262 replies to this topic

[Yaz4Ever]

This year's Hall of Fame ballot looks like this:

• Brady Anderson
• Harold Baines
• Rod Beck
• Bert Blyleven
• Dave Concepcion
• Andre Dawson
• Shawon Dunston
• Chuck Finley
• Travis Fryman
• Rich "Goose" Gossage
• Tommy John
• David Justice
• Chuck Knoblauch
• Don Mattingly
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Robb Nen
• Dave Parker
• Tim Raines
• Jim Rice
• Jose Rijo
• Lee Smith
• Todd Stottlemyre
• Alan Trammell

Other than the obvious choice, Brady Anderson, who should be elected to the Hall this year?

Jim Rice is up for the 14th time. If he doesn't get in this year, he has one more shot on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot. Considering the weakness of this year's rookie class, do he and Gossage get a bump this year?

Rod Beck's 5-year waiting period was waived as a result of his death last summer.

Going through the list, if I were a BBWA member for the past 10 years, I would vote for the following players (maximum of 10):

Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Rich Gossage, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, and Jim Rice.

Likely taken off the ballot for failing to garner 5% of the vote, imho:

Brady Anderson, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Chuck Knoblauch, Todd Stottlemyre, and Jose Rijo.

For whom would you vote? Who do you think is most likely to fall below the required 5% to stay on future ballots?

Edited by Cumberland Blues, 08 January 2008 - 03:48 PM.

[DJnVa]

I will have to take a look at some things before I could say who I would vote for, but has the HOF ever given a reason for putting people like Shawon Dunston on the ballot?

Is it simply a nod to a decent career?

[mt8thsw9th]

Is it simply a nod to a decent career?

I'm guessing anyone with enough service time to receive an MLB pension is eligible for HOF voting.

[Vermonter At Large]

I'm guessing anyone with enough service time to receive an MLB pension is eligible for HOF voting.

All players who played in at least 10 seasons are eligible.

I have to think this is a good year for guys like Rice, Dawson, Blyleven and Gossage, since there are no first-time eligibles who are even close to HoF caliber. It's going to be interesting ...

[Rice4HOF]

I would vote for Jim Rice, Lee Smith and probably Goose Gossage.
On the fence on Dawson, Blyleven, Trammell and Raines, but am inclined to include Trammell, and if I look up some stats I may be convinced to include Raines.
Not Morris or Murphy... or any of the other guys, but those are the last 2 worthy of serious consideration IMO.


fake edit: Wait, I forgot about Knoblauch.

Edited by Rice4HOF, 26 November 2007 - 09:23 PM.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

I'd vote for Rice, Raines and probably Gossage.

How unfortunate is Raines to have played in Rickey Henderson's shadow? Plus he played in Montreal for most of his best years.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I'd go with Raines, Blyleven, and probably Gossage.

Ultimately, this could be a year where no one gets elected.

[E5 Yaz]

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams

***

That'll be one heck of an induction speech.

I think Rice has two real good shots here at the end of his candidacy. Sutter's induction will get people re-examining Gossage, while Rice could benefit from the steroids backlash.

[xjack]

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams

***

That'll be one heck of an induction speech.

I think Rice has two real good shots here at the end of his candidacy. Sutter's induction will get people re-examining Gossage, while Rice could benefit from the steroids backlash.

Maybe. But I suspect some people are going to look at Mo Vaughn's name on the ballot and ask the very reasonable question of whether Jim Rice's prime was all that much better than Mo's. And I'm not sure it was. Rice's career OPS+ is 128. Mo's: 132.

And no, I don't think Mo Vaughn deserves any HOF votes.

[The Hot Corner]

I'd go with Raines, Blyleven, and probably Gossage.

Ultimately, this could be a year where no one gets elected.

somebody's going to get in. they have to, given the media circus that is now "hall of fame weekend". so much of the hall's presence stems from its ability to put on this wham-bang extravaganza that climaxes in the induction of baseball's newest deity. i'd be incredibly surprised if nobody got in.

[soxfan121]

Blyleven should be in; it's not his fault the Twins weren't very good for a lot of his career. 13 measly wins...

Rice will not, and should not, get in. He was a great player for the Red Sox, but he wasn't a HOF player. Neither should anyone else on this ballot. McGwire's not here to talk about the past.

[Fratboy]

Rice will not, and should not, get in. He was a great player for the Red Sox, but he wasn't a HOF player. Neither should anyone else on this ballot. McGwire's not here to talk about the past.

Are you kidding me?

Gossage. Blyleven. Trammell. Raines. That's your list. Finito.

McGwire if I'm feeling sympathetic.

[xjack]

Gossage is actually a lot like Rice. His reputation is built primarily on a half-dozen great seasons -- seasons Gossage likes to pretend were indicative of his entire career.

That said, I'd probably vote for him if A) I hadn't hated him so much when he was playing and B) he hadn't whined so much about not getting in.

[Maalox]

I would know this is I gave enough of a shit to pay attention, but why are you guys not including McGwire? Is he irreparably tainted by scandal?

[E5 Yaz]

I would know this is I gave enough of a shit to pay attention, but why are you guys not including McGwire? Is he irreparably tainted by scandal?

If I were a voter, I'd find it impossibly hard to determine what the reality of his career would be without enhancements. If people don't include Rice because of what he was ultimately unable to accomplish and the quick decline of his career, how can they vote for a player whose career would have declined as quickly (if not more rapidly) had he not supplemented his physical abilities?

[ookami7m]

• Bert Blyleven
• Andre Dawson
• Rich "Goose" Gossage
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Jim Rice
• Lee Smith

If I had a vote, without doing any research or having any caffiene yet - that's my gut reaction ballot. Yes I know McGwire did steroids, but he was also the best homerun hitter of the steroid generation. If you assume that everyone was doing it, he did it the best. I doubt I'll have much debate on any of my other picks.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

My two cents ..

Blyleven, Trammel, Raines are locks .. Rice and Gossage are borderline.

[Tangotiger]

The case for Tim Raines:

http://www.raines30.com/c21.shtml

[LahoudOrBillyC]

As the board's only remaining romantic ....

Jim Rice might not deserve it, but I hope he makes it anyway. I no longer get bent out of shape about maintaining rigid standards for Hall inductions. I used to be one of those guys, but no longer.

1. There is a huge gray area
2. The Hall has made many "mistakes" which can not be undone.
3. Rice is in the gray area
4. I saw him play a few hundred times, and enjoyed it.
5. He played for the Red Sox
6. If he makes it there will be dozens of stories about the old teams in the local papers, and Rice will get his number retired resulting in a big celebration at Fenway with the old gang.

Count me in.

Edited by LahoudOrBillyC, 28 November 2007 - 11:24 AM.

[Tudor Fever]

As the board's only remaining romantic ....

Jim Rice might not deserve it, but he hope he makes it anyway. I no longer get bent out of shape about maintaining rigid standards for Hall inductions. I used to be one of those guys, but no longer.

1. There is a huge gray area
2. The Hall has made many "mistakes" which can not be undone.
3. Rice is in the gray area
4. I saw him play a few hundred times, and enjoyed it.
5. He played for the Red Sox
6. If he makes it there will be dozens of stories about the old teams in the local papers, and Rice will get his number retired resulting in a big celebration at Fenway with the old gang.

Count me in.

I appreciate your honesty. Most people who are promoting Rice for the Hall of Fame are doing so because they have deluded themselves into thinking he actually deserves it.

He will get in, because it's a weak year and because he has come so close in the past. He does not deserve to be in, for the reasons that have been stated repeatedly (short career, shorter peak, stats grossly inflated by Fenway, GIDP machine, etc.) When he does get in, I'll do my best to let go and enjoy it.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

He will get in, because it's a weak year and because he has come so close in the past. He does not deserve to be in, for the reasons that have been stated repeatedly (short career, shorter peak, stats grossly inflated by Fenway, GIDP machine, etc.) When he does get in, I'll do my best to let go and enjoy it.

I sympathize, TF, but I think you have imposed a line on the HOF that does not exist. Were Jim Rice to make the Hall of Fame, he would be perfectly consistent with many of the players who are already inside. The cases for and against Rice both have huge holes, and both involving setting personal standards for what the criteria should be. The only thing about Rice I am certain of is that anyone who is certain about his Hall of Fame case, either way, is wrong.

[DamonasaNomad]

I sympathize, TF, but I think you have imposed a line on the HOF that does not exist. Were Jim Rice to make the Hall of Fame, he would be perfectly consistent with many of the players who are already inside. The cases for and against Rice both have huge holes, and both involving setting personal standards for what the criteria should be. The only thing about Rice I am certain of is that anyone who is certain about his Hall of Fame case, either way, is wrong.

Maybe. The one thing I feel sure of is that, if Rice belongs in the HoF, it should be right after they let Dwight Evans in.

[Maalox]

If I were a voter, I'd find it impossibly hard to determine what the reality of his career would be without enhancements. If people don't include Rice because of what he was ultimately unable to accomplish and the quick decline of his career, how can they vote for a player whose career would have declined as quickly (if not more rapidly) had he not supplemented his physical abilities?

That doesn't strike me as an apples-to-apples comparison: what one guy didn't do versus what another wouldn't have done in different circumstances.

If you just want to punish McGwire for using PEDs or supplements, why not just do that? That seems more legitimate.

[TheRooster]

Maybe. The one thing I feel sure of is that, if Rice belongs in the HoF, it should be right after they let Dwight Evans in.

I am very curious about whether you are old enough to have seen the entire careers of both guys. I am (just barely) and since I value peak performance quite highly (i.e. I'm okay with Koufax being in and expect Pedro to sail in), I believe Rice is more worthy. Evans was a joy to watch defensively though.

[Tudor Fever]

I am very curious about whether you are old enough to have seen the entire careers of both guys. I am (just barely) and since I value peak performance quite highly (i.e. I'm okay with Koufax being in and expect Pedro to sail in), I believe Rice is more worthy. Evans was a joy to watch defensively though.

Evans arguably had more "peak" seasons than Rice did. According to BP, Evans had seasons with WARP3 > 10.0 in 1981 (12.2), 1982 (10.1), and 1984 (10.0). His career WARP3 was 120.2. Rice never had a season with WARP3 > 10.0; he maxed out at 9.8 in 1978. His career WARP3 was 83.2.

IMO, Evans is hurt vis a vis Rice in the public's perception by the following factors:

1. Rice's best years were in the late 1970's, when the Sox were very popular and were viewed as a serious contender. Evans's best years came in the early 1980s, when the Sox were much less popular and were widely seen as an incompetent and clueless organziation, thanks to Sullivan and LeRoux.

2. Rice excelled in the triple crown stats, whereas Evans's skills were much broader based. For example. Evans did not get nearly the recognition he deserved for his tremendous skill at drawing walks.

[Rice4HOF]

Rice excelled in the triple crown stats, whereas Evans's skills were much broader based. For example. Evans did not get nearly the recognition he deserved for his tremendous skill at drawing walks.

One half of the OPS equation is OBP. Rice's career OPS is 854, Evans is 840. Anyhow, we have a generic HoF thread in the MLB forum which has a Rice discussion going on. I don't want to repost, but here's a link:

2008 HoF

[OttoC]

One half of the OPS equation is OBP.

Literally yes, but are they weighted evenly in practice? Doesn't this change according to the runs scoring environment?

[Tudor Fever]

One half of the OPS equation is OBP. Rice's career OPS is 854, Evans is 840. Anyhow, we have a generic HoF thread in the MLB forum which has a Rice discussion going on. I don't want to repost, but here's a link:

2008 HoF

There is a general consensus that you need to muliply OBP times 1.8 to equate it to SLP. In other words, ((OBP*1.8) + SLP) is a better way to compare players than (OBP + SLP).

Using this convention, Evans inches ahead of Rice, 1136 to 1135.6. He also did it over a longer career: he had 10,569 PA, Rice only 9,058, a difference of more than 16%.

[DamonasaNomad]

I am very curious about whether you are old enough to have seen the entire careers of both guys. I am (just barely) and since I value peak performance quite highly (i.e. I'm okay with Koufax being in and expect Pedro to sail in), I believe Rice is more worthy. Evans was a joy to watch defensively though.

I was 24 when I first became aware of a minor leaguer named Jim Rice and predicted that he would be one of the all time greats. Although I would ultimately be proven wrong, I was a huge Jim Ed fan (406 TB!), and wouldn't realize just how wrong my original opinion was until I read the 1982 Bill James Baseball Abstract.

One half of the OPS equation is OBP. Rice's career OPS is 854, Evans is 840.

OPS is biased to power over OBP. Runs created is a better measure. From Baseball-reference.com:

--------- RC --- RC/G
Evans 1612 --- 6.2
Rice -- 1384 --- 6.0

Evans arguably had more "peak" seasons than Rice did. According to BP, Evans had seasons with WARP3 > 10.0 in 1981 (12.2), 1982 (10.1), and 1984 (10.0). His career WARP3 was 120.2. Rice never had a season with WARP3 > 10.0; he maxed out at 9.8 in 1978. His career WARP3 was 83.2.

IMO, Evans is hurt vis a vis Rice in the public's perception by the following factors:

1. Rice's best years were in the late 1970's, when the Sox were very popular and were viewed as a serious contender. Evans's best years came in the early 1980s, when the Sox were much less popular and were widely seen as an incompetent and clueless organziation, thanks to Sullivan and LeRoux.

2. Rice excelled in the triple crown stats, whereas Evans's skills were much broader based. For example. Evans did not get nearly the recognition he deserved for his tremendous skill at drawing walks.

TF is on the money, as usual. When you include defensive skill, Evans was far better.

[Frisbetarian]

Using Linear Weights over their careers (park adjusted), Rice and Evans are pretty much a wash. Rice is less than 1 run per 603 plate appearances better.

While I agree that defense needs to be considered when evaluating players, I do not think WARP or any of its variations effectively evaluates the defensive ability of a player. This is especially true of left field at Fenway Park.

I think WARP is perhaps my least favorite stat ever.

[OttoC]

There is a general consensus that you need to muliply OBP times 1.8 to equate it to SLP. In other words, ((OBP*1.8) + SLP) is a better way to compare players than (OBP + SLP).

Using this convention, Evans inches ahead of Rice, 1136 to 1135.6. He also did it over a longer career: he had 10,569 PA, Rice only 9,058, a difference of more than 16%.

My questions were rhetorical, but since you brought up some actual figures I think it needs to be pointed out that there may be some problems with the consensus. I alluded to run-scoring environment and that can have a fairly radical effect on the ratio. You'll also generally find a difference between the leagues.

In this case, since Rice and Evans were close contemporaries playing for the same team, the argument is inconsequential; however, because Evans's career was longer, there can be some slight bias. The point is that (and I'm not singling you out) care must be taken when looking at players cross-era. There can also be large changes when looking at players cross-team in the same era.

[Tangotiger]

Yes, the ratio won't be stable across run environments.

For example, when the run environment is 3.0, a 1/1 weighting might be right.

But, in the environments we care about, it'll be between 1.5 and 2.0.

In any case, if you have LWTS, that's always preferred to any form of OPS.

[OttoC]

Yes, the ratio won't be stable across run environments.

For example, when the run environment is 3.0, a 1/1 weighting might be right.

But, in the environments we care about, it'll be between 1.5 and 2.0.

In any case, if you have LWTS, that's always preferred to any form of OPS.

OPS is quick and dirty, but realizing its shortcomings makes it more valuable. Normalizing the data for era and parks is the way to go but it also is not easy to do on the back of an envelope.

There are a lot of what I will call new-age baseball fans on the web who are aware that the traditional numbers aren't the best metrics. But, by and large, they don't have an intuitive and historic feel for the numbers because they either are too young to have seen many of the players or they haven't crunched the numbers themselves. I jsut try to point out some of the nuamces and shortcomings of various measures for them.

[gaelgirl]

If I had a vote, without doing any research or having any caffiene yet - that's my gut reaction ballot. Yes I know McGwire did steroids, but he was also the best homerun hitter of the steroid generation. If you assume that everyone was doing it, he did it the best. I doubt I'll have much debate on any of my other picks.

I donno... I kinda think Bonds replaced him as the best homerun hitter of the steroid generation.

I would have a hard time voting for McGwire because he was such a one-dimensional player. He had homeruns and that's about it. He was, however, a fantastic homerun hitter.

I would give Robb Nen a single pity vote. If he hadn't destroyed his career trying to take his team to a World Series victory, he probably would still be playing and have well over 400 saves. More than that, it takes a great player to put his team and one season above even his own future. Beyond that, I am a die-hard Giants fan and it would be a vote based purely on that.

I think this is Gossage's year, for sure. Everyone else is on the fence for me.

[BoSox Rule]

I don't think Jim Rice should make it either. Most of the argument is that he had an unprecedented 3-year peak from 1977-1979 and was the most feared hitter in baseball for 10 years. That's just perception and it doesn't look like he was the best hitter for 10 years. This definitely isn't 100% definitive but I took a look at the EqA leaders from 1977-1986 to see who was ahead of Rice each year.

1977

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA
Rod Carew	0.388	0.449	0.570	0.348
Ken Singleton	0.328	0.438	0.507	0.344
Mitchell Page	0.307	0.405	0.521	0.333
Oscar Gamble	0.297	0.386	0.588	0.326
Reggie Jackson	0.286	0.375	0.550	0.321
Mike Hargrove	0.305	0.420	0.476	0.317
Lyman Bostock	0.336	0.389	0.508	0.313
Andy Thornton	0.263	0.378	0.527	0.312
Jim Rice	0.320	0.376	0.593	0.312

1978

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA
Ken Singleton	0.293	0.409	0.462	0.327
Amos Otis	0.298	0.380	0.525	0.321
Jim Rice	0.315	0.370	0.600	0.319

1979

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA	
Fred Lynn	0.333	0.423	0.607	0.349	
Sixto Lezcano	0.321	0.414	0.573	0.334	
Ken Singleton	0.295	0.405	0.533	0.327	
Darrell Porter	0.291	0.421	0.484	0.319	
Jim Rice	0.325	0.381	0.596	0.317

1980
Not in the top 20.

1981
Not in the top 20

1982

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA
Robin Yount	0.331	0.379	0.578	0.336
Eddie Murray	0.316	0.391	0.549	0.329
Dwight Evans	0.292	0.402	0.534	0.320
Toby Harrah	0.304	0.398	0.490	0.318
Doug Decinces	0.301	0.369	0.548	0.316
Hal McRae	0.308	0.369	0.542	0.315
George Brett	0.301	0.378	0.505	0.314
Reggie Jackson	0.275	0.375	0.532	0.314
Gary Roenicke	0.270	0.392	0.499	0.313
Fred Lynn	0.294	0.374	0.517	0.309
Cecil Cooper	0.313	0.342	0.528	0.308
Dave Winfield	0.280	0.331	0.560	0.308
Andy Thornton	0.276	0.386	0.484	0.307
R. Henderson	0.267	0.398	0.382	0.307
Paul Molitor	0.302	0.366	0.450	0.306
Greg Luzinski	0.292	0.386	0.451	0.304
Brian Downing	0.281	0.368	0.482	0.303
Gorman Thomas	0.245	0.343	0.506	0.302
Jim Rice	0.309	0.375	0.494	0.300

1983

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA	
Wade Boggs	0.361	0.444	0.486	0.330	
Eddie Murray	0.306	0.393	0.538	0.327	
R. Henderson	0.292	0.414	0.421	0.327	
George Brett	0.310	0.385	0.562	0.326	
Robin Yount	0.308	0.383	0.503	0.320	
Bobby Grich	0.292	0.414	0.460	0.316	
Cal Ripken	0.318	0.371	0.517	0.311	
Alan Trammell	0.319	0.385	0.471	0.309	
Jim Rice	0.305	0.361	0.550	0.307

1984
Not in top 20

1985

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA
George Brett	0.335	0.436	0.585	0.356
R. Henderson	0.314	0.419	0.516	0.346
Wade Boggs	0.368	0.450	0.478	0.338
Don Mattingly	0.324	0.371	0.567	0.328
Eddie Murray	0.297	0.383	0.523	0.324
Kirk Gibson	0.287	0.364	0.518	0.317
Toby Harrah	0.270	0.432	0.389	0.315
Jesse Barfield	0.289	0.369	0.536	0.313
Darrell Evans	0.248	0.356	0.519	0.306
Phil Bradley	0.300	0.365	0.498	0.306
Mike Davis	0.278	0.348	0.484	0.305
Reggie Jackson	0.250	0.360	0.487	0.303
Alvin Davis	0.287	0.381	0.441	0.302
Dwight Evans	0.268	0.378	0.454	0.302
Mike Young	0.273	0.348	0.513	0.302
Rich Gedman	0.292	0.364	0.484	0.300
Brett Butler	0.311	0.377	0.431	0.297
Lou Whitaker	0.279	0.362	0.456	0.297
Jim Rice	0.291	0.349	0.487	0.296

1986

Player			AVG	OBP	SLG	EqA	
Don Mattingly	0.352	0.394	0.573	0.338	
Wade Boggs	0.357	0.453	0.486	0.337	
Eddie Murray	0.305	0.396	0.463	0.315	
George Brett	0.290	0.401	0.481	0.315	
Jesse Barfield	0.289	0.368	0.559	0.315	
Kirk Gibson	0.268	0.371	0.492	0.315	
Jim Rice	0.324	0.384	0.490	0.310

He was a valuable player to have but wasn't an all-time great, and probably not Hall worthy. He had gaudy counting stats, but wasn't a very good fielder or baserunner.

Anyways, I'd vote for Blyleven, Raines, Trammell, and probably McGwire.

[bosox79]

Bert and Raines, maybe Trammell.

[staz]

If Haywood or Lou brought in an arm or two and won a couple rings, and Rice lightened up around reporters, he'da been in years ago.

His numbers make him borderline. The fact that writers vote on more than just numbers is the reason he's not in yet. That's why McGwire has no shot right now. This system makes the BCS seem logical and evenhanded.

[Yaz4Ever]

He's in...at least on CHB's ballot.

[The Four Peters]

If Haywood or Lou brought in an arm or two and won a couple rings, and Rice lightened up around reporters, he'da been in years ago.

His numbers make him borderline. The fact that writers vote on more than just numbers is the reason he's not in yet. That's why McGwire has no shot right now. This system makes the BCS seem logical and evenhanded.

Then how come the majority of Boston writers always vote for him? That reasoning never makes sense to me, b/c from what I've seen in the past, the people he was a jerk to are voting for him now. It's other national people not doing so.

FWIW, I don't think he should be in, for the reasons outlined above. I won't repeat them. That said, if he makes it in, I will absolutely enjoy it and be happy for him.

[Tudor Fever]

I suspect that the main reason that the Boston media members vote for him is that Rice has done a 180 in terms of his affability quotient and he is now a popular member of the local sports media himself. There is a tremendous amount of peer pressure to support one of their own.

Incidentally, I e-mailed Nick Cafardo last year around this time to challenge his support of Rice, and we ended up writing back and forth a few times regardng the Hall of Fame. I appreciated his willingness to discuss it, and he made a few good points about other players (David Concepcion, for example, whom he supports as a borderline HoFer), he seemed like a nice enough guy, but his argument in favor of Rice boiled down to "he was the most feared hitter of his generation." That's a pretty weak justification, obviously, but it's also impossible to refute because it's so subjective.

CHB, of course, thinks Rice was a better player than Raines, which is yet another sign that he (CHB) has no clue.

[KenTremendous]

If Jim Ed makes it this year, I believe he will have steroids to thank. The "most feared" argument used by his supporters will now be enhanced by the feeling that his naturally-achieved stats (assuming they were, I guess) are all the more impressive in the wake of all the PED mess.

I think he's borderline, and just shy. Same with The Hawk. I'd vote for Raines (.307 career EqA) before Rice (.294).

[jacklamabe65]

If Jim Ed makes it this year, I believe he will have steroids to thank. The "most feared" argument used by his supporters will now be enhanced by the feeling that his naturally-achieved stats (assuming they were, I guess) are all the more impressive in the wake of all the PED mess.

I think he's borderline, and just shy. Same with The Hawk. I'd vote for Raines (.307 career EqA) before Rice (.294).

Luis Tiant is the most deserving Red Sox player of them all to enter he Hall. Compare his numbers to first-time ballot HoFamer, Jim "Catfish" Hunter.

Edited by jacklamabe65, 27 December 2007 - 01:07 PM.

[gcapalbo]

The thing I always think about with Rice is the 'What If' scenario in the late 1975 season.

As we all know, Rice was injured for the playoffs, World Series was not on the roster.

Might Rice have made the difference in '75? Don't know-- but if he somehow had contributed and was a factor that year, I think he'd have been in by now.

If he gets in this year, it is the backlash of the steroid issue. NESN ran all of the 1975 World Series last winter, and it was amazing to see how 'scrawny' those players were compared to the look of a team in the last ten years.

Numbers may be borderline, but they're all 'natural' -- which may not be a completely rational argument for all of this, but will be a statement of sorts in the world of 2007.

[E5 Yaz]

Luis Tiant is the most deserving Red Sox player of them all to enter he Hall. Compare his numbers to first-time ballot HoFamer, Jim "Catfish" Hunter.

It's not only that he's not there, but that Tiant's vote totals have been so low. Maybe it's the lack of a Cy, or all those years on bad Cleveland teams. But what do I know; i always thought Tommy John should be in the Hall. A winner, good primary numbers, etc. And while the old joke is that James Andrews should go in before him, consider this: If was John who had to go back out there as the guinea pig and perform at a high level after the surgery, when it hadn't been done before. That took more than luck and a good surgeon.

As for Rice, it's the abrupt end of the career that hurts him the most. It gives writers who didn't like him a legit reason not to vote for him. I'd put him in, but only because I think he deserves to have his number retired at Fenway

[Lose Remerswaal]

Tommy John? 288 wins in 26 years, ERA+ 110? If he hadn't invented that surgery, no one would remember him.

[E5 Yaz]

Tommy John? 288 wins in 26 years, ERA+ 110? If he hadn't invented that surgery, no one would remember him.

Ummm ... that's sort of half the point

[mt8thsw9th]

Luis Tiant is the most deserving Red Sox player of them all to enter he Hall. Compare his numbers to first-time ballot HoFamer, Jim "Catfish" Hunter.

The problem with this is that just because Hunter got in for no particularly good reason, doesn't necessarily mean Tiant should be in. He's certainly a fine candidate, but is he all that better career-wise than say Kevin Brown? Comparatively, Mike Mussina is a no-brainer HOFer if Tiant should be in, but is he really such a sure bet without 300 wins due to the unfair stigma as a result of never winning 20 games in a season? The way to fix the HOF isn't to add more borderline and undeserving candidates.

In terms of former Red Sox, I'd even put Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans in front of Tiant, the latter I think is the most deserving and more deserving than Rice.

[JimBoSox9]

Rob Neyer puts up a compelling case against Rice for the Hall today:

Let me return to something I wrote about a few weeks ago: the Morris Test. Named after Jack Morris, the test simply asks: If we take a player's two prime Hall of Fame credentials and downgrade them just a little, does he still have a solid case?

Actually, I don't believe the Morris Test even applies to Rice, because I don't believe he has two prime Hall of Fame credentials. Nobody cites his 382 career homers, because 382 is paltry for a player whose best-known attribute was power. He wasn't a "dominant power hitter" (as Shaughnessy says); he did lead the American League in home runs three times, but finished in the top five in his league only twice more. Mike Schmidt led the National League in home runs eight times. That's dominant. Yes, Rice hit 46 homers in a season. This was not an exceptional figure in his time. The year before Rice hit 46, George Foster hit 52. The year after Rice hit 46, Dave Kingman hit 48. Rice never hit as many as 40 home runs in another season.

Rice's 12 best seasons -- 1975-1986 -- are usually mentioned because the rest of his career was not good. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than anyone else over those 12 seasons? From 1975 through 1986 -- remember, that range of seasons has been chosen specifically to make Rice look his best -- 32 major leaguers drew more intentional walks than Jim Rice.

Yes, he batted right-handed, and right-handed batters generally are intentionally walked less often than left-handed batters. So let's be fair. Let's ignore all those left-handed batters. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than every other right-handed batter over those 12 fearsome seasons?

Twelve right-handed batters were, by this standard, more feared, including (but far from limited to) George Foster, Ron Cey, Greg Luzinski, Jack Clark and Dale Murphy.

full article here (Insider):
http://insider.espn....;name=Neyer_Rob

I'm glad I don't need to be objective about this. I like Rice, I was named after Rice, and he is one of the most significant Red Sox of his era. It is nothing but good for him to get in from the perspective of this Sox fan, and I simply don't care about the sanctity of the Hall enough to not want him to get in.

[mt8thsw9th]

Yes, Rice hit 46 homers in a season. This was not an exceptional figure in his time. The year before Rice hit 46, George Foster hit 52. The year after Rice hit 46, Dave Kingman hit 48. Rice never hit as many as 40 home runs in another season.

This is pretty poor logic (on a relatively minor point) by Neyer. Just because Foster and Kingman hit more, doesn't make what Rice did "exceptional". The 11 players behind him in the AL ranged 27-34 home runs. From 1971-1978, no one other than Rice came within 9 home runs of that total. Rice never hit more than 40 home runs again, yes, but he also led the league in home runs three times, something the "exceptional" home run hitters Foster and Kingman did just twice each.

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

From what I have observed, I think one of the biggest impetuses for folks pushing Rice for HOF is that, besides the obvious distinction of having another RS in the HOF, it would allow him to be honored by the franchise by retiring his number. If the Red Sox would just officially change that excessively restrictive policy (which was already turned into a mockery for Fisk), besides being the right thing to do, I think it would lead to Red Sox fans evaluating Rice's HOF candidacy a little more objectively. Right now for Sox fans, it becomes a choice between 1) honoring Rice, or 2) not honoring Rice, and the only way to honor him right now is via HOF, so fans are likely coming down on the side of honoring Rice instead of not at all, even if they think he is only a borderline HOF candidate. Adding option 3, a revised number retirement policy, makes the most sense, and if Rice gets into the HOF as well, even better.