Will Jim Rice make the hall this year? (1 Viewer)

[Ron_Mexico]

I would like to see Rice, Henderson and Blyleven get in.

I think Bert Blyleven has gotten a raw deal from the HOF.

 

[David Yudkin]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

 

[Thorn]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

And let's no forget this about the double play thing: he hit behind Wade Boggs, who got to first base A LOT, either by walk or by single, and was slow and a wimp about breaking up double plays.

 

[Tau837]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

 

[Tau837]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

And I didn't even point out in my first post that Rice was a terrible postseason batter. His opportunities were limited but that's no excuse to hit .225.

 

[Sea Bass]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

And I didn't even point out in my first post that Rice was a terrible postseason batter. His opportunities were limited but that's no excuse to hit .225.

About the only thing that you haven't pointed out is that when he dressed himself he went sock-shoe-sock-shoe instead of the Hall of Fame method of sock-sock-shoe-shoe.

 

[Tau837]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

And I didn't even point out in my first post that Rice was a terrible postseason batter. His opportunities were limited but that's no excuse to hit .225.

About the only thing that you haven't pointed out is that when he dressed himself he went sock-shoe-sock-shoe instead of the Hall of Fame method of sock-sock-shoe-shoe.

Yeah, I forgot that. Thanks.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.

6 years? That's a HOF career?

When those 6 seasons are all top 5 MVP years, YES.

 

[Pat Patriot]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

4. Rice won an MVP too. You might have forgotten 1978. He was also top 5 another 5 times.If you saw Rice play in his prime, you know he was a great player.

 

[Tau837]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

His OPS+ socre is higher than Rickey Henderson, who every says is a lock to make it in. It's also higher than Pete Rose and several other HOFers like Bench, Perez, Puckett, Yount, Sandberg, etc.As for his fielding, he was the definition of average. Over his career, the average fielding % in his timeframe was .980. HIs career fieldding % was .981. The average league range factor in his era was 2.10. Rice clocked in at 2.13. And how many HOFers were really that great on the base paths?

1. My point about fielding, base running, and double plays was that he does not make up for his poor adjusted OPS+ in other areas. "Definition of average" as a fielder and your implied agreement that was a poor base runner simply supports my point.2. I cited adjusted OPS+ because it is park adjusted and thus accounts for Rice getting the benefit of Fenway for his raw numbers. And also because everyone thinks of Rice as a slugger, and thus he should have strong OPS+ numbers.3. Henderson is a lock for reasons other than OPS+. Come on, you know this. Rickey is #1 in runs and stolen bases and #2 in walks. And he won a Gold Glove, so he was clearly better on defense and as a base runner, in addition to being generally accepted as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Silly comparison.4. Bench, Yount, and Sandberg all played tougher positions and were much better defensively (all won Gold Gloves). They also all won MVP awards, with Bench and Yount winning two apiece. Terrible comparisons.5. Puckett and Perez shouldn't be in the HOF IMO. I hate the practice that is used frequently of finding the weakest links, comparing a candidate to them and showing that he was better, and using that to justify putting him in. It just continues to lower the bar on what it takes to be a HOFer. Putting Rice in because he was better than Perez would do exactly that.Frankly, I would expect a better argument from you if you are really going to try to make the case.

4. Rice won an MVP too. You might have forgotten 1978. He was also top 5 another 5 times.If you saw Rice play in his prime, you know he was a great player.

I saw him play in his prime. Whether he was great depends on your definition of great. If great = HOFer then he wasn't great IMO.Since you responded to my comment on Bench, Yount, and Sandberg, please clarify something. Do you think Rice was equal to or better than any of those three?

 

[David Yudkin]

Since you responded to my comment on Bench, Yount, and Sandberg, please clarify something. Do you think Rice was equal to or better than any of those three?

Both Bench and Sandberg played completely different positions where top offensive production is hard to come by. Yount played SS for half his career and OF/DH for the other half, making the comparison to Rice closer (but still not great).Yount won two MVP Awards to Rice's one but Yount never ranked in the Top 10 again in any other season. Rice ranked in the Top 5 six times.Yount had 8 years (out of 20 seasons) with and OPS+ score of 120 or better. Rice had 10 in 16 seasons.Yount's 162 game average was .285/14/80. Rice's 162 average was .298/30/113.I suspect that we could find a number of players already in the HOF with numbers worse than Rice.And for the record, I have mentioned in countless threads that I would have half as many players in the HOF and feel that too many players get in. So in my version of the HOF Rice wouldn't make it. However, in the real HOF there are so many people in it with questionable numbers that Rice should get in.I have always felt that if you have to debate if someone is a HOFer than he shouldn't make it in. HOFers should be no brainers. Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Musial, etc. people will never even debate. When you start getting to players like Gossage, Puckett, Perez, etc. and having to really make a PR and marketing plan to get them in, then they shouldn't be in.

 

[David Yudkin]

Rice is still the only AL player to have 400 total bases in a season in the past 71 years.

(1978: 213 hits, 25 doubles, 15 triples, 46 home runs = 406 total bases)

 

[cobalt_27]

Rice is still the only AL player to have 400 total bases in a season in the past 71 years.(1978: 213 hits, 25 doubles, 15 triples, 46 home runs = 406 total bases)

Phenomenal season.Not a Hall of Famer, though. I don't have a problem with how he treated the media...I was too young to remember. He belongs, however, in the Hall of the Very Good.

 

[cobalt_27]

And for the record, I have mentioned in countless threads that I would have half as many players in the HOF and feel that too many players get in. So in my version of the HOF Rice wouldn't make it. However, in the real HOF there are so many people in it with questionable numbers that Rice should get in.

Ok. At least you've conceded that he should not be a HOFer in the true sense. In its diluted form, however, perhaps he belongs. I am not sure what the rationale is to continue rewarding this sort of behavior, though.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.

Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

 

[cobalt_27]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

I predict the writers will put him in as a sympathy vote, this being his final year as a marginal/tweener candidate. Plus, to stop the city of Boston from collectively whining so much.

 

[erikf08]

great debate guys.

I do believe Rice gets in the Hall this year and that should close the door on the Hall of the "Very Good", as previously mentioned. He will be the last of the non steroid era home run hitters as well, and for that alone, he will get in. He was the most feared hitter in baseball for roughly 8 seasons, but when he hit that proverbial wall, he hit it fast. His last few seasons were really mediocre.

 

[dparker713]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

Then I guess you'd be in favor of electing both Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez to the HOF. They seem to be fairly similar to Rice, yet I somehow doubt they'll be on the ballot for more than a year. Meanwhile, for some unknown reason we've got Rice likely to get in when he started at what, 20%?

 

[guru_007]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

Then I guess you'd be in favor of electing both Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez to the HOF. They seem to be fairly similar to Rice, yet I somehow doubt they'll be on the ballot for more than a year. Meanwhile, for some unknown reason we've got Rice likely to get in when he started at what, 20%?

Really not fair to compare a guy who played in the '70's & '80's with guys who played in the '90sdiluted pitching, cookie cutter ballparks, steroids. Oh, did I mention steroids?And to the guy that said Rice was a below average base runner.....First three years in the league finished 6th, 2nd and 1st in triples. In fact he has 79 career triples. When he was younger he as a better than average base runner - don't let the fact that he drifted towards dh/power hitter later in his career fool you.It's really a fair argument on both sides as to whether Rice belongs or not.My main issue with his exclusion I guess, is I feel that a lot of people that so adamently feel he shouldn't be in either a) never saw him play, b) only saw the tail end of his career and c) have grown up with these huge inflated steroid aided numbers. If you had really seen Rice play from '76 - '86 and you felt like he shouldn't be in, well, I don't see it.

 

[David Yudkin]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

Then I guess you'd be in favor of electing both Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez to the HOF. They seem to be fairly similar to Rice, yet I somehow doubt they'll be on the ballot for more than a year. Meanwhile, for some unknown reason we've got Rice likely to get in when he started at what, 20%?

Really not fair to compare a guy who played in the '70's & '80's with guys who played in the '90sdiluted pitching, cookie cutter ballparks, steroids. Oh, did I mention steroids?And to the guy that said Rice was a below average base runner.....First three years in the league finished 6th, 2nd and 1st in triples. In fact he has 79 career triples. When he was younger he as a better than average base runner - don't let the fact that he drifted towards dh/power hitter later in his career fool you.It's really a fair argument on both sides as to whether Rice belongs or not.My main issue with his exclusion I guess, is I feel that a lot of people that so adamently feel he shouldn't be in either a) never saw him play, b) only saw the tail end of his career and c) have grown up with these huge inflated steroid aided numbers. If you had really seen Rice play from '76 - '86 and you felt like he shouldn't be in, well, I don't see it.

I think people see those 12 years and then see other players that played for 20+ years and feel Rice didn't play long enough. Other guys like Murray, Yount, Murray, Molitor, Ripken all played would have better career numbers as they played for many more seasons. (Not saying that those guys don't deserve to be in, just stating the obvious that they played longer than Rice did.)

 

[oso diablo]

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

which of the HOF metrics are you referring to?

bump. i ask only because at least one of the James' metrics is designed as a predictor, not as a qualifier.

 

[oso diablo]

I'll even predict the voting %s:

Henderson - 91

i'll bump this up to 94%. I feel i have been overestimating the number of voters that will not choose Rickey because (a) first yr on ballot, and (b) they didn't like him.

 

[David Yudkin]

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

which of the HOF metrics are you referring to?

bump. i ask only because at least one of the James' metrics is designed as a predictor, not as a qualifier.

Mostly HOF Monitor, but IIRC he also fares well in Black and Gray Ink scores. Certainly none of the thinks James has come up with as evaluation tools is a full bore qualifier, but if you look at the scores of guys already in Rice is in similar company (or better) than many guys already in. Whether all those players should be in or not is another issue entirely.

 

[erikf08]

Mostly HOF Monitor, but IIRC he also fares well in Black and Gray Ink scores. Certainly none of the thinks James has come up with as evaluation tools is a full bore qualifier, but if you look at the scores of guys already in Rice is in similar company (or better) than many guys already in. Whether all those players should be in or not is another issue entirely.

This is true...that's why I believe Rice will get in as the last member of those that really should not be in the hall. You just can't have a Tony Perez in the Hall and not include Rice.

And you can never compare eras in baseball. Would an overweight player like Ruth dominate to the same ratio as he did when he played? Would an avg pitcher in today's game be great with a high mound? Size of stadiums, travel, segregated leagues, etc...you can only compare players amoung their peers in their own era.

Did Jim Rice dominate in his era? For the most part, you bet he did.

 

[guru_007]

#### YES

 

[PatsWillWin]

WOOOOO

 

[Dave Baker]

Very happy to see Rice make the HOF. Completely deserving of it IMO as I've mentioned here many times over the years. He was much better than very good. He was sensational. And I've never been a Boston fan in any sport.

The only other guy I would like to see make it is Ron Santo, who not only could hit as well as any third basemen (at least give or take a 40 year span up til Schmidt) but was a gold glove fielder too. A decade of excellence, at least compared to other third basemen in history.

 

[dparker713]

I dont look at career numbers to measure Hall of Famers. What is so great about padding stats at the end of your career. I think 10 years is a nice stretch of time to determine someones worth. Looking at Rice's 10 best seasons, he stacks up as a no brainer HOFer.Why do the 5 years at the end of anyones career where their numbers are below average do anything to help them get in the HOF.

Then I guess you'd be in favor of electing both Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez to the HOF. They seem to be fairly similar to Rice, yet I somehow doubt they'll be on the ballot for more than a year. Meanwhile, for some unknown reason we've got Rice likely to get in when he started at what, 20%?

Really not fair to compare a guy who played in the '70's & '80's with guys who played in the '90sdiluted pitching, cookie cutter ballparks, steroids. Oh, did I mention steroids?And to the guy that said Rice was a below average base runner.....First three years in the league finished 6th, 2nd and 1st in triples. In fact he has 79 career triples. When he was younger he as a better than average base runner - don't let the fact that he drifted towards dh/power hitter later in his career fool you.It's really a fair argument on both sides as to whether Rice belongs or not.My main issue with his exclusion I guess, is I feel that a lot of people that so adamently feel he shouldn't be in either a) never saw him play, b) only saw the tail end of his career and c) have grown up with these huge inflated steroid aided numbers. If you had really seen Rice play from '76 - '86 and you felt like he shouldn't be in, well, I don't see it.

We compare players of different eras all the time, but the main thing people seem to cite in Rice's favor is his MVP finishes. The two players I listed had similar MVP resumes (and when there are more players in the league I would argue its harder to be voted MVP). Im not talking about the raw numbers, but performancing enhancing drugs weren't new to baseball in the late 80s - they just became more obvious.And yes, I didnt really watch him play - he played in the AL and Im a Mets fan. But dont you think if the wow factor is your biggest credential to get into the HOF, you'd gshould get more votes in your initial ballot when the memories were still fresh, not 20 years later?

 

[teamramrod]

He is in as he should be. The Baseball writers are idiots. Grumpy old men who hate anyone who did not kiss thier feet and give them interviews when demanded.

I am old enough to have watched his career, and I have always thought of him as a HOF'er.

Peace

 

[Pat Patriot]

Induction ceremony is next Sunday and I cant wait. I'm heading to Cooperstown next Friday afternoon and two friends from Boston are meeting me there. It should be a GREAT weekend. You wouldnt believe how hard it is to get a place to stay for that weekend. Finally secured a cabin at a KOA Campground last Wednesday.

I've never been to the Baseball Hall of Fame and am very excited about the trip. Jim Rice was my favorite player growing up. Fred Lynn was sensational and got a great deal of the press but Rice was so great in the mid to late 70's. It was unheard of then and even now for a power hitter to accumulate 200 hits but Rice did it for 4 or 5 years straight. He was a GREAT player.