Baseball Hall of Fame Thoughts, Part Two : Bernie Williams in 2012!

Jim Rice has just been elected into the Hall of Fame on his 15th (and final) year of eligibility. All right. 

Bernie Williams should expect to be elected into the Hall of Fame now. Although he of course won't be.

Baseball-reference.com's recent Stat of the Day had a comparison between Rice, Williams, and John Olerud. The run-down focused on their career OPS+, which serves to describe how above or below average a player's on-base percentage plus slugging percentage was, in relativity to the era they were playing.

And of course, the point of that combination of statistics is to describe not only how good the player was at getting on base, but also to show the distinction between a slap singles hitter and a true slugger.

Rice's was 128, as was Olerud's. Williams' was 125. Not too shabby, right?

Now, before I continue, I want to point out that as much as I love Bernie Williams, I am not advocating that he get into the Hall of Fame.

I do not believe in the argument that if a player's numbers are similar to a Hall of Famer's, they should be in also, because frankly, there are mistakes in the HoF.

But anyway, Williams had an OPS+ just a tick below Rice's. So throughout his career, he was just about as much better than everyone else at getting on base and getting extra-base hits as Jim Rice was.

And that was Jim Rice's legacy...the dangerous Jim Rice. But I don't believe that OPS+ is the only way to define the argument here, because Rickey Henderson's OPS+ was 127 for his career, and I did just write an article describing how much better Rickey was at baseball than pretty much everyone. 

Rice's real advantage over Williams was that he hit more home runs, almost 100 more (382 to 287, to be exact), in almost the exact same amount of plate appearances (9058 to 9053). Yet, despite their eerily similar amount of plate appearances, Jim Rice racked up 356 more at-bats than Bernie Williams did.

Why? Because Williams was leagues ahead of Rice in the way he worked his at-bats. Williams walked over 1,000 times (1069) compared to Rice's 670 walks. And for all the talk of pitchers fearing Jim Rice, Bernie Williams was walked intentionally 20 more times.

Williams clearly reached base more times, as further evidenced by OBP (.381 to .352). Rice collected a few more hits than Williams did, beating him by a point in batting average and a racking up a tad more than 100 more base knocks as well (although if you concede that Rice was the slightly better power hitter, those 100 hits are essentially accounted for in the home run differential).

Essentially, Rice got a handle on some good pitches more times than Williams did, but Williams was arguably the better hitter, with a considerably better eye than Rice, who of course struck out less than Rice did. 

Rice wasn't ever considered a good baserunner, but Williams does have the advantage there, having stolen 147 bases compared to Rice's 58. Although I suppose you could argue that Rice didn't have as much of a chance...because he wasn't Bernie's equal in terms of getting on base in the first place.

Rice never cracked .400 in on-base percentage throughout the duration of his career; Williams did it four times, reaching a stellar .435 mark in 1999. 

Rice did not play a premium defensive position, whereas Williams did, and Williams played his position to a greater degree of effectiveness (if you believe in such crude evaluations as FP, Williams beats Rice with .990 to .980 for their careers). 

If Rice's prime was supposed to be better than Williams', it has a poor way of showing itself. Although he did have a higher career high for home runs (46 to 30, and he threw in two seasons where he hit 39), Rice cannot match Williams in his career high for average (.325 to .342).

Williams was also far more consistent. From 1996 to 2001, Williams hit at least 20 home runs a season, while batting at least .300 (technically at least .305).

Rice cannot claim the same thing, as not only did he only bat over .300 for at most, three consecutive seasons, he only homered at least 20 times in six straight seasons as compared to Williams doing it in seven.

While doing this, Williams threw in six double-digit steal seasons throughout his career, something Rice did once. Inversely, Williams broke the century mark for strikeouts only once in his career, Rice did it six times.

And for what it's worth, Williams grounded into fewer double plays over the course of his career (223 to 315). 

In addition to all of this, Rice had the distinction of being a right-handed hitter in Fenway Park (where he called home for his entire career). Although that Green Monster is very tall, it is still ridiculously close to home plate, and is definitely helpful for right-handed power hitters.

The park in general is considered a hitter-friendly park, and Rice clearly benefited from this, sporting a home line of .320/.374/.546 as compared to road marks of .277/.330/.459. Sure, he was still a good player away from home, but he was only a great player at Fenway (per averages, of course).

Williams, on the other hand, was a switch-hitter (another impressive feat for his apparently gleaming resume) hitting in a park that did feature a short right porch. He did hit left-handed a number of times, considering most pitchers are right-handed, so this may have helped his power numbers a tad.

However, looking at his splits, he hit one more home run away than he did at home (144 to 143). In fact, his home line (.295/.383/.475) is basically equal to his away line (.299/.379/.479).

This of course shows that at least in terms of the American League, Williams could hit pretty much anywhere.

Rice cannot say the same, and it is possible, probable even, that his power numbers would even look more similar to those of Williams if they were equalized regarding the park he played in.

And Williams does have one final distinction. He is regarded as one of the premier post-season performers, having played in 25 post-season series and resulting with a .275/.371/.480 line, while also hitting 22 home runs, which was a record until 2007 when it was broken by (who else?) future Hall of Famer Manny Ramirez.

He does, however, still hold the post-season records for doubles (29), RBI (80), and extra-base hits (51). This is perhaps unfair for Rice, who only played in three post-season series, and this was out of his control, having played his entire career for the Red Sox when they weren't very good.

However, in limited action, he wasn't impressive, batting under .200 in all and hitting only three home runs. And this of course does not detract from the fact that Bernie Williams was a premier post-season player. 

So all in all, Rice can still be argued as a more powerful hitter (though his home park does raise some questions), and more effective at producing runs (his numbers in R and RBI are more impressive than Williams').

However, Williams is arguably more valuable, playing better defense at a more difficult position, and reaching base more often and making more use of being on base. Jim Rice did win an MVP award; Bernie Williams was a better playoff performer. 

Once again, this is not supposed to make you think that Bernie Williams should be in the Hall of Fame. Instead, I take issue with how the writers vote on who should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Obviously, at least 28 of them are not very good at it, having not voted for Rickey Henderson, but letting Rice in is a questionable call.

I personally believe that if it takes 15 years to convince people that you belong...you probably don't. The Hall can probably start there, by chopping that number in half.

As long as the writers are willing to screw around and not vote for players on their first go-round simply because they don't want to, then there is a danger in cutting it too short. But 15 years is cutting it AWFULLY close.

And no ill will towards Jim Rice, but he is simply not a Hall of Famer. Yet now that he is in, it would be FAIR, if not accurate, to let Bernie Williams in as well.

After his induction, Rice was asked to speculate as to why it took him so long to make it into the Hall of Fame.

"I have no idea," Rice said. "Maybe (reporters) thought I was arrogant."

My initial response to that was, "No Jim, it was because you weren't good enough." Then I realized that the writers voting for the Hall of Fame are really quite foolish indeed, and probably did let a perception of his character cloud their better judgment.

And in the end, it appeared their better judgment was clouded as they elected Jim Rice, a very good hitter, into the Hall of Fame.

Once again, look for Bernie Williams on the ballot in 2012.