2009 HOF inductees -- Rickey & Rice (1 Viewer)

[Leroy Hoard]

Did people actually not vote on purpose? two blank ballots?? in the name of some dumb tradition. only in baseball

Idiots. If they can't list at least Henderson they don't know enough about baseball to deserve a vote.

 

[Rig24]

Anyone got info on how to get HOF induction tickets? Also, about how much it would cost.

Excited for Rickey, deserved better than 94% though. Would have been nice to see Raines get in also.

 

[Dave Baker]

...the main point of my comment...is that (especially in baseball) there's no reason to rely on your gut. We can quantify how good a player was. There are TONS of baseball statistics -- some better than others. There's no reason, therefore, to rely on your gut.

I guess I come from the camp that thinks far too many people look only at the numbers instead of remembering the actual impact a player had on the game, and when I say impact I mean a lot more than as a media darling or talked about amongst the public.When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).I LOVED Trammell, but I just never really considered him to be at the very top of the game, and if so certainly not for a decade or so.Interestingly, like Yudkin, I think far too many people make it in. Heck, I even don't think I'd vote in Eddie Murray yet I think Rice should have been a lock. Looking at the numbers would seem to indicate jut the opposite.So while I agree statistics are an extremely important element of this process, they should not be the sole deciding factor. Numbers do not provide the entire story to how great a player was.The weird part, and can sometimes lessen my arguments, is that I actually think that guys like Ron Santo and Maury Wills should be in the HOF, and loved seeing Bruce Sutter make it, but guys like Trammell should not (note: I recognize that Sutter and Wills did not have the decade long superiority that I normally demand). It's almost like that pathetic argument that I don't know what it takes to be in the HOF, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Thorn]

When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).

 

[Leroy Hoard]

When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.

For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).

Jack Morris won more games than any pitcher in the 1980's.

 

[David Yudkin]

When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.

For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).

Jack Morris won more games than any pitcher in the 1980's.

And Mark Grace had more hits than anyone in the 90s. Morris was a solid pitcher, but in this EXACT breakdown of a decade he benefits that most other pitchers did not pitch those exact 10 years.

 

[Thorn]

When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.

For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).

Jack Morris won more games than any pitcher in the 1980's.

Meh. I like Morris, I wouldn't think it a crime if he were in, but he got A LOT of run support for those wins. If he were 'the very best for about a decade,' he'd have more than 2 first place Cy Young votes in all of the 1980s seasons combined.

 

[guru_007]

...the main point of my comment...is that (especially in baseball) there's no reason to rely on your gut. We can quantify how good a player was. There are TONS of baseball statistics -- some better than others. There's no reason, therefore, to rely on your gut.

I guess I come from the camp that thinks far too many people look only at the numbers instead of remembering the actual impact a player had on the game, and when I say impact I mean a lot more than as a media darling or talked about amongst the public.When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).I LOVED Trammell, but I just never really considered him to be at the very top of the game, and if so certainly not for a decade or so.Interestingly, like Yudkin, I think far too many people make it in. Heck, I even don't think I'd vote in Eddie Murray yet I think Rice should have been a lock. Looking at the numbers would seem to indicate jut the opposite.So while I agree statistics are an extremely important element of this process, they should not be the sole deciding factor. Numbers do not provide the entire story to how great a player was.The weird part, and can sometimes lessen my arguments, is that I actually think that guys like Ron Santo and Maury Wills should be in the HOF, and loved seeing Bruce Sutter make it, but guys like Trammell should not (note: I recognize that Sutter and Wills did not have the decade long superiority that I normally demand). It's almost like that pathetic argument that I don't know what it takes to be in the HOF, but I know it when I see it.

agree with every bit of this post......except Eddie Murray. No idea why you don't think he should be in over Rice (and Rice is my favorite player ever).

 

[David Yudkin]

...the main point of my comment...is that (especially in baseball) there's no reason to rely on your gut. We can quantify how good a player was. There are TONS of baseball statistics -- some better than others. There's no reason, therefore, to rely on your gut.

I guess I come from the camp that thinks far too many people look only at the numbers instead of remembering the actual impact a player had on the game, and when I say impact I mean a lot more than as a media darling or talked about amongst the public.When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).I LOVED Trammell, but I just never really considered him to be at the very top of the game, and if so certainly not for a decade or so.Interestingly, like Yudkin, I think far too many people make it in. Heck, I even don't think I'd vote in Eddie Murray yet I think Rice should have been a lock. Looking at the numbers would seem to indicate jut the opposite.So while I agree statistics are an extremely important element of this process, they should not be the sole deciding factor. Numbers do not provide the entire story to how great a player was.The weird part, and can sometimes lessen my arguments, is that I actually think that guys like Ron Santo and Maury Wills should be in the HOF, and loved seeing Bruce Sutter make it, but guys like Trammell should not (note: I recognize that Sutter and Wills did not have the decade long superiority that I normally demand). It's almost like that pathetic argument that I don't know what it takes to be in the HOF, but I know it when I see it.

Since I think many of us are too caught up in raw statistics and have fading memories, I started a thread on Top 5 MVP or Cy Young seasons.Those results were based on a fixed moment in time. The writers voted for who they fely were the best in those given seasons. The results are pretty surprising. Rice had 6 years in the Top 5 (not surprising to me) as did Murray (which was a little surprising for me). Sheffield, who some folks ahve going in, onl;y was Top 5 4 times . . . the same as Manny.And while I was originally skeptical of Mussina's HOF credentials, he also ranked in the Top 5 (for Cy Young) 6 times.

 

[Koya]

Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

He'll never get in via writer's vote.The curious cases to me will be Bonds and Clemens.

While I believe Bonds is a definate HoFer, I am not POSITIVE on Clemens for the same reason that makes me go crazy when "experts" like Tim Kuirkjn (no idea how to spell his name) go with the "Bonds is the third best hitter ever and Clemens the third best pitcher ever"Yeah - WHEN THEY WERE ON ROIDS! (and in that case, Bonds would be the second best hitter ever imo). Now, while Bonds would never be mentioned with Ruth et al without the roids, he clearly was a multiple MVP HOFer.Clemens, on the other hand, would have had a borderline shot, probably in, had it not been for roids. But his "no doubt" status was all about his first few years, and then post age 31 or 32, aka roids. Otherwise, he is probably a candidate, but not CLOSE to being mentioned as anything but one of his eras better (and not close to best without the roids) pitchers.

 

[Dave Baker]

Clemens and Bonds would be absolute locks for me. Yes, the roids issues bother me but not nearly enough to not vote those two guys in.

 

[Tom Servo]

Of course, I got as many HOF votes as Dan Plesac!!!

And Greg Vaughn, too. I'm sensing an anti-Brewer bias here.

and Ron Gant. No Brewer bias here GB. I loves me some Bob Uecker and Ryan Braun. Plus, Major League was filmed in County Stadium.

 

[oso diablo]

Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

so was i. i still believe that once Bonds and Clemens are voted in (and they WILL be), then guys like McGwire will basically get a fresh start on the ballot. Right now the writers don't have a clue what to do about the steriod era players, and i don't think they are intellectually astute enough to figure it out. They are in a mode of intransigence.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

He'll never get in via writer's vote.The curious cases to me will be Bonds and Clemens.

The hypocritical voters will use the "those guys were Hall of Famers before using steroids" cop-out. Even though I think it is obvious that McGwire used some type of performance-enhancer, I think he should be in, as should Sammy Sosa. Both of those guys were HUGE in bringing fans and interest back to the support following the backlash of the strike in '94. Their chase for the HR title in '98 was one of the biggest baseball stories of the past 25 years. You would think that would count for something. I just think it is unfair to not hold all of the supposed steroid abusers to the same standard. If you are going to keep one out, then you need to keep them all out. To paint some guys with a brush and not others is hypocritical.

 

[Thorn]

Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

so was i. i still believe that once Bonds and Clemens are voted in (and they WILL be), then guys like McGwire will basically get a fresh start on the ballot. Right now the writers don't have a clue what to do about the steriod era players, and i don't think they are intellectually astute enough to figure it out. They are in a mode of intransigence.

in⋅tran⋅si⋅gent   /ɪnˈtrænsɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tran-si-juhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible.

 

[shadyridr]

IMO Blyleven and Dawson deserve in. And Alomar and Larkin deserve in next year.

 

[Jeremy]

Of course, I got as many HOF votes as Dan Plesac!!!

And Greg Vaughn, too. I'm sensing an anti-Brewer bias here.

and Ron Gant. No Brewer bias here GB. I loves me some Bob Uecker and Ryan Braun. Plus, Major League was filmed in County Stadium.

I meant by the voters. How can the great Dan Plesac and Greg Vaughn not get even one vote between them? Anti-Brewites!

or it could be that they just weren't very good

 

[whoknew]

When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).

Why is this good?How do you know Rice was better than Molitor?

 

[Statorama]

The best thing about this is that Boston fans will FINALLY stop #####ing about Rice not being in the Hall.

They'll probably just turn their attention to somebody like Dwight Evans now.

 

[David Yudkin]

The best thing about this is that Boston fans will FINALLY stop #####ing about Rice not being in the Hall.They'll probably just turn their attention to somebody like Dwight Evans now.

No . . . he's already out of the running. But Schilling on the other hand . . .

 

[Statorama]

Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

He'll never get in via writer's vote.The curious cases to me will be Bonds and Clemens.

The hypocritical voters will use the "those guys were Hall of Famers before using steroids" cop-out. Even though I think it is obvious that McGwire used some type of performance-enhancer, I think he should be in, as should Sammy Sosa. Both of those guys were HUGE in bringing fans and interest back to the support following the backlash of the strike in '94. Their chase for the HR title in '98 was one of the biggest baseball stories of the past 25 years. You would think that would count for something. I just think it is unfair to not hold all of the supposed steroid abusers to the same standard. If you are going to keep one out, then you need to keep them all out. To paint some guys with a brush and not others is hypocritical.

Go Sammy!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

IMO Blyleven and Dawson deserve in. And Alomar and Larkin deserve in next year.

Exactly why does Larkin deserve in? There is no way you can make a case for him as a first time entry, you're gonna have a hard time making a case for him at all. If Alan Trammell is only getting 20 percent of votes, Larkin should get about the same. Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I guess I come from the camp that thinks far too many people look only at the numbers instead of remembering the actual impact a player had on the game, and when I say impact I mean a lot more than as a media darling or talked about amongst the public. When you look only at numbers, guys like Paul Molitor skate in and guys like Rice have a rough road, when in actuality, Rice was a much better player during his stretch than was Molitor.For me, you must have been one of the very best in the game for about a decade, with some allowances to consider for positional settings (e.g. catcher, 3rd base).I LOVED Trammell, but I just never really considered him to be at the very top of the game, and if so certainly not for a decade or so.

Was Jim Rice at the top of the game for a decade or so? Not really. Trammell also played SS and was easily the third best at that position in his era and finishing third to Cal Ripkin Jr and Ozzie Smith is ok. In baseball history Trammell probably only ranks behind Ripkin, Wagner, Banks, Cronin, Jeter, Aparicio, Appling, A-Rod, and Ozzie Smith in overall production. That's 9 shortstops. Was Trammell as good as any of them? Probably not but he is better than pretty much everyone else. But he's got as good as or better numbers than Arky Vaughan, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, and Lou Boudreau who are in. Paul Molitor is 9th all time in hits, 4th all-time among righthanded hitters, and there is no way he "skated" in. Jim Rice may have had a few better individual years but Molitor was certainly the better hitter.

Interestingly, like Yudkin, I think far too many people make it in. Heck, I even don't think I'd vote in Eddie Murray yet I think Rice should have been a lock. Looking at the numbers would seem to indicate jut the opposite.

Murray had 3000 hits and 500 HRs. Rice had neither. Murray was probably the most consistent hitter of his era and had a career 129 OPS+ besting Rice there too. He was Jim Rice only he just did it for many more years.

So while I agree statistics are an extremely important element of this process, they should not be the sole deciding factor. Numbers do not provide the entire story to how great a player was.

Exactly the argument for Trammell. In the end baseball is a statistics driven sport for contracts, for HOF consideration, and for effect. No one wants the baseball HOF to become the football HOF where a lot of questionable guys gain entry. Guys like Sutter, Dawson, and to a lesser extent Rice dilutes the pool and makes the accomplishments of truly great players worth a little less IMO.

The weird part, and can sometimes lessen my arguments, is that I actually think that guys like Ron Santo and Maury Wills should be in the HOF, and loved seeing Bruce Sutter make it, but guys like Trammell should not (note: I recognize that Sutter and Wills did not have the decade long superiority that I normally demand). It's almost like that pathetic argument that I don't know what it takes to be in the HOF, but I know it when I see it.

There is no reason Sutter should have been in before Gossage for sure, and Lee Smith probably has a better case also.

 

[shadyridr]

IMO Blyleven and Dawson deserve in. And Alomar and Larkin deserve in next year.

Exactly why does Larkin deserve in? There is no way you can make a case for him as a first time entry, you're gonna have a hard time making a case for him at all. If Alan Trammell is only getting 20 percent of votes, Larkin should get about the same. Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Just an opinion from watching the guy over the years. And I think Trammell deserves more recognition and think hes borderline. As for Igor he wouldve gotten in if it wasnt for the steroids. He has no chance now.

 

[Da Guru]

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

 

[David Yudkin]

Was Jim Rice at the top of the game for a decade or so? Not really.

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

People apparently don't get the Rice situation. Rice from 75-86 averaged .306, 30 HR, and 106 RBI. To give people an idea, in those 12 years he ranked in the Top 10:AVG 6 time####s 8 timesHR 7 timesRBI 9 timesOPS 6 timesTotal Bases 9 timesMVP Voting 6 times (All Top 5)Using Molitor as an example, in his 21 seasons:AVG 11 time####s 9 timesHR 0 timesRBI 0 timesOPS 4 timesTotal Bases timesMVP Voting 4 timesSure, Molitor played longer so his career numbers are greater. Longer doesn't mean better.They talked about this this morning on ESPN and they really didn't get it. They were saying that Rice's career RBI total was worse than Rusty Staub. Rice had 2089 games played. Staub had 2951 games played. I hope that someone that had an 862 game advantage would have more RBI. Same thing with Blyleven. He played forever, so his total stats are impressive, and his year to year stats are solid. He had low ERAs in an era with lower scoring and mostly playing in pitcher's parks.But even with 10 years in the Top 10 in ERA, 11 seasons Top 10 in WHIP, and 15 years Top 10 in strikeouts, Blyleven played on two All Star games, never won a Cy Young (only getting votes in 4 seasons), and was essentially ignored in MVP balloting.How could a guy supposedly so fantastic be so ignored throughout his entire career? Even with all that, his ERA+ score is 118 . . tied for 134th best for qualifying pitchers.Blyleven was very good for a very long time. If you compare him to say Pedro, Martinez will have a fraction of Blyleven's totals. So because Blyleven had bigger totals we are to conclude that he was better than Pedro?

 

[Dave Baker]

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

I might just be me, but I care a lot les about longevity and a lot more about being one of the very best in the game over a reasonable period of time. Hence, Molitor playing a lot more years than Rice means little to me.Same with Murray. I liked Murray as a player, but I never thought, at any given time, that this guy was absolutely one of the best ever (again, this can be done with positional considerations too). it was only after all was said and done that their final numbers look so impressive.So years of consistency are great, just not HOF worthy.And I gave several comments about how stats are too entrenched in people's heads when making this decision, yet people continue to show stats of players that played past 35 years old as somehow being special.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Was Jim Rice at the top of the game for a decade or so? Not really.

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

People apparently don't get the Rice situation. Rice from 75-86 averaged .306, 30 HR, and 106 RBI. To give people an idea, in those 12 years he ranked in the Top 10:AVG 6 time####s 8 timesHR 7 timesRBI 9 timesOPS 6 timesTotal Bases 9 timesMVP Voting 6 times (All Top 5)Using Molitor as an example, in his 21 seasons:AVG 11 time####s 9 timesHR 0 timesRBI 0 timesOPS 4 timesTotal Bases timesMVP Voting 4 timesSure, Molitor played longer so his career numbers are greater. Longer doesn't mean better.They talked about this this morning on ESPN and they really didn't get it. They were saying that Rice's career RBI total was worse than Rusty Staub. Rice had 2089 games played. Staub had 2951 games played. I hope that someone that had an 862 game advantage would have more RBI. Same thing with Blyleven. He played forever, so his total stats are impressive, and his year to year stats are solid. He had low ERAs in an era with lower scoring and mostly playing in pitcher's parks.But even with 10 years in the Top 10 in ERA, 11 seasons Top 10 in WHIP, and 15 years Top 10 in strikeouts, Blyleven played on two All Star games, never won a Cy Young (only getting votes in 4 seasons), and was essentially ignored in MVP balloting.How could a guy supposedly so fantastic be so ignored throughout his entire career? Even with all that, his ERA+ score is 118 . . tied for 134th best for qualifying pitchers.Blyleven was very good for a very long time. If you compare him to say Pedro, Martinez will have a fraction of Blyleven's totals. So because Blyleven had bigger totals we are to conclude that he was better than Pedro?

No I don't think you get who goes into the hall of fame and what criteria is used. I could care less if Jim Rice was a better player for a handful of years than Paul Molitor (debatable), what matters is Molitor over a career was a much better player. Longer does mean better when it comes to the baseball Hall of Fame, if it didn't Roger Maris who had three great seasons and two MVPs would be in. Same goes for George Foster who has very similar numbers to Rice, Cecil Fielder, and Johnny Mize. I'm on the fence about Rice to be honest, like most people I think I could have gone either way. But to compare his career accomplishments and baseball resume to Paul Molitor is beyond ridiculous. Jim Rice's career is underwhelming on paper, it took him 15 years to get inducted, and when you think of great all-time baseball players he's not going to be in that conversation. Is he worthy? Meh, he's close. I'm not a Jim Rice hater at all and he seems like a great guy and he had some really big seasons. Baseball is not football where you have a few good years and you're in. Baseball expects longevity and there are very few exceptions unless you are Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, or Rube Waddell. Exceptional talents, off the chart seasons, but just ok career numbers. Rice was never exceptional, was great for three years, and had some good numbers outside of that. I think he was a very, very good baseball player, definitely HOF considerable, and certainly an impact player in his era but I don't think he was necessarily special. If I had a vote, I would have thought about it for weeks.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

I might just be me, but I care a lot les about longevity and a lot more about being one of the very best in the game over a reasonable period of time. Hence, Molitor playing a lot more years than Rice means little to me.Same with Murray. I liked Murray as a player, but I never thought, at any given time, that this guy was absolutely one of the best ever (again, this can be done with positional considerations too). it was only after all was said and done that their final numbers look so impressive.So years of consistency are great, just not HOF worthy.And I gave several comments about how stats are too entrenched in people's heads when making this decision, yet people continue to show stats of players that played past 35 years old as somehow being special.

Murray had a career OPS+ of 129 and Rice had a career OPS+ of 128. Murray's career stats put Rice's to shame, and Murray also won three gold gloves. I don't get the people are too entrenched in stats shtick, that is the way baseball has always judged their players and the stats so prove who the best players ever were. Statistically Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, Mickey Mantle, and Barry Bonds were the greatest hitters and players ever. If you talk to fans, players, and experts about those players they will tell you how truly great they were. I just can't believe a baseball fan is saying people are too "entrenched" in the numbers. That's just a fact of life and a fair measuring tool that has been used for 125+ years. It's also a good way to compare players across generations. If you think Rice was special and HOF worhty then that's awesome, but to discount Murray is confusing.

 

[David Yudkin]

Was Jim Rice at the top of the game for a decade or so? Not really.

Looking at their career stats Rice was basically done at 32-33 years of age, his last three years were pretty weak. Molitor had almost 1000 more career hits than Rice.

People apparently don't get the Rice situation. Rice from 75-86 averaged .306, 30 HR, and 106 RBI. To give people an idea, in those 12 years he ranked in the Top 10:AVG 6 time####s 8 timesHR 7 timesRBI 9 timesOPS 6 timesTotal Bases 9 timesMVP Voting 6 times (All Top 5)Using Molitor as an example, in his 21 seasons:AVG 11 time####s 9 timesHR 0 timesRBI 0 timesOPS 4 timesTotal Bases timesMVP Voting 4 timesSure, Molitor played longer so his career numbers are greater. Longer doesn't mean better.They talked about this this morning on ESPN and they really didn't get it. They were saying that Rice's career RBI total was worse than Rusty Staub. Rice had 2089 games played. Staub had 2951 games played. I hope that someone that had an 862 game advantage would have more RBI. Same thing with Blyleven. He played forever, so his total stats are impressive, and his year to year stats are solid. He had low ERAs in an era with lower scoring and mostly playing in pitcher's parks.But even with 10 years in the Top 10 in ERA, 11 seasons Top 10 in WHIP, and 15 years Top 10 in strikeouts, Blyleven played on two All Star games, never won a Cy Young (only getting votes in 4 seasons), and was essentially ignored in MVP balloting.How could a guy supposedly so fantastic be so ignored throughout his entire career? Even with all that, his ERA+ score is 118 . . tied for 134th best for qualifying pitchers.Blyleven was very good for a very long time. If you compare him to say Pedro, Martinez will have a fraction of Blyleven's totals. So because Blyleven had bigger totals we are to conclude that he was better than Pedro?

No I don't think you get who goes into the hall of fame and what criteria is used. I could care less if Jim Rice was a better player for a handful of years than Paul Molitor (debatable), what matters is Molitor over a career was a much better player. Longer does mean better when it comes to the baseball Hall of Fame, if it didn't Roger Maris who had three great seasons and two MVPs would be in. Same goes for George Foster who has very similar numbers to Rice, Cecil Fielder, and Johnny Mize. I'm on the fence about Rice to be honest, like most people I think I could have gone either way. But to compare his career accomplishments and baseball resume to Paul Molitor is beyond ridiculous. Jim Rice's career is underwhelming on paper, it took him 15 years to get inducted, and when you think of great all-time baseball players he's not going to be in that conversation. Is he worthy? Meh, he's close. I'm not a Jim Rice hater at all and he seems like a great guy and he had some really big seasons. Baseball is not football where you have a few good years and you're in. Baseball expects longevity and there are very few exceptions unless you are Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, or Rube Waddell. Exceptional talents, off the chart seasons, but just ok career numbers. Rice was never exceptional, was great for three years, and had some good numbers outside of that. I think he was a very, very good baseball player, definitely HOF considerable, and certainly an impact player in his era but I don't think he was necessarily special. If I had a vote, I would have thought about it for weeks.

To each his own, I guess. I agree with Baker on this one. Molitor was not even average in the field, his range was terrible and finally he ended up a DH for half his career. Great slasher as a hitter, but he benefited with the offensive boom the second half of his career. I doubt you'd get many baseball people that would agree that Molitor was better than Rice in his prime.Foster had a span of 5-6 years where he was a top producer . . . half as long as Rice. Fielder also had a great 5-6 years but his average was terrible, his career totals fell far short of Rice, and he played in the offensive explosion. As for Mize, I don't understand why it took him 28 years to get in the HOF.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Did people actually not vote on purpose? two blank ballots?? in the name of some dumb tradition. only in baseball

Idiots. If they can't list at least Henderson they don't know enough about baseball to deserve a vote.

Henderson is probably the only player in the modern era IMO that deserved 100 percent of the vote. Bonds would have been the other but...well...yeah.

 

[Koya]

Same with Murray. I liked Murray as a player, but I never thought, at any given time, that this guy was absolutely one of the best ever (again, this can be done with positional considerations too). it was only after all was said and done that their final numbers look so impressive.

Were you watching the same Murray that I was in the early 80's? Or do the raw numbers of that era just turn people away? Four years of 156 OPS+, exceptional defense (in his prime) and a clutch player that was feared by opponents - its not the compilation that makes Murray a Hall of Famer - it was the raw presence during the great oriole years of the late 70's and early 80's.

 

[Sweetcan]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

 

[David Yudkin]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice put up the core of his numbers in 12 seasons and played a fair amount in only 2 others. Dawson played full time for 17 years and had 2-3 part time years. Yet their total numbers offensively were almost the same even though Rice played in 538 fewer games.Dawson only had 3 years with much MVP consideration despite being a solid player for years: 81 (the strike year), 84, and 87 (the first crazy offensive explosion year). He only drove in 100 runs 4 times. Yes his fielding and base running put Rice to shame, but apparently the voters feel his offensive production wasn't enough. Certainly another issue is there is no big media push from the cities he played in (mostly MON and CHI).

 

[whoknew]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

 

[Da Guru]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

Rice deserved to get into the HOF, but he is not a auto-first ballot player.

 

[Nigel]

If there was such a thing as Lasik surgery at the time Rice may have had another 5 productive years.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

If you say so. Juan Gonzalez has a HOF monitor score of 120, Andre Dawson has a 117. It's not silly at all to a lot of people.His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

 

[Koya]

If there was such a thing as Lasik surgery at the time Rice may have had another 5 productive years.

If I recall, Eddie Murray had eye issues as well, and for a long time would not use glasses/contacts to compensate (did he ever?). Have to dig up the details but I do remember this as an issue.

 

[David Yudkin]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

So was Juan Gonzalez. His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

The problem with Rice getting in, of course, is that many other borderline corner OF candidates are going to say what about me. Parker, Gonzalez, and Dawson are three perfect examples. Juan Gone is similar to Rice in that he was done by the time he was 32. Gonzalez will be hurt by his low walk totals (which hurt his OPS scores).

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

So was Juan Gonzalez. His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

The problem with Rice getting in, of course, is that many other borderline corner OF candidates are going to say what about me. Parker, Gonzalez, and Dawson are three perfect examples. Juan Gone is similar to Rice in that he was done by the time he was 32. Gonzalez will be hurt by his low walk totals (which hurt his OPS scores).

Well Rice has a better case than all those guys. You're right about that but Parker, Dawson, and Juan Gone are not HOF guys but I'm afraid Dawson is going to get in. He's in the Bruce Sutter tier, Rice is not.

 

[Sweetcan]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

If you say so. Juan Gonzalez has a HOF monitor score of 120, Andre Dawson has a 117. It's not silly at all to a lot of people.His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

You know what else is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball.....Jim Abbott putting together some very successful years in the bigs and throwing a no-no all with one hand......should we consider him for the hall too? I don't know much about the HOF monitor score, but I guess a lot more people than I thought don't consider juicing as a HOF setback.....and that Andre's "D" was far and away better than Gonzalez's.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

You know what else is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball.....Jim Abbott putting together some very successful years in the bigs and throwing a no-no all with one hand......should we consider him for the hall too?

They should give him his own wing.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know much about the HOF monitor score, but I guess a lot more people than I thought don't consider juicing as a HOF setback.....and that Andre's "D" was far and away better than Gonzalez's.

I certainly don't have an answer (and there probably isn't a right answer), but over the year players have done a lot of things to gain an advantage. Whether they did or not is another story, but many have tried. So should we not consider pitchers that used sandpaper or spitballs, guys that lived on speed or painkillers, guys that got fake prescriptions, or sluggers that corked their bats?As for the suspected juicers, do we consider some but not others? How many times would be too many? How about what they took? Does it matter if they were banned substances or not (remember McGwire took things that weren't banned yet)?Basically, when is cheating considered cheating?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

So was Juan Gonzalez. His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

The problem with Rice getting in, of course, is that many other borderline corner OF candidates are going to say what about me. Parker, Gonzalez, and Dawson are three perfect examples. Juan Gone is similar to Rice in that he was done by the time he was 32. Gonzalez will be hurt by his low walk totals (which hurt his OPS scores).

Rice got in because he's a Sox pure and simple.Dawson time with cubs might get him in yet.

 

[Sweetcan]

I don't know much about the HOF monitor score, but I guess a lot more people than I thought don't consider juicing as a HOF setback.....and that Andre's "D" was far and away better than Gonzalez's.

I certainly don't have an answer (and there probably isn't a right answer), but over the year players have done a lot of things to gain an advantage. Whether they did or not is any story, but many have tried. So should we not consider pitchers that used sandpaper or spitballs, guys that lived on speed or painkillers, guys that got fake prescriptions, or sluggers that corked their bats?As for the suspected juicers, do we consider some but not others? How many times would be too many? How about what they took? Does it matter if they were banned substances or not (remember McGwire took things that weren't banned yet)?Basically, when is cheating considered cheating?

It is most unfortunate these questions are amongst us......Also resulting why I have a distaste for Bud Selig.

 

[Eephus]

You know what else is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball.....Jim Abbott putting together some very successful years in the bigs and throwing a no-no all with one hand......should we consider him for the hall too?

They should give him his own wing.

that deserves a big hand

 

[Sammy3469]

Did people actually not vote on purpose? two blank ballots?? in the name of some dumb tradition. only in baseball

Idiots. If they can't list at least Henderson they don't know enough about baseball to deserve a vote.

Henderson is probably the only player in the modern era IMO that deserved 100 percent of the vote. Bonds would have been the other but...well...yeah.

Maddux and A-Rod probably deserve 100% of the vote with Pedro, Randy Johnson and Manny pretty close. Even taking out the Roid guys we were/are in a period of some ridiculously good players.

 

[Koya]

Dawson? If he deserves in so does Juan Gonzalez.

Comparing Gonzalez to Dawson is silly. Someone needs to explain to me why Rice got in and Dawson didn't. Their offensive numbers were relatively similar except the Hawk had 300+ stolen bases and 8 more gold gloves.

Rice was feared.

So was Juan Gonzalez. His 1996 playoff performance in just that one series was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball. It was like in little league when you never pitch to the 12 year old who is 6'1" 180. Gonzalez put together some evil seasons in the 90s even though he was juiced. Also Dave Parker>Andre Dawson

The problem with Rice getting in, of course, is that many other borderline corner OF candidates are going to say what about me. Parker, Gonzalez, and Dawson are three perfect examples. Juan Gone is similar to Rice in that he was done by the time he was 32. Gonzalez will be hurt by his low walk totals (which hurt his OPS scores).

Well Rice has a better case than all those guys. You're right about that but Parker, Dawson, and Juan Gone are not HOF guys but I'm afraid Dawson is going to get in. He's in the Bruce Sutter tier, Rice is not.

Parker is an interesting case, and just before my time in terms of me being able to really judge outside of stats and heresay - but Rice was feared, for a decade. He was considered by many the most dangerous hitter for much of a decade - to me that spells HoF.The same cant be said for Hawk, although I see some case for him. The OBP is terrible, but the rest is there, especially defense.

 

[Sweetcan]

You know what else is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in baseball.....Jim Abbott putting together some very successful years in the bigs and throwing a no-no all with one hand......should we consider him for the hall too?

They should give him his own wing.

that deserves a big hand