Yeah, but the argument that his low OBP shouldn’t matter that much because people didn’t talk about OBP very much back then is just silly. The idea that we can come up with better ways to analyze baseball players but we can’t retroactively use them to analyze players in baseball history is just plain dumb.

I’m not so sure that Rice gets in this year. I expect the minority that opposes him to continue to hold the line. The arguments going against Rice in his campaign remain stronger than the ones in his favor.

Joe Posnanski wrote about that also (concerning Jim Rice), how if he had known OBP was more important he would have walked more. Joe wasn’t sure if that was true, though. Pitch selection (and hence walking) is a skill. Isn’t like a guy from the ’20’s saying that if he knew home runs were that valuable he would have hit more home runs?

Here is what Joe wrote on the subject:

Players are who they are. There have always been players who walked a lot and there have always been hackers and I don’t think perception would change that. In 1979, for instance, Darrell Porter led the American League with 121 walks. In 2008, Jack Cust led with 111 walks. Darrell Porter didn’t read Moneyball, and he didn’t play for Billy Beane, and probably was not an avid Bill James reader at that particularly crazy time in his life. He walked.

In fact, while playing around with this, I ran across a statistic, something that shocked the heck out of me. This might very well be common knowledge — it probably is — but I have never run across it, and I cannot even fathom it. You ready for it?

The walk rate in the American League in 2008 was 8.6.
The walk rate in the American League in 1979 was 8.7.

I am absolutely stunned by that. Absolutely, utterly and completely stunned. It does not seem even remotely possible that with the famously high strike in the 1970s, with the batters supposedly swinging at everything back then, with our new and keen understanding of how important on-base percentage is, that batters are walking LESS now that they did then.

But it’s simply a fact. I’m sticking with the American League for now — here’s a chart of walk percentages over the last six decades:

1950s walk rate: 9.7% (approximately … the entirely awesome Baseball Reference does not have sac flies for some early years in the 1950s so I had to guess on those, though I tried to guess high to keep the number fair).
1960s walk rate: 8.7%
1970s walk rate: 8.7%
1980s walk rate: 8.5%
1990s walk rate: 9.2%
2000s walk rate: 8.5%

You get that? Walks are DOWN since Moneyball came out. Walks are DOWN since all the supposed wacky-hacky 1970s. Walks are down since rotisserie teams have started incorporating on-base percentage in their games. Walks are DOWN since these management types from Ivy League school started to crunch the numbers and realized the true significance of the free pass. Walks are down since high on-base percentage players could make money in the open market.

There’s no way around it. Batters are not walking more now than they did in the 1970s. It’s mind-blowing to me, but it’s also comforting because it confirms what I have come to believe: The ability to walk is just that, an ability, a talent, like being able to run or hit with power. You can improve it somewhat, perhaps, and every once in a while a player will discover the walking talent late. But for the most part a player cannot simply DECIDE to walk more often, just like he cannot DECIDE to start throwing 98 mph because it’s easier to get batters out that way. Walking takes too many distinct talents (including the ability to recognize balls and strikes, the ability to spoil good pitches, the ability to stay focused on each pitch, the respect to get that close call from the umpire, and so on and so on).

So that argument has never been especially interesting to me — I don’t think Rice, given the time machine, would have walked any more often than he did.

Jeff Bagwell has the second highest OPS+ of any first basemen since integration (behind McGwire), the 13th highest OPS+ period since integration, no questions about his “integrity” and was considered a good defender. I think he’s just shy of inner circle. He’ll walk in.

So will Schilling. His numbers are good enough to merit discussion anyway (13th highest ERA+ since integration) and his numbers put him way over the top.

I see him more as a lock. Biggio, too, with the 3000 and playing three tough positions. Griffey, the Atlanta 3, Pedro, Randy, all locks. Then there are the steroid guys who have their own debate. The guys I mentioned (other than Schilling, who also may be in the suspect category) are all pretty much of the Dawsonesque mode – very good, well-liked, not a slam dunk.

that is an interesting bunch