979; those are each player's five
best years.
Over the five seasons, Rice played a few more games than White
(778-753) and had a few more plate appearances (3381-3215). Rice had
far more hits per season (192-153), and had more hits of each type,
more singles (118-107), more doubles (29-26), more triples (10-5), and
more home runs (34-15), more than twice as many taters. Rice scored
more runs per year (102-83), drove in more (114-74), and hit for a
higher average (.311 to .283). Thus, it is easy to see why people would
assume that Rice is more valuable; we are comparing a player whose
typical triple-crown stats are 34, 114, .311 to one whose trio is 15,
74, .283.
However, White is not without his advantages; he drew almost twice as
many walks as Rice (87 per season to 46), struck out less than half as
often (58 to 118), and stole more bases (20 to 8) with a better stolen
base percentage. White grounded into 10 double plays per season; Rice,
into 18. White also had more sacrifice hits and, perhaps surprisingly,
more sacrifice flies. These things narrow the gap, but over the five
seasons Rice created about 577 runs (115 per season), while White
created about 471 (94 per season).
So Rice is well ahead, 106 runs ahead. There are three other offensive
factors which have to be considered, to convert "Run Value" into "Win
Value," which is the bottom line. Those three things are:
1. League context.
2. Park context.
3. Outs used.
White played in a park, Yankee Stadium, which reduced runs scored at
that time by about 9%, meaning that there were fewer runs there, which
means that each run was more valuable. Rice played in a park which
increased run scoring by almost twenty percent; the relevant park
adjustments are .96 for White, 1.09 for Rice. Making that adjustment,
White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team
offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24
games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73).
Roy White, in context, was actually a more productive hitter than Jim
Rice. We haven't dealt with outs used. White made 419 outs per season;
Rice made 456. We haven't dealt with defense. Jim Rice wasn't a bad
outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.
Roy White has been a tremendously underrated player, for three reasons:
1. His skills were subtle, and not easily summarized into two or three
statistics.
2. Like Ralph Kiner, he was blamed for the failures of his teams.
3. He was measured, for much of his career, against a standard of
Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio. Bobby Murcer couldn't meet that
standard, Tom Tresh couldn't, Roy White couldn't-and Jim Rice couldn't.
There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream. I agree that Jim
Rice's best season, 1978, is better than White's best season, 1970-but
White's second- and third-best seasons are better than any other Jim
Rice campaign. Rice,
in 1977 and again in 1979, hit 39 home runs: 12 on the road, 27 in
Fenway Park. Roy White: in his best years would hit 10 home runs home,
10 on the road. If Jim Rice had played Yankee Stadium, how many home
runs we he have hit? If Jim Rice had been compared: Mickey Mantle and
asked to drag Ron Woods (WHO?) and Jake Gibbs and Jerry Kinney and
Stick Michael to the pennant, how would he have fared? I think if you
put both players in same park in the same years, a lot of people would
be able to see that White was a better all-around player.
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?
Here's what Bill James wrote circa 2001:
White never hit .300 but hit .290 four times, never drew 100 walks but
drew 95 and 99, never drove in a hundred runs but drove in 94. He did
everything well. Still, while acknowledging that he was a good player,
I may be the only person who rates Roy White ahead of Jim Rice, George
Foster, Joe Carter, and several Hall of Famers, so I suppose I should
tackle this rating head on. Let's do Jim Rice ... let's compare Roy
White, 1968-1972, to Jim Rice, 1975-1979; those are each player's five
best years.
Over the five seasons, Rice played a few more games than White
(778-753) and had a few more plate appearances (3381-3215). Rice had
far more hits per season (192-153), and had more hits of each type,
more singles (118-107), more doubles (29-26), more triples (10-5), and
more home runs (34-15), more than twice as many taters. Rice scored
more runs per year (102-83), drove in more (114-74), and hit for a
higher average (.311 to .283). Thus, it is easy to see why people would
assume that Rice is more valuable; we are comparing a player whose
typical triple-crown stats are 34, 114, .311 to one whose trio is 15,
74, .283.
However, White is not without his advantages; he drew almost twice as
many walks as Rice (87 per season to 46), struck out less than half as
often (58 to 118), and stole more bases (20 to 8) with a better stolen
base percentage. White grounded into 10 double plays per season; Rice,
into 18. White also had more sacrifice hits and, perhaps surprisingly,
more sacrifice flies. These things narrow the gap, but over the five
seasons Rice created about 577 runs (115 per season), while White
created about 471 (94 per season).
So Rice is well ahead, 106 runs ahead. There are three other offensive
factors which have to be considered, to convert "Run Value" into "Win
Value," which is the bottom line. Those three things are:
1. League context.
2. Park context.
3. Outs used.
From 1968 through 1972 the American League average was 3.80 runs per
team per game. From 1975 through 1979 the average was 4.34.White played in a park, Yankee Stadium, which reduced runs scored at
that time by about 9%, meaning that there were fewer runs there, which
means that each run was more valuable. Rice played in a park which
increased run scoring by almost twenty percent; the relevant park
adjustments are .96 for White, 1.09 for Rice. Making that adjustment,
White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team
offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24
games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73).
Roy White, in context, was actually a more productive hitter than Jim
Rice. We haven't dealt with outs used. White made 419 outs per season;
Rice made 456. We haven't dealt with defense. Jim Rice wasn't a bad
outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.
Roy White has been a tremendously underrated player, for three reasons:
1. His skills were subtle, and not easily summarized into two or three
statistics.
2. Like Ralph Kiner, he was blamed for the failures of his teams.
3. He was measured, for much of his career, against a standard of
Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio. Bobby Murcer couldn't meet that
standard, Tom Tresh couldn't, Roy White couldn't-and Jim Rice couldn't.
There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream. I agree that Jim
Rice's best season, 1978, is better than White's best season, 1970-but
White's second- and third-best seasons are better than any other Jim
Rice campaign. Rice,
in 1977 and again in 1979, hit 39 home runs: 12 on the road, 27 in
Fenway Park. Roy White: in his best years would hit 10 home runs home,
10 on the road. If Jim Rice had played Yankee Stadium, how many home
runs we he have hit? If Jim Rice had been compared: Mickey Mantle and
asked to drag Ron Woods (WHO?) and Jake Gibbs and Jerry Kinney and
Stick Michael to the pennant, how would he have fared? I think if you
put both players in same park in the same years, a lot of people would
be able to see that White was a better all-around player.