who gets the call to HOF

[NIGHT STALKER]

I'm telling you. Jim Rice should be in the HOF.

I'm not trashing you guys...if you think he deserves in the HOF, fine. I'm just giving my opinion. I'm sure the Orlando Cepeda fans want him in the HOF as well.

[PFSIKH]

Again, WTF does being a feared hitter have to do with getting into the HOF?

It means you are the best.

Using your example, Curtis was a good back. However, I would say you would have trouble making an argument he was the best back at any given time in his career.

You can make that argument for Rice and he did it for a 10 year period.

[NIGHT STALKER]

It means you are the best.

Using your example, Curtis was a good back. However, I would say you would have trouble making an argument he was the best back at any given time in his career.

You can make that argument for Rice and he did it for a 10 year period.

I think you should reread my post about CM...to me he was a good back, not great back and he'll get into the HOF based on the stats he compiled...I feel the same way about Rice...sorry if that message didn't come through.

[PFSIKH]

I think you should reread my post about CM...to me he was a good back, not great back and he'll get into the HOF based on the stats he compiled...I feel the same way about Rice...sorry if that message didn't come through.

Oh...the message is loud and clear. You are a Yankee homer.

[Gainzo]

Oh...the message is loud and clear. You are a Yankee homer.

Yep. NS has also been leading the charge for Clemens innocence.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Oh...the message is loud and clear. You are a Yankee homer.

Come on, you should know me better than that...Ted Williams ( and I know you didn't see this guy play) was the best hitter I ever saw...if it wasn't for his military service, I'd say he would have easily had many offensive records...perhaps career HRs.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Yep. NS has also been leading the charge for Clemens innocence.

Leading the charge...I like that. But, hardly leading the charge; he's as guilty as all the others who haven't been named. How's that?!

[Sperm Edwards]

Hey Sperm, two words...Curtis Martin. The thing is, CM was a better football player then Rice was a ballplayer and thus he will go in on the first ballot. But, both of these guys are not "great" when you start comparing them to the "true greats" that played the game.

First of all, they are two different sports. I don't necessarily agree that the prerequisites for one apply to the other.

Second, and it was not a subtle point that I somehow over-edited & accidentally erased, but Rice finished top-5 in the MVP voting 5x. Once he won the MVP award & top-3 two other times. I don't recall Martin ever finishing in the top-5 in MVP voting a single time, let alone five separate times, and he certainly never won one. Neither his peers on other teams nor sports writers felt he was ever so deserving. Nor was he ever unjustly snubbed from winning one that he rightly deserved.

Then throw in one of his non-winning MVP years he was probably the most deserving as well ('77) but for Rod Carew flirting with (and failing to finish with) a .400 batting average. Tell me Al Cowens (#2 in MVP voting that year) and Ken Singleton (#3 finish) had better seasons than Rice. In '78 he ended a string of 30 consecutive MLB seasons since someone had amassed as many as 406 total bases. Not in a compiling-esque fashion over a career; in one season.

So I would say that Martin is a decidedly bad comparison. A few years in a row with a .600 slugging %age (before MLB became the joke steroid league it has been for the past decade) is hardly "compiling" like Martin. It was pretty rare in his era for one of the game's premiere power hitters to routinely finish in the top-10 in batting average. Yet this is what he did.

Rice was a more dominant hitter than Martin was a dominant RB. Not even close.

[PFSIKH]

Rice was a more dominant hitter than Martin was a dominant RB. Not even close.

We can Savage for a decision on this?

[NIGHT STALKER]

First of all, they are two different sports. I don't necessarily agree that the prerequisites for one apply to the other.

Second, and it was not a subtle point that I somehow over-edited & accidentally erased, but Rice finished top-5 in the MVP voting 5x. Once he won the MVP award & top-3 two other times. I don't recall Martin ever finishing in the top-5 in MVP voting a single time, let alone five separate times, and he certainly never won one. Neither his peers on other teams nor sports writers felt he was ever so deserving. Nor was he ever unjustly snubbed from winning one that he rightly deserved.

Then throw in one of his non-winning MVP years he was probably the most deserving as well ('77) but for Rod Carew flirting with (and failing to finish with) a .400 batting average. Tell me Al Cowens (#2 in MVP voting that year) and Ken Singleton (#3 finish) had better seasons than Rice. In '78 he ended a string of 30 consecutive MLB seasons since someone had amassed as many as 406 total bases. Not in a compiling-esque fashion over a career; in one season.

So I would say that Martin is a decidedly bad comparison. A few years in a row with a .600 slugging %age (before MLB became the joke steroid league it has been for the past decade) is hardly "compiling" like Martin. It was pretty rare in his era for one of the game's premiere power hitters to routinely finish in the top-10 in batting average. Yet this is what he did.

Rice was a more dominant hitter than Martin was a dominant RB. Not even close.

I love how you guys look up these stats to satisfy your argument...tell me this then, if it's so clear cut for Rice to be in the HOF, then why isn't he then? And don't bring up the press not liking him...the press hated Ted Williams.

But, like I said, as the writers die off that have kept him from getting in and the new breed of writers come on board, Rice will get voted in.

Edit: I found this article on Jim Rice

What makes a player a Hall of Famer. One has to be retired at least five years and one must have played at least 10 years in the Majors but after that, there are no rules. It's up to the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) to determine who gets chosen. And so far, they have not chosen Jim Rice.

There are numerous ways to look at a player and determine if he is worthy of the Hall of Fame. And all of these ways leave Jim Rice out.

First, let's look at the players that the writers (as opposed to the Veterans Committee) have elected to see how Jim Rice stacks up. Jim Rice was a left fielder for the majority of his career. The BBWAA has chosen nine players who were left fielders to the Hall of Fame. In alphabetical order, they are: Lou Brock, Ralph Kiner, Joe Medwick, Stan Musial, Al Simmons, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski. How does Jim Rice compare to these nine players?

In this group, Jim Rice is below average.

seventh-best batting average, the eight-best hit total, the sixth-most home runs, the seventh-best RBI total, the fifth-highest average, the ninth-best on-base percentage and the seventh-highest slugging percentage. Since this would be a group of 10 players, Jim Rice would be in the bottom of the group in these seven important categories.

There's not one thing Jim Rice did in his career which would place him in the top half of left fielders in the Hall of Fame.

One might argue that it's not fair to Jim Rice to include him in a group with Stan Musial and Ted Williams, two of the greatest players to ever perform in the Majors. However, that is canceled out by the inclusion of Lou Brock, who is in the Hall simply for his 3,000 hits and his one-time stolen bases record of 938 thefts and Ralph Kiner, who got in despite playing just 10 years in the Majors, thanks to leading the National League in home runs seven consecutive seasons.

Did Jim Rice have any achievements beyond the stats mentioned above that would help his Hall of Fame case?

In 1978, Jim Rice won the Most Valuable Player Award after becoming the first player in over 30 years to accumulate over 400 total bases in a season. Jim Rice led the American League with a .600 slugging percentage and a .970 OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage added together).

But Jim Rice, as he had throughout his career, enjoyed a tremendous boost from playing his home games in Fenway Park. Here are the home/road splits for Jim Rice in 1978:

Home - 335 AB 69 R 121 H 28 HR 75 RBI .361 BA .416 OBP .690 SLG 1.106 OPS

Away - 342 AB 52 R 92 H 18 HR 64 RBI .269 BA .325 OBP .512 SLG .837 OPS

What if there was a way to adjust Jim Rice's totals based on his ballpark and the run-scoring environment of his era? This way we could have a better comparison for Jim Rice versus the other Hall of Fame left fielders.

Baseball-reference.com has done this. They have calculated a statistic called OPS+, which is "Essentially OPS normalized to the league. Think of it as a rate above the league average expressed as a percentage."

In 1978, Jim Rice led the American League with a 158 OPS+. Here are the top 10 seasons of OPS+ for Jim Rice:

158, 154, 148, 141, 137, 131, 128, 123, 123, 121.

That's very impressive. In Jim Rice's 10th-best season, he was still 21% better than a league-average player. How does that compare to our group of Hall of Fame left fielders?

Brock

146, 128, 124, 123, 119, 115, 114, 112, 111, 109

Kiner

184, 184, 173, 156, 146, 140, 132, 121, 117, 116

Medwick

180, 156, 151, 142, 140, 132, 131, 128, 123, 119

Musial

200, 183, 182, 180, 176, 175, 172, 169, 167, 166

Simmons

176, 176, 171, 159, 149, 145, 142, 136, 130, 129

Stargell

187, 187, 168, 164, 164, 163, 158, 147, 144, 139

B.Williams

170, 157, 147, 147, 139, 136, 130, 130, 127, 122

T. Williams

235, 233, 217, 215, 205, 201, 192, 189, 189, 178

Yaz

195, 178, 171, 156, 148, 141, 139, 137, 126, 124

Eight of the nine Hall of Fame left fielders had better seasons than the one posted by Jim Rice in his big 1978 season. Even if we take out Stan Musial and Ted Williams, the other six players posted 18 seasons better than Jim Rice and his 1978 campaign.

Jim Rice simply did not enjoy the peak that other Hall of Fame left fielders produced. And this is true if you look at Jim Rice and his best one, three, five or 10 seasons.

Both Lindell and Seaver Spahn mentioned that Jim Rice was one of the most feared sluggers of his day. Surely, this makes the Hall of Fame case for Jim Rice.

The problem is: what makes a "feared slugger"? Is this something we can measure, or is this just something that people can say post-hoc, with no chance of being proven wrong?

Between 1975 and 1986, Jim Rice was in the top 10 in the AL in slugging eight times out of 12 seasons, including two first-place and three second-place finishes. Again, very impressive.

But does that put Jim Rice above George Brett, who had seven top 10 finishes, including three first-place finishes? Fred Lynn led the league in slugging twice in that time frame. Don Mattingly had a first-place finish, two seconds and a seventh. Reggie Jackson, despite not being his prime seasons, had six top 10 seasons, including a first, second and third.

In the National League, Jim Schmidt 11 top 10 finishes, including four

first-place finishes, two seconds and two thirds. Dave Parker had seven top-10 finishes, including two first-place showings and a second. George Foster had six top-10 finishes, including a first, second and three third-place showings. Dale Murphy had two first-place finishes.

So, even cherry-picking the best seasons in the career of Jim Rice, we still find him just among the best in the game, not clearly the best. There are some Hall of Famers in this group, like Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Reggie Jackson. And there are just as many non-Hall performers, like Foster, Lynn, Mattingly, Murphy and Parker.

Jim Rice is closer to the non Hall of Fame members on this list in overall career marks than he is to Brett, Jackson and Schmidt. Both Jackson and Schmidt topped 500 career home runs, while Jim Rice had less than 400. And George Brett had 3,154 hits while being a Gold Glove at third base, a much tougher defensive position.

Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game from 1975-79. But he did not remain an elite player for a long enough time to reach the milestones that normally merit induction into the Hall of Fame. Also, the peak that Jim Rice enjoyed was not as impressive as other left fielders already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And finally, Jim Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who enjoyed an extreme home field advantage. Fenway Park turned Jim Rice into a lifetime .546 slugger. In neutral road parks, Jim Rice posted just a .459 slugging mark. And that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame.

CASE CLOSED!

[Maxman]

I'm old enough to remember.

You know who you're describing? A very good player that doesn't belong in the Hall? Don Mattingly. Rice was twice the player Donnie Baseball ever was.

LOL!!!

Why should Jim Rice be in the Hall Of Fame? Please let me know. Is it because of his:

Sub .300 career batting average?

382 career home runs?

Maybe one of his 11 sub 200 hit seasons?

All the championships that he won?

That year he stole 10 bases should put him over the top right?

Jim Rice was a good ball player. He hit over 40 home runs once. He was the best hitter in baseball in 1978. That's about it. YOu aren't talking about a guy that won multiple MVP awards.

The HOF rewards you for compiling or putting together several seasons that are off the charts. Jim Rice did neither.

He is not a Hall Of Famer. It really isn't even close.

[Maxman]

Rice was a more dominant hitter than Martin was a dominant RB. Not even close.

Don Mattingly was better in certain years than Curtis Martin ever was. Still doesn't mean he belongs in the HOF. Like I said in my last post. For baseball you get in for having a string of seasons that is off the charts or for compiling stats throughout your career.

Rice didn't do either. He isn't in. The writers are correct.

[afosomf]

Don Mattingly was better in certain years than Curtis Martin ever was. Still doesn't mean he belongs in the HOF. Like I said in my last post. For baseball you get in for having a string of seasons that is off the charts or for compiling stats throughout your career.

Rice didn't do either. He isn't in. The writers are correct.

what about bert byleven

60 carreer shutouts 6th all time in strikeouts

a freaking joke he is not in

287 wins to boot

also best curveball i have evah seen

[Maxman]

what about bert byleven

60 carreer shutouts 6th all time in strikeouts

a freaking joke he is not in

287 wins to boot

also best curveball i have evah seen

Baseball does reward compiling but they are strict, you have to reach certain milestones. He fell under 300 games so he is out. When you look at his #s you see an average pitcher who won 20 games 1 time in 22 years.

The year he won 20 games, he lost 17. Average pitcher with a 3.90 ERA that is why he is not in.

[afosomf]

Baseball does reward compiling but they are strict, you have to reach certain milestones. He fell under 300 games so he is out. When you look at his #s you see an average pitcher who won 20 games 1 time in 22 years.

The year he won 20 games, he lost 17. Average pitcher with a 3.90 ERA that is why he is not in.

he played on many crappy teams, he was a dominant pitcher

we will see how many of today's pitchers will qualify when many of them

will just have career wins in the low 200's;)

[NIGHT STALKER]

he played on many crappy teams, he was a dominant pitcher

we will see how many of today's pitchers will qualify when many of them

will just have career wins in the low 200's;)

Yeah, but today's pitchers are in 5 man rotations...Blyleven pitched in 4 man rotations. He had more opportunities.

[afosomf]

Yeah, but today's pitchers are in 5 man rotations...Blyleven pitched in 4 man rotations. He had more opportunities.

WTF, you don't think that put added stress on his arm??

[NIGHT STALKER]

WTF, you don't think that put added stress on his arm??

I dunno...go ask Cy Young.

[Scott Dierking]

Leading the charge...I like that. But, hardly leading the charge; he's as guilty as all the others who haven't been named. How's that?!

Blind loyalty is an admirable quality.

Sometimes.

[afosomf]

Baseball does reward compiling but they are strict, you have to reach certain milestones. He fell under 300 games so he is out. When you look at his #s you see an average pitcher who won 20 games 1 time in 22 years.

The year he won 20 games, he lost 17. Average pitcher with a 3.90 ERA that is why he is not in.

BTW his career ERA was 3.3, this 3.9 is some adjusted BS

[PFSIKH]

I love how you guys look up these stats to satisfy your argument...tell me this then, if it's so clear cut for Rice to be in the HOF, then why isn't he then? And don't bring up the press not liking him...the press hated Ted Williams.

But, like I said, as the writers die off that have kept him from getting in and the new breed of writers come on board, Rice will get voted in.

Edit: I found this article on Jim Rice

What makes a player a Hall of Famer. One has to be retired at least five years and one must have played at least 10 years in the Majors but after that, there are no rules. It's up to the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) to determine who gets chosen. And so far, they have not chosen Jim Rice.

There are numerous ways to look at a player and determine if he is worthy of the Hall of Fame. And all of these ways leave Jim Rice out.

First, let's look at the players that the writers (as opposed to the Veterans Committee) have elected to see how Jim Rice stacks up. Jim Rice was a left fielder for the majority of his career. The BBWAA has chosen nine players who were left fielders to the Hall of Fame. In alphabetical order, they are: Lou Brock, Ralph Kiner, Joe Medwick, Stan Musial, Al Simmons, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski. How does Jim Rice compare to these nine players?

In this group, Jim Rice is below average.

seventh-best batting average, the eight-best hit total, the sixth-most home runs, the seventh-best RBI total, the fifth-highest average, the ninth-best on-base percentage and the seventh-highest slugging percentage. Since this would be a group of 10 players, Jim Rice would be in the bottom of the group in these seven important categories.

There's not one thing Jim Rice did in his career which would place him in the top half of left fielders in the Hall of Fame.

One might argue that it's not fair to Jim Rice to include him in a group with Stan Musial and Ted Williams, two of the greatest players to ever perform in the Majors. However, that is canceled out by the inclusion of Lou Brock, who is in the Hall simply for his 3,000 hits and his one-time stolen bases record of 938 thefts and Ralph Kiner, who got in despite playing just 10 years in the Majors, thanks to leading the National League in home runs seven consecutive seasons.

Did Jim Rice have any achievements beyond the stats mentioned above that would help his Hall of Fame case?

In 1978, Jim Rice won the Most Valuable Player Award after becoming the first player in over 30 years to accumulate over 400 total bases in a season. Jim Rice led the American League with a .600 slugging percentage and a .970 OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage added together).

But Jim Rice, as he had throughout his career, enjoyed a tremendous boost from playing his home games in Fenway Park. Here are the home/road splits for Jim Rice in 1978:

Home - 335 AB 69 R 121 H 28 HR 75 RBI .361 BA .416 OBP .690 SLG 1.106 OPS

Away - 342 AB 52 R 92 H 18 HR 64 RBI .269 BA .325 OBP .512 SLG .837 OPS

What if there was a way to adjust Jim Rice's totals based on his ballpark and the run-scoring environment of his era? This way we could have a better comparison for Jim Rice versus the other Hall of Fame left fielders.

Baseball-reference.com has done this. They have calculated a statistic called OPS+, which is "Essentially OPS normalized to the league. Think of it as a rate above the league average expressed as a percentage."

In 1978, Jim Rice led the American League with a 158 OPS+. Here are the top 10 seasons of OPS+ for Jim Rice:

158, 154, 148, 141, 137, 131, 128, 123, 123, 121.

That's very impressive. In Jim Rice's 10th-best season, he was still 21% better than a league-average player. How does that compare to our group of Hall of Fame left fielders?

Brock

146, 128, 124, 123, 119, 115, 114, 112, 111, 109

Kiner

184, 184, 173, 156, 146, 140, 132, 121, 117, 116

Medwick

180, 156, 151, 142, 140, 132, 131, 128, 123, 119

Musial

200, 183, 182, 180, 176, 175, 172, 169, 167, 166

Simmons

176, 176, 171, 159, 149, 145, 142, 136, 130, 129

Stargell

187, 187, 168, 164, 164, 163, 158, 147, 144, 139

B.Williams

170, 157, 147, 147, 139, 136, 130, 130, 127, 122

T. Williams

235, 233, 217, 215, 205, 201, 192, 189, 189, 178

Yaz

195, 178, 171, 156, 148, 141, 139, 137, 126, 124

Eight of the nine Hall of Fame left fielders had better seasons than the one posted by Jim Rice in his big 1978 season. Even if we take out Stan Musial and Ted Williams, the other six players posted 18 seasons better than Jim Rice and his 1978 campaign.

Jim Rice simply did not enjoy the peak that other Hall of Fame left fielders produced. And this is true if you look at Jim Rice and his best one, three, five or 10 seasons.

Both Lindell and Seaver Spahn mentioned that Jim Rice was one of the most feared sluggers of his day. Surely, this makes the Hall of Fame case for Jim Rice.

The problem is: what makes a "feared slugger"? Is this something we can measure, or is this just something that people can say post-hoc, with no chance of being proven wrong?

Between 1975 and 1986, Jim Rice was in the top 10 in the AL in slugging eight times out of 12 seasons, including two first-place and three second-place finishes. Again, very impressive.

But does that put Jim Rice above George Brett, who had seven top 10 finishes, including three first-place finishes? Fred Lynn led the league in slugging twice in that time frame. Don Mattingly had a first-place finish, two seconds and a seventh. Reggie Jackson, despite not being his prime seasons, had six top 10 seasons, including a first, second and third.

In the National League, Jim Schmidt 11 top 10 finishes, including four

first-place finishes, two seconds and two thirds. Dave Parker had seven top-10 finishes, including two first-place showings and a second. George Foster had six top-10 finishes, including a first, second and three third-place showings. Dale Murphy had two first-place finishes.

So, even cherry-picking the best seasons in the career of Jim Rice, we still find him just among the best in the game, not clearly the best. There are some Hall of Famers in this group, like Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Reggie Jackson. And there are just as many non-Hall performers, like Foster, Lynn, Mattingly, Murphy and Parker.

Jim Rice is closer to the non Hall of Fame members on this list in overall career marks than he is to Brett, Jackson and Schmidt. Both Jackson and Schmidt topped 500 career home runs, while Jim Rice had less than 400. And George Brett had 3,154 hits while being a Gold Glove at third base, a much tougher defensive position.

Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game from 1975-79. But he did not remain an elite player for a long enough time to reach the milestones that normally merit induction into the Hall of Fame. Also, the peak that Jim Rice enjoyed was not as impressive as other left fielders already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And finally, Jim Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who enjoyed an extreme home field advantage. Fenway Park turned Jim Rice into a lifetime .546 slugger. In neutral road parks, Jim Rice posted just a .459 slugging mark. And that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame.

CASE CLOSED!

Intersting article. Too bad it has holes.

The numbers argument does not pass the common sense test.

First, only Medwick and Kiner played less games.

HRs- Do you think if Rice played another 1200 games like Yaz, he would have gotten the 70 more HRs Yaz had? Only Williams, Kiner and Stargell were better HR hitters.

RBIs - Like with HRs, Rice's 7th best is more a result of being 8th in games. Stargell had 200+ more games and only had 89 more RBIs. Yaz, 1200+ games and only 393 RBIs. Billy Williams 400 more games only 24 more RBIs and no mention of the advantage he had at Wrigley. Musial, 937 more games and only 500 more RBIs.

Hits and BA - Again, Rice could have moved up the hits list if he stayed around long enough. Medwick, Musial, Simmons and Ted Williams clearly had higher averages, but Rice outhit the rest for average and coincidentially four of them are ahead of him using the writer's criteria..

What is the relevance of the OPS+ argument? So this guys main argument is for an "OPS+" stat. Yet, he never used that in judging two other Boston players and one Cubbie.

Rice's career OPS+ was 128.

Simmons 132.

B. Williams 133.

Yaz 129.

Medwick 134

Brock 109

Kiner 149

Musial 159

T. Williams 191

Stargell 147

While his 9th place is low, he is closer to his peers then the writer would probably admit. Thw writer's most compelling argument is an obscure stat. So using the MadMike criteria Rice is not HofFer.

The bottomline, an argument can be made to move ahead of some of the HofFers already written in. If that is true, he deserves to be in.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Intersting article. Too bad it has holes.

The numbers argument does not pass the common sense test.

First, only Medwick and Kiner played less games.

HRs- Do you think if Rice played another 1200 games like Yaz, he would have gotten the 70 more HRs Yaz had? Only Williams, Kiner and Stargell were better HR hitters.

RBIs - Like with HRs, Rice's 7th best is more a result of being 8th in games. Stargell had 200+ more games and only had 89 more RBIs. Yaz, 1200+ games and only 393 RBIs. Billy Williams 400 more games only 24 more RBIs and no mention of the advantage he had at Wrigley. Musial, 937 more games and only 500 more RBIs.

Hits and BA - Again, Rice could have moved up the hits list if he stayed around long enough. Medwick, Musial, Simmons and Ted Williams clearly had higher averages, but Rice outhit the rest for average and coincidentially four of them are ahead of him using the writer's criteria..

What is the relevance of the OPS+ argument? So this guys main argument is for an "OPS+" stat. Yet, he never used that in judging two other Boston players and one Cubbie.

Rice's career OPS+ was 128.

Simmons 132.

B. Williams 133.

Yaz 129.

Medwick 134

Brock 109

Kiner 149

Musial 159

T. Williams 191

Stargell 147

While his 9th place is low, he is closer to his peers then the writer would probably admit. Thw writer's most compelling argument is an obscure stat. So using the MadMike criteria Rice is not HofFer.

The bottomline, an argument can be made to move ahead of some of the HofFers already written in. If that is true, he deserves to be in.

Nice try, but the writer is spot on.

[PFSIKH]

Nice try, but the writer is spot on.

Nice try.

BTW who is this writer?

I prooved his arguments to be invalid.

When MLB starts honoring the OPS+ leaders like the homerun king, 3000 hits and 300 wins, the writer has an argument.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/HOF_register.shtml

Here is the register of players in the Hall and their OPS+ rating.

Using the guy's criteria, Cal Ripken, Brooks Robinson, Yogi Berra, Ryne Sandberg and Paul Molitor would not be in the Hall.

[Sperm Edwards]

Comparing stats from different eras is weak. In the era Rice played, the HR leader quite often had fewer than 40 HR's.

I don't have any axe to grind over him getting in or not. Baseball is the 2nd-most boring sport after golf (if one even considers that a "sport" rather than a sporting activity). But if a never-great like Don Sutton gets in, why not include a one-time league MVP, and 5-time finisher in the top-5 for league-MVP voting, still be looking in from the outside.

You should hear what these classy voters say. They vote for or against players getting in quite often for protest reasons. One of them (can't remember who) voted against one obvious player (George Brett or someone of his caliber) out of "protest" for Don Sutton not getting in.

If you're going to let in some "good" players, why not put in others?

[Maxman]

Comparing stats from different eras is weak. In the era Rice played, the HR leader quite often had fewer than 40 HR's.

I don't have any axe to grind over him getting in or not. Baseball is the 2nd-most boring sport after golf (if one even considers that a "sport" rather than a sporting activity). But if a never-great like Don Sutton gets in, why not include a one-time league MVP, and 5-time finisher in the top-5 for league-MVP voting, still be looking in from the outside.

You should hear what these classy voters say. They vote for or against players getting in quite often for protest reasons. One of them (can't remember who) voted against one obvious player (George Brett or someone of his caliber) out of "protest" for Don Sutton not getting in.

If you're going to let in some "good" players, why not put in others?

Well I agree that no good players should be in. Kirby Puckett included. He didn't deserve it.

[DaBrick Wall]

Blind loyalty is an admirable quality.

Sometimes.

All I want to say is that I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

As far as Rice goes, it's very debatable, and anyone who says otherwise is a Sox homer (there, I did it too!!!).

Year SLG Rank

1981 .441 15th

1982 .494 14th

1983 .550 2nd

1984 .467 21st

1985 .487 11th

1986 .490 10th

1987 .408 didn't qualify

1988 .406 39th

1999 .344 didn't qualify

Isn't raw slugging supposed to be Jim Rice's dominant category? Isn't that what makes him such a FEARED hitter (which is a joke of an argument, BTW)? Outside of 1983, he doesn't look very scary to me. Those are the slugging percentages of not a HOFer, but rather a good OF who gets a solid boost from playing in one of the most RH-friendly parks in MLB. I will admit after 1980 he was on track to be a HOFer, but he didn't continue that trend.

Another interesting stat coming...Rice also racked up huge RBI numbers largely due to his teammates getting on in front of him. Look at the number of runners that were on base when he came to the plate.

Year ROB Rank

1981 367 1st

1982 466 7th

1983 504 2nd

1984 545 1st

1985 496 2nd

1986 514 3rd

Rice also hit .277 career and had a .330 OBP away from Fenway. Sorry, but Rice is a good OF who got a large boost from his home park and his teammates. Not a Hall of Famer in my book.

And oh by the way I can't wait for the insults. I know, I know, I'm a homer.

[Thor99]

All I want to say is that I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

As far as Rice goes, it's very debatable, and anyone who says otherwise is a Sox homer (there, I did it too!!!).

Year SLG Rank

1981 .441 15th

1982 .494 14th

1983 .550 2nd

1984 .467 21st

1985 .487 11th

1986 .490 10th

1987 .408 didn't qualify

1988 .406 39th

1999 .344 didn't qualify

Isn't raw slugging supposed to be Jim Rice's dominant category? Isn't that what makes him such a FEARED hitter (which is a joke of an argument, BTW)? Outside of 1983, he doesn't look very scary to me. Those are the slugging percentages of not a HOFer, but rather a good OF who gets a solid boost from playing in one of the most RH-friendly parks in MLB. I will admit after 1980 he was on track to be a HOFer, but he didn't continue that trend.

Another interesting stat coming...Rice also racked up huge RBI numbers largely due to his teammates getting on in front of him. Look at the number of runners that were on base when he came to the plate.

Year ROB Rank

1981 367 1st

1982 466 7th

1983 504 2nd

1984 545 1st

1985 496 2nd

1986 514 3rd

Rice also hit .277 career and had a .330 OBP away from Fenway. Sorry, but Rice is a good OF who got a large boost from his home park and his teammates. Not a Hall of Famer in my book.

And oh by the way I can't wait for the insults. I know, I know, I'm a homer.

It was nice of you to leave out the first seven years of his career.

[NIGHT STALKER]

You guys are still going at it... Oh well, I'm done with the Rice debate...some think he should be in according to this thread and some think he shouldn't. That's what the consensus of the writers feel as well and the reason why he's on the outside looking in.

[PFSIKH]

It was nice of you to leave out the first seven years of his career.

Funny ain't it.

[DaBrick Wall]

It was nice of you to leave out the first seven years of his career.

Read all the post next time. You don't give a player a HOF status because he had seven years where he was among the best and then tailed off dramatically.

[mbn007]

Nice try, but the writer is spot on.

No he isn't PFSKIH is "spot on".

Bottom line. For a 9-10 year period, Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL. There is little that one can say to argue this. And there are not many others that can lay this claim in their era.

Oh yeah. This 40+ year Yankees fan must be a "Sox homer"!!

[DaBrick Wall]

No he isn't PFSKIH is "spot on".

Bottom line. For a 9-10 year period, Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL. There is little that one can say to argue this. And there are not many others that can lay this claim in their era.

Oh yeah. This 40+ year Yankees fan must be a "Sox homer"!!

That's not a competent argument. The fact that jerkoffs in the media claim he was the "most feared hitter" has nothing to do with whether he should be in the HOF or not. That's about as far of a thing from a fact as you can get.

[NIGHT STALKER]

No he isn't PFSKIH is "spot on".

Bottom line. For a 9-10 year period, Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL. There is little that one can say to argue this. And there are not many others that can lay this claim in their era.

Oh yeah. This 40+ year Yankees fan must be a "Sox homer"!!

Like I mentioned, I'm done with this thread except for one thing...unless you've been to a Yankees game before me (1951)...you are a "Sox homer"!

[Scott Dierking]

That's not a competent argument. The fact that jerkoffs in the media claim he was the "most feared hitter" has nothing to do with whether he should be in the HOF or not. That's about as far of a thing from a fact as you can get.

mbn actually watched baseball during the period in question, so he is not basing his statement on media opinion or numbers. So, that is a very competent argument. Particularly coming from mbn.

[DaBrick Wall]

mbn actually watched baseball during the period in question, so he is not basing his statement on media opinion or numbers. So, that is a very competent argument. Particularly coming from mbn.

I actually watched baseball during those years too. Sorry, there goes your "I actually saw with my own two eyes!!!!111!!!" argument. Wow, what a great way to decide who gets in the HOF. **** numbers. If Peter Gammons says he's the most feared hitter, he's in.