About Sounding Off

Ted Robinson of NBCSports.com fires away on what’s making news in Major League Baseball, the National Football League and professional tennis.

Robinson called the play-by-play on NBC's Major League Baseball Game of the Week telecasts from 1986-89. Additionally, he has done play-by-play for the Minnesota Twins, San Francisco Giants, and New York Mets. Since 2000 Robinson has provided play-by-play for NBC Sports on the French Open and Wimbledon. He also previously served in that role at the U.S. Open for USA Network. Robinson is also the play-by-play voice of the San Francisco 49ers on KNBR.



Don’t deny Rice the Hall of Fame

Posted: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:31 PM

The Hall of Fame results will be announced Monday. Rickey Henderson is on the ballot for the first time. He’ll get in, but what about the top three returning vote-getters from last year: Jim Rice (72.2 percent), Andre Dawson (65.9) and Bert Blyleven (61.9). Is this the year they get 75 percent of the vote to gain election?

JIM RICE: Sixteen voters need to add Rice to their ballot. Some may have to change their minds while others may simply need a nudge to push the former Red Sox star over the top in his 15th and final chance for election.

Beyond the obvious question of why some voters view players differently over the years when their stats don't change, there seems to be a trend towards greater appreciation of Rice's achievements.

My Hall of Fame rule is simple: quality trumps quantity. Excellence within an era outweighs (although it doesn't eliminate) longevity. This is where Rice shines. In his 12-year prime (1975-86), he LED the AL in total bases four times along with nine top-10 finishes in that category, led in home runs three times (seven times in the top 10), led in RBI twice (eight times in the top 10), had the most hits once (eight times in the top 10), led in extra-base hits once (six times in the top 10), and had six top 10 finishes in batting average.

Most significant in this view is his SIX top 5 finishes in the MVP balloting, including his winning the 1978 award. Think about that, six finishes among the leaders for MVP. Random comparison: Robin Yount had two, Paul Molitor two, Rickey Henderson had three. Yount and Molitor are Hall of Famers and Henderson is a stone cold lock for election this year.

Then play the comparison game and ask how Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez can be in the Hall of Fame and Rice not. End of story: Rice was dominant within his era AND sustained his dominance long enough to overcome not reaching the quantitative milestones. He should be in.

 

ANDRE DAWSON: Dawson's vote totals have also trended up, with a slight exception in 2006, and he needs about 35 more votes to gain induction. His case presents more complexity than Rice’s.

No question about Dawson's magnificent skills, which unfortunately were impacted by the horrid artificial turf that prevailed through most of his playing days. The quality of his hitting is close to Rice's level. Dawson led his league in total bases twice (nine times in the top 10), led in home runs once (eight times in top 10), led in RBI once (six times in the top 10), led in hits once (five times in the top 10), led in extra-base hits twice (seven times in the top 10) and had four top 10 finishes in batting average. Throw in his strong base stealing (six straight seasons of 25 swipes or more and eight Gold Gloves and there is a solid case for Dawson's overall excellence.

What intrigues is his lack of MVP support -- aside from his winning the award in 1987. He only had three top five and four top 10 finishes in the MVP voting. That’s surprising given his outstanding career. This view is not to advocate Rice OR Dawson, simply looking at them in the same light. Dawson doesn't pass the visceral test as quickly as Rice. You don't slam your fist on the bar and question the sanity of anyone who denies Dawson the Hall of Fame. But a close look at the numbers makes you realize why others believe Dawson deserves entry. I agree.

 

BERT BLYLEVEN: This is his 12th time on the ballot after cracking the 60- percent barrier for the first time last year. After that, Blyleven said that he feels his career totals are "Hall of Fame numbers." Again, let's look and play the comparison game (quality, not quantity) with the four starters most mentioned as Hall of Fame worthy: Blyleven, Jim Kaat, Tommy John and Jack Morris.

 

Here are the number of times they finished in the top 10 in key categories. 

 

Cy Young voting: Blyleven (3), Kaat (1), John (3), Morris (5).                    

ERA: Blyleven (10), Kaat (3), John (6), Morris (5).
Wins: Blyleven (5), Kaat (7), John (6), Morris (12).
WHIP: Blyleven (11), Kaat (3), John (5), Morris (5).
Innings: Blyleven (11), Kaat (6), John (4), Morris (9).

Complete Games: Blyleven (12), Kaat (4), John (4), Morris (10).

Shutouts: Blyleven (10), Kaat (3), John (7), Morris (8).

 

Now, two categories I thought worthy to compare:

Percentage of career starts won: Blyleven (41.7), Kaat (41.6), John (40.5) and
Morris (47.6).

Years winning half the games they started: Blyleven (3), Kaat (5), John (7) and Morris (8).

What do we glean from these numbers? Blyleven had statistical quality, excelling in so many areas that measure pitchers. (Strikeouts are not mentioned here although it is the number most often quoted in support of Blyleven.

Personal bias: I have never understood nor has anyone rationally convinced me how strikeout totals validate the relative worth of a starting pitcher. Why did these stats fail to translate into more wins? I was shocked at the low rank for Blyleven in each category tied to games won, especially the years winning half of your starts.

Personal bias 2: I like Blyleven and hope he is elected. Thus, I acknowledge the last voters standing in Blyleven's path may be wrestling with that very question. Why didn't he win more games? Run support is the oft-cited answer (my Elias Sports Bureau sage, Rob Tracy, told me Blyleven had one of the lowest career run support totals in history.) Then I think of Tom Seaver, a pitcher whose first 11 seasons were with the run-challenged Mets, preaching that if a starter gets one run of support, he must pitch a shutout. If he gets two runs, he must hold the opponent to one. There does seem some validity to that concept when talking about the game's greatest honor.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Sorry Jim Rice doesn't belong in the HOF.

jj (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:51 PM)

I personally can't understand the lack of support for Jack Morris.  Again, if quality trumps quantity, and dominance within your era is held in high regard, isn't Morris deserving of a plaque??  Jack Morris wasn't a flashy Doc Godden flash-in-the-pan type of pitcher...he was reliable for innings, and WINS!  He doesn't crack the magically 300 list, but his overall success within his era should be convincing enough.  All Star Game Starter, No-Hitter, World Series Champion, and Big Game Pitcher - don't forget the Twins and Blue Jays.  Is performance of 11 innings of shutout baseball in '91 was simply amazing --- and that was near the end of his prime!!

Give him his plaque already!!

E. Robinson (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:00 AM)

Strikeouts are relevant because they are almost entirely the result of the pitcher's skill and not tainted by the quality of the fielding defense behind him. I'm amazed at how much disproportionate weight is put on a pitcher's wins, when they are heavily influenced the quality of his teammates.

Tim Babais, Gaithersburg, Maryland (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:50 AM)

This discussion is rediculous without mentioning Dale Murphy.  The guy owned the 80s.  

Ben (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:07 AM)

Regarding the viewpoint changes over the years, maybe some voters vote for a certain number of candidates each year.  I agree about Rice and Dawson.  I believe they were strong positive influences (team captains) on the teams they played for - how do you measure that?

Darrell Watson, Goldendale, WA (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:15 AM)

"Why did these stats fail to translate into more wins? I was shocked at the low rank for Blyleven in each category tied to games won, especially the years winning half of your starts."

Because a pitcher can't win baseball games without his offense scoring some runs for him, and Blyleven's teams (among other factors) weren't too blessed in that department in many of his seasons? This isn't rocket science, you know.

PW of Somewhere in Europe (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:17 AM)

"Personal bias: I have never understood nor has anyone rationally convinced me how strikeout totals validate the relative worth of a starting pitcher."

I'll try to help you understand the concept.  When a pitcher throws a pitch there are several things that can happen.  The batter can choose not to swing and then the umpire calls the pitch a ball or a strike.  If the batter swings he either hits it or he doesn't.  If he hits it many things that can happen that the pitcher has no control over.  Sometimes it is hit within the fielders reach sometimes it isn't. With that in mind it is obvious that you don't want the batter to hit the ball very often.  When they miss three times it is called a strikeout and then the batter doesn't reach base making it more difficult to score.  Bottom line:  Strikeouts are the clearest way to measure a starting pitcher.  Wins are the least reliable way.  Your comments about Seaver knowing to throw a shutout if the other pitcher is going to give up one run only makes sense if Seaver (or Morris) knew in advance how many runs his team would score.  I kind of doubt that is possible.  But since you mentioned shutouts, Blyleven threw 60 shutouts!  Good for 9th all time.  Morris is 134th all time with 28 (less than half).

Bill Keane, West Chester, Ohio (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:00 AM)

I had the pleasure of seeing Jim Rice play in Fenway many times during the '78 season.  He was one of the most exciting players to watch in those days.  He was a streak hitter, he might go 2 for 30 in a stretch and then hit over over .500 for an entire week.  When he was hot he could hit the best pitchers of the day, He might go 3 for 4 or 4 for 5 against a Jim Palmer or Nolan Ryan.  He wasn't a player who only hit mediocre and poor pitchers.

He also was platooned a lot as a DH one day and a leftfielder on other days.  His stats were much better when he played in left.  Generally in '78 he played DH in Fenway and Yaz played left because Yaz played the Green Monster so well and he played left on the road and Yaz played first base.

Rice was a line drive hitter and the ball left his bat like a rocket.  He hit many singles off of the Green Monster that would have been home runs in other parks, but because they got to the wall so fast that he could be held to a single.

Jim Rice went to the plate to swing the bat, he didn't walk a lot.  As a result when the Red Sox got rid of Fred Lynn and several other good hitters who had been on either side of Rice in the lineup pitchers were able to pitch around Rice a lot more and this affected his stats.

If Jim Rice had been in the middle of a solid lineup and played the outfield consistently for his entire career, I think that his already admirable stats would be even better.

He was a pretty good outfielder also.  His throwing was erratic but he could release the ball pretty quickly and got it into the infield fast.  I remember him throwing out base runners on more than one occasion.

All in all I have to agree that he belongs in The Hall.



Phil Wilber, Calhan, CO (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:07 PM)

For 10 years Rice was the best hitter in the game.. I grew up as a Redsox fan in that era.. with Yaz, Fred Lynn not to mention Reggie Jackson and others who used to come out of the dugout to watch Rice hit BP... Like McGuire in the steriods era.. Rice was awesome.. but a private quiet man so he's getting screwed by that lack of press exposure now because of that, not his accomplishments... He had over 400 total bases in 1977 when no one else in the league had over 300.

matt (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:48 PM)

I think these are all good choices but why has the support for Dale Murphy not there.
He appeared in the All-Star Game seven times, and leading the National League in home runs and RBI twice; he also led the major leagues in home runs and runs batted in over the 10-year span from 1981 to 1990. He led the National League in games, at bats, runs, hits, extra base hits, RBI, runs created, total bases, and plate appearances in the 1980s. He also accomplished a 30-30 season in 1983, at the time only the 6th player since 1922 to do so. His 1983 MVP year is the only time in major-league history a player has compiled a .300 batting average, 30 home runs, 120 runs batted in, 130 runs scored, 90 bases on balls, and 30 stolen bases - with fewer than 10 times caught stealing.
In addition, Murphy also won five consecutive Gold Glove Awards, and won two consecutive MVP awards in 1982 and 1983, making him one of only four outfielders in major league history with consecutive MVP years, and the youngest ever to do so at the time. Also, between 1981 and 1986, Murphy played in 740 consecutive games, at the time the 11th longest such streak in baseball history.  
Rice has a higher batting average, but no gold gloves. Rice apperared in one more all-star game but Murphy has back-to back MVP's.  
 

J A Waters Copperas Cove, Texas (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:59 PM)

Before I will ever set foot in Cooperstown, or again care at all who gets in the Hall of Fame, the Veterans Committee will have to stop their cruelty with Ron Santo. A number of times now Ronnie has been within 10 votes of induction from those people and it still hasn't happened. It is unfathomable that the members of this group continue to tease one of the greatest third basemen of all time with election to the HOF, and then pull the rug out from under him every chance they get. Thank God I don't need the members of that committee, or anyone else, to know who was, or was not, a great ballplayer.  

Tom Surber, Avon, Indiana (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:49 PM)

An amazing Bert Blyleven statistic that I wouldn’t wish upon any major league pitcher:
From his 1970 rookie season through 1977 I’ve accumulated his quality starts that I’ve defined as: 6innings, 2earned runs or less; 7,8,9innings, 3earned runs or less; and 9innings+ 4 earned runs or less in which he garnered a no decision or a loss only……

The totals are:
82 games
658 innings
583 hits
185 runs
160 earned runs
184 base on balls
540 strikeouts
2.19 ERA
His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA

1970 0-3 2.09 9 games
1971 0-6 1.90 9 games
1972 0-9 2.35 13 games
1973 0-8 2.55 9 games
1974 0-8 1.80 10 games
1975 0-6 2.00 10 games
1976 0-8 2.29 15 games
1977 0-5 2.45 7 games

I understand that pitchers put up great games and get snakebit on occasion, but this accounted for almost 1 of every 3 starts, 82 of 279 to be exact or 29%. Show me a Hall of Famer that had to go through this year by year. Fortunately once Blyleven ended up in Pittsburgh and later some good Minnesota teams, this trend eased to what I would consider normal levels (I had researched this in the past but don’t have the numbers on hand)

Imagine 1974, your 17-9 in 27 games, and in the other 10, all of which are essentially quality starts, you post a 1.80ERA and go 0-8. You end up 17-17. If you don’t know the facts, and your voting for the Cy Young award, and you see 17-17. Do you cast a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place vote? Probably not. This is what Blyleven faced in yesteryear, and the same writers, who I contend do not know the facts, are what Blyleven faces every year in the HOF vote.

Go ahead, plug in a different year, or harken back to Baseball-reference and neutralize the stats, do it for every one of Blyleven’s contemporaries. The numbers don’t change much, but for Bert Blyleven, they do. The example given above is my attempt to show why. Teams that didn’t score runs and booted the ball around like it was a soccer match.

Bill Gros Ashburn, Va (Sent Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:15 PM)

Even as a hall-of-fame inductee, Jim Rice still doesn't get respect. The Boston Globe said that "he had little speed," so where did the 79 triples (13 more than Rickey!) come from? I watched him as a kid and thought he was slow, but the numbers suggest a more complicated story. As a long-suffering Red Sox fan, I wonder what it would have looked like in '75 with Rice in the lineup against the Reds...

Mark, Needham, MA (Sent Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:28 AM)

Jim ED Rice is now where he belongs, with the other greats of the game.

Jeff in Colorado (Sent Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:53 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)