The negative .17 in OBP and .62 in SLG are bigger than that, and show in that.

I think it’s the particular weight on one MVP award and the 2452 hits to Belle’s 1726. Only explanation that makes sense to me.

Those “HoF ranking stats” are defined in B-R’s glossary. They’re based on some Bill James predictive tools, with an emphasis (for most of them)on “predictive” rather than “who should be in.” Frankly, given what I know about the four different monitors (Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor), it doesn’t look to far off. Several of them value later milestones more heavily than earlier ones. Since Rice’s career was 550 games longer than Belle’s, and his counting stats therefore higher, it isn’t surprising that Rice gets more of a nod than you think he should. It’s also not surprising that both guys look like marginal HoF candidates by these measures, since that is exactly how they’ve been treated by voters.

I will say I’m skeptical of judging who is better among peers mostly by looking at a summary of their ranks in various categories. That’s a pretty blunt tool. I’d go by the James tools first.

According to their list of league leading years if I exclude Awards, Games, AB, PA, SO, GIDP, CS, Outs and Salary:

Rice : 21 1st, 16 2nd, 71 top 5’s
Belle: 22 1st, 18 2nd, 73 top 5’s

It looks like Belle has a slight edge in where he ranked in his era using ranking by year / league.

SO/GIDP:

Rice : 5 1st, 11 top 5’s
Belle: 1 1st, 3 top 5’s

Rice’s .679 postseason OPS pales to Belle’s .972. Rice was the better fielder of the 2, but not by so much as to make up for all that. Then again Rice played the field in 1543 of his 2089 games (74%) and Belle in 1311 of his 1539 games (85%). Already mentioned is the late/close differential which is another big nod to Belle.

BP unfortunately gives credit to meaningless things like Salary and bad things like GIDP and SO. The only things they list there that are really bad to lead the league in is SO’s (sort of) and GIDP (definitely) leading the league in Outs isn’t even a bad thing, especially when you lead the league in AB’s and good offensive categories the same years. That’s why I find it flawed that they come up with this:

Rice 33 (49)/Belle 28(62)(Avg. HOF ≈ 27)
Rice 176 (57)/Belle 137 (119)(Avg. HOF ≈ 144)
Rice 43.0 (113)/Belle 36.1 (178)(Avg. HOF ≈ 50)
Rice 146.5 (85)/Belle 134.5 (98)(Likely HOF> 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

When Belle clearly was better among his peers than Rice in a better offensive era. That’s before looking at the league/park adjusted numbers like:

Rice : OPS+ 128, btWins 28.9
Belle: OPS+ 143, btWins 33.9

Although it is difficult to separate the numbers the average fan looks at:

Rice : .298/.352/.502 382HR 1451RBI
Belle: .295/.369/.564 381HR 1239RBI

Honestly, I don’t know the answers to your questions, but I do know that there are commonly accepted “eras” and that offensive performance differs across eras. I know that some (some BP stas for one; RCAA I think is another) have tried to adjust for differences in era. Not sure how, or how they define eras.

I agree with you that OPS+ does a decent, if crude, job of comparing players across eras. I disagree with you, though, that just because (say) Rice had a 157 OPS+ in 1978, while Belle had a 193 OPS+ in 1994, that that automatically means Belle had an “easily superior” year relative to his peers than Rice did [though at 193, it's a pretty sure bet Maybe I shouldn't have used their career high OPS+ numbers.] In an era of greater expansion, “league average” in the 1990s might well be depressed from what it was in the 1970s, and unless we know that (and how far ahead of the pack of other excellent peers each were) it’s hard to tell. For instance, Belle’s 1994 OPS+ didn’t lead his league (18% worse than Frank Thomas), while Rice’s 1978 did (4% better than Larry Hisle, and 5% better than Ken Singleton).

Integration is not the only thing that can help “turn” an era. Things like rule changes (the prohibition of the spitball and other trick pitches, as well as no longer using a dirty baseball are among the reasons thought to have lead to the offensive explosion of the 20s and 30s; lowering the mound is another), integration, war, expansion, PEDs…. Call me crazy, but something is going on when the OPS+ that dominates in one era is 50% less than another, and HR numbers were commonly in the 30s even for sluggers in one while routinely in the high 40s and 50s in another, something is going on. They are not directly comparable.

All we can really do is look at those numbers and conclude that both were dominant players in their eras, during their peak (and Rice’s, while perhaps not as high or as consistently, was sustained better). Honestly, I don’t think there is a huge difference in either player, and I think both have marginal HoF credentials at best.

As I’ve said, I’m adjust for era using the (admittedly crude) OPS+ numbers. Those numbers produce a value that factors in park factors, and the league average numbers, year-by-year, that the player played. Looking at Belle’s (easily) superior OPS+ numbers I can tell Belle dominated his peers, much more so than Rice ever did. I honestly don’t know how we can compare Rice to Belle without comparing them to their peers, since they played long after integration, and were not peers of each other.

You are sidestepping the argument, even though it was YOU who claimed that Belle’s peak “destroys” Rice’s peak. It’s fair for me to ask you how you are adjusting for the difference in era in making that claim.

There is no “league factor.” OPS+ does adjust for park factors, but beyond that it simply compares a player’s OPS to league average OPS. There are no adjustments for differences in league or era other than that – and that doesn’t do it.

What “league average” is clearly changes over time, and is affected by lots of variables, from what the make-up of the league is (influx of Latin and Asian players, or black plaerys in the late 40s and 50s) rule changes, and PEDs all come to mind. So, just because you are 40% better than league average in one era doesn’t mean you would be 40% better in another.