I'm probably late on this discussion, but I'm glad I've been educated and hope I've educated some others.Another thing that's really helped Rice is the attachment of the word "feared" to his name. Unfortunately, nobody's able to come up with one word for Dale Muprhy. Here are four, though: "Better than Jim Rice."
I really haven't looked too much at Jim Rice, and I'm not qualified to judge his Hall of Fame candidacy (I really need to spend some time combing through Hall stats and such). But it is an interesting question. These are two similar players in that you repeatedly hear, "He was a good power-hitter for a number of years. He didn't walk much, but he was a great hitter nonetheless." Yet, Jim Rice is excused and Dale Murphy is criticized and not seemingly welcome in the Hall discussion. Let's take a look at the two (all of these are career numbers):
Years played --> Murphy 1978-1991; Jim Rice 1975-1989
I use the full seasons here for really no reason other than being fair. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, it establishes that they played at the same time and can't have any "different era" questions. I'm just making sure of this before we start, not that I don't think you know this already. Everything else has the entire career numbers.
Batting average --> Murphy .265; Rice .298
Rice wins by a healthy margin here. A career .300 hitter is pretty impressive.
On-base percentage --> Murphy .346; Rice .352
Rice wins again, but I think we can call this a draw. However, the difference between BA and OBP for the two shows Murphy was much better at drawing walks. Why is it that people say he was a hacker?
Slugging percentage --> Murphy .469; Rice .502
Rice healthily wins again. He seems to have hit the ball harder than Murphy. I doubt Fulton County was a harder place to hit than Fenway.
On-base plus slugging --> Murphy .815; Rice .854
Rice wins again, but I think you could have figured that one out. I just figured I would mention it.
OPS+ --> Murphy 121; Rice 128
More support for Rice, but he didn't win by a whole lot.
Doubles --> Murphy 350; Rice 373
Rice hit more and in fewer seasons.
Home runs --> Murphy 398; Rice 382
Murphy actually won one, but Rice did it in fewer seasons. I guess this one is a bit of a draw and may still favor Rice.
Stolen bases --> Murphy 161; Rice 58
Murphy tripled Rice in this category, and before people ask about caught stealing, Murphy had 68 while Rice had 34. Murphy was a better base stealer and did it more often.
Runs --> Murphy 1197; Rice 1249
Rice wins again and in fewer seasons.
Runs batted in --> Murphy 1266; Rice 1451
Ditto from above but more exaggerated.
All-Star appearances --> Murphy 7; Rice 8
Rice still winning.
MVP awards --> Murphy 2; Rice 1
Murphy wins one.
Gold Gloves --> Murphy 5; Rice 0
Ouch. And here's one of the big points against Rice -- his defense. He never seems to have been a good defensive player. Murphy, however, was a good defensive player and won quite a few Gold Gloves. We can argue about the validity of those Gold Gloves, but I think it ends up representing how good you are in the end. In this case, Murphy was significantly better. Now, how much do we value this defense? Is it just another category like home runs and runs and doubles? I think it warrants more value than that. Rice was only a positive influence on one side, whereas Murphy was on both sides. This may be (although I don't know for sure) the key to Neyer's argument. Without it, Rice and Murphy are similar offensive players with Rice being a bit better.
Silver Sluggers --> Murphy 4; Rice 2
Murphy wins, although I'm not really sure what this means.
Home Run Crowns --> Murphy 2; Rice 3
This is about even. Rice may have been more feared, but Murphy did his damage as well.
RBI Crowns --> Murphy 2; Rice 2
Ditto from above.
An interesting note: as similar as the two are in numbers, they aren't a similar batter in Baseball-Reference and only share Duke Snider and Ellis Burks.
So who's better? Offensively, Rice is a little better considering he produced his stats in fewer seasons, but honestly, they are eerily similar. Defensively, however, there seems to be no contest. Murphy seems to have been a much better defender than Rice, and that should count for something. Again, I'm not qualified to judge either's candidacy, but if Rice gets in, I think Murphy should be coming in right behind him, if not before. If only because we've become more educated on the value of good defense, even if we can't quantify it.
Nice call again, Mr. Neyer (can I call you that?).
6 reMarks:
Murphy won his Silver Sluggers as a CF'er (or should have as it is supposed to be position specific) and there wasn't a lot of competition from CF in the NL.
Rice had to compete against all the LF/DH banger types.
I'm a Murphy fan, but fair is fair.
Fair point, but Silver Sluggers are still based on someone's subjective point of view. Also, is it more impressive, then, that Murphy performed offensively in a position that doesn't expect such a performance?
Gold Gloves? Are you really using that as a gauge? You are aware that those are nothing more than a popularity contest and don't really have an actual measurement, right? Rice was never friendly with the press, and who voted on the award for Gold Glove?
You cannot use a Gold Glove to say that Murphy was a much better defender. They both had virtually identical career Fielding Percentages.
CF is a more demanding position than LF. LF in the majors is like RF in Little League, the weaker fielder is placed there. RF and CF gets the spin and longer throws and CF has more ground to cover, while LF gets the flat flies and the lob to 3rd.
Murphy had on a limited basis Bob Hoerner to protect him, while Jim Rice had for his career Fred Lynn. At times Murphy saw nothing close to a strike, but still tried to drive in runs.
Both Rice and Murphy were screwed out of the 400 HR club by the strike of 81, prime years for both and this in an era when 35-40 HRs would lead both leagues.
Just as Rice should be in, so should Murphy.
First Anon,
You're going to criticize me for using Gold Gloves as a gauge and you're going to use Fielding Percentage? I think there are better stats out there to show how good a defender is (although I don't really understand how people come up with them). Just because a guy doesn't make as many errors, it doesn't make him a better defender. If a guy has much better range, he make have a chance at making more plays, but because he has those chances (some being more difficult considering he has to get to an unusually tough ball), he'll probably make a few more errors. As for the Gold Gloves, yes they are a popularity contest, but Murphy did win 5 more of them (Rice won 0). I'm not sure you'd find too many people who believe Rice was a better or even equal defender. As for his relationship with the press, who got him elected?
Second Anon,
You certainly have to take those things in to account, but they are tough to quantify.
As for their Hall-worthiness, I really can't judge, but I don't see why Rice should get in and not Murphy.
Post a Comment