George Foster or Jim Rice?

[sweaver]

Who was better, 1970s MVP George Foster, or 1980s MVP Jim Rice?

[Craig S.]

Weren't they both 1970s MVPs?

I'd go with Rice for career value, although I'd take Foster's 1977 season over anything from Rice.

[JamesI]

Rice is closer to the HOF and the better player.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I went with Rice, but it's closer than I would've thought without really looking.

Aside from his big year in '77, Foster was also a major contributor in '76 and '78 and very solid in '75 and from '79 through '81.

Rice's big year was '78, but he was a major contributor in '77, '79, '83 and '86.

Rice's best seasons are a little better than Foster's, but George was more consistently good for a little longer.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by sweaver

Who was better, 1970s MVP George Foster, or 1980s MVP Jim Rice?

This should be Joe Morgan v. Rickey Henderson.

[Wolf Hopper]

I never would have thought this before looking, but, Foster was better than Rice.

Matched him in OWP and was more consistent with stringing togther great seasons.

[sweaver]

Originally Posted by Craig S.

Weren't they both 1970s MVPs?

You're right, it was a brain slip. They were nearly contemporaries. Foster was the 1977 NL MVP, Rice the 1978 AL MVP. Foster was a few years older.

[pathogan]

...though reflexively I would have thought Rice...

[Jim Rice]

Echoing what most have said, it's Rice, but not by as much as most would think. Still, mostly healthy margins all around in favor of Rice, and it seems to be nearly unanimous among the various modern measurements. Only OWP favors Foster, and that barely.

WIN SHARES: Rice 282, Foster 269
WARP3: Rice 92.6, Foster 91.0
EQA: Rice .298, Foster .291
TPR: Rice, 26.4, Foster 21.6
RCAA: Rice 270, Foster 230
RCAP: Rice 155, Foster 133
RC/G: Rice 5.93, Foster 5.57
OWP: Foster .598, Rice .593

Hopper - What's your reasoning behind favoring Foster? I see your comment about stringing together good seasons, and I agree that Foster was a bit more consistent, but doesn't Rice's overall value exceed Foster's? Despite his consistency, Foster could only hold a job as a regular for 13 seasons, compared to Rice's 14, despite starting his career at 20 and ending it at 37, one year younger and older, respectively, than Rice's career start and end points. Using just their seasons as regulars ('75 - '88 for Rice; '71, '74 - 85 for Foster), Rice was more productive each year (19.93 RCAA to 18.46 for Foster; 11.71 RCAP to 11.62 for Foster) and barely edges out Foster for average Win Shares (19.93 to 19.92).

I think Rice has a clear advantage in career value, and an arguable advantage in peak value depending on how peak is defined. Foster had the best single year; Rice the best three-year run; Foster the best 5-year run; Rice the best 10-year run (using both WARP3 and Win Shares - Foster gets it using RCAA); Rice had the best 12-year run. Even Bill James, who seems to thoroughly despise Jim Rice, rates him a fair piece better than Foster. I just don't see how Foster can be given the nod here.

[poorme]

i was looking at his stats the other day. foster was a hell of a player. i'm not sure bobby bonds wasn't better than either of them.

[pwdennis]

Rice - I think that part of the perception of Rice defensively is due to the impression left by his last couple of seasons, when he slowed down considerably and was having some vision problems (would Lasix have added three more years to Rice's career as a productive hitter ?) . Rice had pretty decent speed in his younger days and he learned to play the wall well.

In 77 & 78 Rice had 15 triples. You can't possess no foot speed and get 15 triples. Neither Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonds nor Rickey Henderson ever had 15 triples in a season. Willie Davis (16) and Willie Mays (20) each got there once.

[sweaver]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

Despite his consistency, Foster could only hold a job as a regular for 13 seasons, compared to Rice's 14,

I knew that JR would get going on this one, at least. "Only" when the difference was one season? That's trying to stretch a point to its limit, I think.

Now of course, when I pick these, I try to get two players who are fairly comparable, not "A-Rod vs. Neifi Perez." Gotta have some debate. And the other thing is, to engender a debate about what the comparison means. I think what this comparison does is hurts Rice's claim to the Hall of Fame. Certainly no one thinks of George Foster as a Hall of Famer. So, Jim Rice has to be better than Foster to get in the Hall, right? I just don't see it.

Let's start with the number JR uses. Mostly offensive numbers, and most favoring Rice, but by very thin margins. Some of those numbers, in fact, are affected in Rice's favor by the use of the DH in the AL. So it's virtually a dead heat by many measures.

Let's compare them defensively. Rice was a left fielder, and a DH. He played 43 career games in RF and 1 in CF, with 1504 in LF and 530 as a DH. He was a competent outfielder in his youth, slowed with age. Foster was very fast as a youngster, used as a pinch-runner on a number of occasions including the 1972 NL Playoffs when he scored the winning run in Game 5. Foster was the Reds' regular center fielder for much of 1971 after Bobby Tolan was injured and Foster was acquired from the Giants for Frank Duffy. He played 267 career games in CF and 178 in RF, in addition to 1534 in LF. Foster was a better defensive outfielder, but a fairly narrow margin. But he was better.

Foster had a career OPS+ of 126, Rice of 128. It's a close call, but I give it to George.

And yes, Bobby Bonds was better than either. But he was a right fielder.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by sweaver

"Only" when the difference was one season? That's trying to stretch a point to its limit, I think.

"Only" still works in the context I was referring to, namely Hopper's assertion that Foster was the steadier performer. How can Foster be steadier than Rice when he was a regular for "only" 13 of his 18 years in the bigs while Rice was a regular for 14 of his 16 years? A bit of a contradiction, IMO.

Regarding defense, I don't see much support for the conclusion that Foster was better. Win Shares has Rice being slightly better, with 2.63 WS/1000 innings compared to Foster's 2.50. They had just about the same range and Rice clearly threw better. It's possible that Rice's assists were inflated by the proximity of the left field wall in Fenway, but that same proximity probably reduced his range factor as well; so take your pick - either concede Rice threw better or discount his arm due to The Wall but then give him extra credit for his range being artificially deflated by Fenway.

The fact that Rice played a bunch of games at DH is more testament to the fact that Carl Yastrzemski aged well than a lack of defensive ability on the part of Rice. Almost two-third's of Rice's games at DH were from 1975 thru 1980 and are directly attributable to playing behind one of the finest defensive left fielders ever - not due to the aging knees or vision problems that ended his career prematurely. The fact that Rice didn't move over to CF or RF is because the Sox had Gold Glovers at those spots too - fellas named Lynn and Evans.

And while Foster may have been faster in a 100-yard dash, that sure didn't translate onto the field. Rice not only stole more bases than Foster (despite playing for the station-to-station Red Sox), but he did so at a slightly better rate. Rice also tripled close to twice as much as Foster, despite playing on grass while Foster enjoyed triple-friendly AstroTurf. (And no, this wasn't a Fenway thing - Rice hit 35 road triples in his career, only 12 less than Foster hit his entire career.) So speed on the field seems to either be a wash (defensive range) or favor Rice (steals and triples).

I simply don't see Foster having any defensive or speed advantage at all, let alone enough to overcome the offensive advantage that we already know Rice enjoyed. (Sorry - the numbers we already cited take offensive context into account, the affect of the DH included. Rice was a better hitter.)

All that said, whether this is all evidence that Rice's Hall of Fame case is weak I really can't say. That's kind of a glass half empty/glass half full thing. You could take all of this and say that it's Foster who deserves MORE credit than he gets instead of saying Rice deserves less.

[SmedIndy]

Foster played CF as a regular basis as a young player. Rice never did. THAT'S a defensive advantage. I contend that if the Reds never picked up Cesar Geronimo Foster would have been a CF for a few more years than what he was.

You can conjecture Rice COULD have played CF but Foster DID, and did reasonably well. They never reached for Rice as a backup CF in a pinch, but as late as 1978 Foster was playing 10+ games in CF.

If Rice COULD have played CF then he would have. Lynn didn't play EVERY game.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I based my vote on Win Shares. Rice has a very slight edge over Foster in both peak WS (top three seasons) and career WS (strictly because he played one more season).

Foster has the slight edge in top five seasons and WS per 162 games, which is more-or-less a good measure of consistency. The only reason BJ rates Rice ahead of Foster is because of that extra season -- they're that close.