In my last article, I wrote that people who advocate that Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame ought to fight for Gene Tenace instead.
It was an off-hand comment: a snarky remark made without too much consideration. When I wrote it I knew three things about Gene Tenace: he was a catcher for the A’s, he had a good World Series once, and he has a better OPS+ than Jim Rice.
By comparison, I know a lot about Jim Rice. He was one of the most popular players on my favorite team. He once broke his bat on a checked swing. He had over 400 total bases in 1978, which sure seemed like a damned big deal. And he was the leftfielder for the Red Sox, the guy who replaced the great Yaz.
Tenace over Rice: it was glib comment and the good readers at BJOL seemed content to let it pass. ChiSox wrote: “Some assertions just have to be let go without a comment.” Evan, taking the bait, wrote some thoughtful comments about Tenace and Rice before concluding: “You probably didn’t get a debate because it’s a preposterous assertion.”
Evan is correct: the suggestion that Gene Tenace was better than Jim Rice is preposterous. On the one hand you have one of the most prominent hitter of the late 1970’s, a player who was a legitimate Triple Crown threat. On the other hand you have Gene Tenace, a lifetime .241 hitter. There should be no comparison.
The Golden Years
Let’s stick with 1975-1979. Five years in which the careers of Jim Rice and Gene Tenace overlapped.
1975-1979 is Jim Rice’s best five years stretch. He had another fine run between 1982 and 1986, but 1975-1979 represents the peak of Jim Rice’s career
These are not Gene Tenace’s best years: Fury’s best five-year stretch was 1973-1977. Tenace is seven years older than Jim Rice, and his peak years came a little earlier. So we’re comparing the best of Jim Rice with the not-quite-best of Gene Tenace.
Enough talk. Here are their numbers between 1975-1979:
|
G
|
R
|
HR
|
RBI
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
OPS+
|
Jim Rice
|
778
|
509
|
147
|
570
|
.311
|
.360
|
.556
|
142
|
Tenace
|
726
|
334
|
102
|
342
|
.246
|
.396
|
.438
|
140
|
It doesn’t seem a fair fight, does it? Tenace has a 36-point edge in on-base percentage, but Rice has a 65-point edge in batting average and a 118-point edge in slugging percentage. He had 45 more homeruns, 174 runs scored, 228 RBI.
Just to pile on: here are their season-by-season Triple Crown numbers:
|
|
BA
|
HR
|
RBI
|
1975
|
Rice
|
.309
|
22
|
102
|
|
Tenace
|
.255
|
29
|
87
|
1976
|
Rice
|
.282
|
25
|
85
|
|
Tenace
|
.249
|
22
|
66
|
1977
|
Rice
|
.320
|
29
|
114
|
|
Tenace
|
.233
|
15
|
61
|
1978
|
Rice
|
.315
|
39
|
139
|
|
Tenace
|
.224
|
16
|
67
|
1979
|
Rice
|
.325
|
46
|
130
|
|
Tenace
|
.263
|
20
|
50
|
The only time Tenace beats Rice in any Triple Crown category is 1975, when he hit 7 more homers than Rice. Otherwise, Rice destroys Tenace. It’s never particularly close.
I’ll add that the consensus opinion of people who watched these players was that Rice was a far greater player than Tenace. Jim Rice finished 3rd in the 1975 AL MVP vote, 4th in 1977, 1st in 1978, and 5th in 1979, which means that four times in those five years, the people who watched him closely believed that Jim Rice was one of the very best players in the league. That counts for something.
For what it’s worth, Gene Tenace also had his best showing on the MVP ballots during this years, finishing 18th in both 1975 and 1976. Those were the only years he ever appeared on the MVP ballot.
Context Elements
We could stop there. The raw numbers give a decisive edge to Rice. The opinions of educated and thoughtful observers support this. So, too, does our common perception. No need to recount hanging chads: Rice is winning in a landslide.
But since we’ve gone this far, it can’t hurt to consider some contexts.
Let’s start with parks. Most of us know that Fenway Park is a terrific hitter’s park. Most of us know that Jim Rice benefited from playing in that park. Here are his home/road splits, 1975-1979:
Rice
|
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
1975
|
Home
|
.313
|
.357
|
.520
|
Road
|
.304
|
.343
|
.464
|
1976
|
Home
|
.299
|
.339
|
.509
|
Road
|
.266
|
.291
|
.455
|
1977
|
Home
|
.321
|
.375
|
.683
|
Road
|
.319
|
.377
|
.509
|
1978
|
Home
|
.361
|
.416
|
.690
|
Road
|
.269
|
.325
|
.512
|
1979
|
Home
|
.369
|
.425
|
.728
|
Road
|
.283
|
.337
|
.472
|
We all know that Rice benefited from playing in Fenway Park. What is misunderstood is just how much Rice benefited from playing there. Take Rice’s MVP year, 1978. He wasn’t just better at Fenway: he was a completely different hitter:
|
G
|
R
|
HR
|
RBI
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
1978 Home
|
82
|
69
|
28
|
75
|
.361
|
.416
|
.690
|
1978 Road
|
81
|
52
|
18
|
64
|
.269
|
.325
|
.512
|
That’s not cherry-picking, either: the same thing holds true for 1977 and 1979. In those three years, Rice hit 124 homeruns. Of those, 82 were hit in Fenway Park, while only 42 came on the road.
Gene Tenace played in some terrible parks. The Oakland Coliseum, where Tenace played until 1977, was a lousy hitter’s park. San Diego’s Jack Murphy Stadium, where he moved in 1977, was even worse.
Tenace
|
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
1975
|
Home
|
.254
|
.405
|
.467
|
Road
|
.256
|
.385
|
.461
|
1976
|
Home
|
.218
|
.368
|
.389
|
Road
|
.277
|
.377
|
.518
|
1977
|
Home
|
.205
|
.412
|
.300
|
Road
|
.260
|
.417
|
.511
|
1978
|
Home
|
.247
|
.389
|
.468
|
Road
|
.204
|
.395
|
.355
|
1979
|
Home
|
.256
|
.402
|
.332
|
Road
|
.271
|
.403
|
.550
|
In 1977, his first year in San Diego, Tenace posted a .511 slugging percentage on the road, but only a .300 slugging percentage at home. Same hold true for 1979 (though his home/road splits flip in 1978).
Let’s compare Rice’s road numbers with Tenace’s road numbers:
Rice
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
Tenace
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
Road
|
.304
|
.343
|
.464
|
Road
|
.256
|
.385
|
.461
|
Road
|
.266
|
.291
|
.455
|
Road
|
.277
|
.377
|
.518
|
Road
|
.319
|
.377
|
.509
|
Road
|
.260
|
.417
|
.511
|
Road
|
.269
|
.325
|
.512
|
Road
|
.204
|
.395
|
.355
|
Road
|
.283
|
.337
|
.472
|
Road
|
.271
|
.403
|
.550
|
Rice has the higher batting average, but Tenace laps him in on-base average. What’s more, Gene Tenace outslugs Jim Rice on the road in three of the five seasons.
Positions on Positions
Gene Tenace was a catcher/first baseman during these years. Jim Rice was a leftfielder and designated hitter. How do we measure across positions? How much credit do we give Tenace for playing a little over half his games behind the plate? How much should we penalize Rice for playing a position that is low on the defensive spectrum?
To step back a moment: there are a number of things that statistics are really good at quantifying, and a number of things that statistics are still trying to understand fully. We can easily quantify how many balls go over the fence, or how many runs are driven in. It’s harder to determine how many balls an average shortstop would get to, and compare that to Ozzie Smith or Derek Jeter.
One of the reasons that Jim Rice will probably be elected to the Hall of Fame is that he excelled at those measures that are easy to quantify. He hit a lot of homeruns. He drove in a lot of runs. A high percentage of his at-bats turned into hits.
It’s harder to give accurate value to something like a walk. It’s a positive result by way of non-action: the batter isn’t acting to draw a walk: instead, he is resisting the impulse to act. The pitcher is the catalyst for the walk: the pitcher has to throw the ball outside of the strike zone.
Jim Rice had one specific talent, and I think guys who have one specific talent are more likely to get elected to the Hall of Fame than guys with a diversity of skills. Alan Trammell could hit for power and average, he was a fine baserunner, and he played a key defensive position very well, but it’ll be some time before he gets into the Hall of Fame. Jim Rice was a good hitter: that’s the most you can say about him. And in reality, he wasn’t that good: his park inflated his numbers dramatically.
To compare Tenace to Rice, we need statistics that measure a player’s full range of skills. There are two statistics that do a thorough job at capturing a player’s full talents and drawbacks. One is ‘Win Shares,’ invented by Bill James. The other is ‘Wins Above Replacement Player,’ or WARP, created by the good folks at Baseball Prospectus.
Win Shares measures a player’s contribution in relation to its team’s wins: a team that wins 100 games will have 300 Win Shares to distribute among its players. WARP measures the number of wins a player adds to his team when measured against a replacement-level player. Both metrics strive to measure the entirety of a player’s contribution to his team, within the contexts of the league and park. Because both measures consider defensive contribution, position is accounted for.
Sorry….a tad boring there. Hope you’re still with me.
So how do Rice and Tenace compare on the Win Shares and WARP measures? Let’s go year-by year:
|
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
WARP Rank
|
1975
|
Rice
|
20
|
3.9
|
178th
|
|
Tenace
|
32
|
10.5
|
13th
|
Remember, this is the year Rice came in 3rd in the MVP vote. Tenace came in 18th. Rice’s numbers (.309/22/102) are pretty, but WARP tells us that 177 other players contributed more wins to their teams than Rice. Win Shares agrees: Tenace was far more valuable than Jim Rice.
|
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
WARP Rank
|
1976
|
Rice
|
17
|
3.8
|
212th
|
|
Tenace
|
22
|
6.4
|
74th
|
This was Rice’s worst year of the five, and Tenace beats him in both Win Shares and WARP. In 1976 Rice wasn’t one of the 200 best players in baseball.
|
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
WARP Rank
|
1977
|
Rice
|
26
|
6.5
|
82nd
|
|
Tenace
|
25
|
8.6
|
30th
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rice posted a .320/29/144 Triple Crown line and finished 4th in the MVP vote. Tenace finished at .233/15/61, and received no votes.
Win Shares narrowly gives the season to Rice, 26 to 25. WARP says Gene Tenace was overwhelmingly the better player.
|
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
WARP Rank
|
1978
|
Rice
|
36
|
9.6
|
9th
|
|
Tenace
|
22
|
7.5
|
49th
|
This is Rice’s MVP year, and both metrics says he was the better player.
|
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
WARP Rank
|
1979
|
Rice
|
28
|
7.1
|
56th
|
|
Tenace
|
24
|
9.4
|
19th
|
Again we have a split. Rice wins the Win Shares tally, Tenace wins in WARP.
I don’t know the reason for this, but I’ll speculate that Rice does better in Win Shares because it is measuring his contributions against his team’s success, while WARP measures players against replacement-level players. I don’t know if that’s a completely accurate explanation, so I won’t take it any further.
Their totals over the five-year period between 1975 and 1979:
|
Win Shares
|
WARP
|
Jim Rice
|
127
|
30.9
|
Gene Tenace
|
125
|
42.4
|
Win Shares is a dead-heat, and WARP gives a considerable edge to Tenace. I’m willing to call it: between 1975-1979, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
Fine: Tenace was more valuable than Rice over those five years. But Jim Rice played 500 more games than Gene Tenace. How do we account for that?
Win Shares gives Jim Rice an edge in career value: Rice has 282 Win Shares to 231 for Tenace.
That said, Win Shares recognizes that when they played Tenace was the better player. Per 162 games, Tenace averaged 24.07 Win Shares, while Rice averaged 21.86.
And even with those 500 extra games, WARP still gives the career edge to Tenace: 77.5 to 73.0. The reason? WARP is a position-adjusted metric, and Rice’s contributions are set against a replacement-level DH. Because it’s easy to replace a DH, Rice doesn’t earn a lot of points.
There is still that pesky problem of Rice’s 51 more Win Shares. But that’s a deceptive count: to be fair, one would have to add the Win Share contributions of a replacement-level player for the three years Rice played when Tenace did not. That is to say, the Red Sox had Rice for fifteen years: the A’s/Padres had Tenace for twelve years, plus a replacement-level player for those three extra years of Rice’s career.
The Whole > The Sum of Its Parts
I think the Tenace or Rice debate is fascinating because it delineates, in stark terms, two distinct ways of measuring baseball players. One is atomistic: the events of player’s career exist in isolation. A .315 batting average means someone is a good player. 46 homeruns are 46 homeruns, context be damned.
The other way is a holistic approach; an effort to understand the events of a player’s career within a broader context. How did that .315 batting average help his team win? How many of those 46 homeruns mattered in games? What position did the player play? Was he a good defender? Did he ground into double plays?
We are moving towards the second, more holistic approach. We are beginning to place a player’s contributions within larger contexts. Stats like ‘WARP’ and ‘Win Shares’ as complicated as they are, as foreign as they may seem, they are attempting to do merely that: consider a player’s contributions against larger contexts.
Atomisticly, Jim Rice was better than Gene Tenace. Rice had a better batting average. He hit far more homeruns. He drove in and scored more runs. He played more games. He won more awards, played on more All-Star games, and had more articles written about him in the press. His rookie card is worth more money, and someday he will make the Hall of Fame.
But Gene Tenace did more to help his teams win baseball games than Jim Rice did. He was more important to the success of his teams than Rice was, and he offered more diverse skills than Rice did. Considering the whole of the player and the contexts that surrounded him, looking at it from a holistic, all-encompassing perspective, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
(Dave Fleming is a writer living in Iowa City, Iowa. He welcomes comments, questions, and arguments from SOSH’ers here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.)