Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PFSIKH

Jim Rice.....Hall of Fame?

Does Jim "Ed" Rice get in?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Does Jim "Ed" Rice get in?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      11


Recommended Posts

Will Jim "Ed" Rice finally make the Hall in this his 15th and last time on the ballot?

Rice along with Tommy John are in their final year of eligibility. New to the ballot are Rickey Henderson (even though) he has not officially retired, Mark Grace, Jay Bell and Matt Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my argument last year. I thought he should get in last year and thinks he gets in this year.

The only new person on the ballot that could be an issue is Rickey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they take into account the era he played in, there's no doubt Rice should be in. Problem is the offensive explosion of numbers probably due to steroids makes his numbers look less impressive. As a Yankee fan, he scared the crap out of you every time up. And even with the number inflation, his numbers are still excellent.

Suspect Mussina is destined to join that "really good but not HoF" pitcher club with Tommy John, Kaat, Blyleven, Morris. What I don't get is SABR guys go crazy over Blyleven, and from what I remember he was good but never really great. It's almost the opposite argeument for Rice-yes, the numbers are great, but no one ever bought a ticket to see Blyleven pitch. They certainly did buy tickets to see Jim Rice.

Edited by Bugg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this crap again...NO! He was a very good ballplayer, not great. When I think of HOF players, I think of guys like the splendid splinter, the say hey kid and the Mick...Rice couldn't carry their jock straps.

And I don't want to hear he was one of the most feared hitters of his time. That is not a prerequisite for entry...he never won a HR title if that was the case. Greg Luzinski was a feared hitter as well.

Rule of thumb. If you have to think about it, then he shouldn't be voted in. Unless of course you're a Red Sux fan and then vote everyone in that played in bean town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made my argument last year. I thought he should get in last year and thinks he gets in this year.

The only new person on the ballot that could be an issue is Rickey.

You might have made an argument last year, you certainly didn't convince posters like myself he deserved to get in. Again, read the article below...the guy makes a lot of sense rather than saying "Hey, I'm a Red Sox Fan and Jim Rice should be in the HOF".

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137774/why_jim_rices_hall_of_fame_case_falls.html?cat=14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not this crap again...NO! He was a very good ballplayer, not great. When I think of HOF players, I think of guys like the splendid splinter, the say hey kid and the Mick...Rice couldn't carry their jock straps.

And I don't want to hear he was one of the most feared hitters of his time. That is not a prerequisite for entry...he never won a HR title if that was the case. Greg Luzinski was a feared hitter as well.

Rule of thumb. If you have to think about it, then he shouldn't be voted in. Unless of course you're a Red Sux fan and then vote everyone in that played in bean town.

Rice was Luzinski's superior in every way spare the Phils winning in 1980. The comparables make the point-Rice compares very much by age and career with Duke Snider, Cepeda, Billy Williams and Willie Stargell, among others-all HoFers. Snider dominated the NL in the 1950s much as Rice did in the AL in the 1970s. Luzinski compares to similar power guys-Hrbek, Frank Howard, Klesko-not any HoFers in his comparables. Nothing wrong with that, but Rice is way better.

In fairness, I can understand your idea of the HoF, but that's not what it has become. And as per the standards they now have, ice is a HoFer.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/luzingr01.shtml

Edited by Bugg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rice was Luzinski's superior in every way spare the Phils winning in 1980.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/luzingr01.shtml

I threw Luzinski in there only because he was a feared hitter...there have been many in this group who are on the outside looking in. Rice of course was a better hitter than Luzinski, but that doesn't make him a HOF'er.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not this crap again...NO! He was a very good ballplayer, not great. When I think of HOF players, I think of guys like the splendid splinter, the say hey kid and the Mick...Rice couldn't carry their jock straps.

And I don't want to hear he was one of the most feared hitters of his time. That is not a prerequisite for entry...he never won a HR title if that was the case. Greg Luzinski was a feared hitter as well.

Rule of thumb. If you have to think about it, then he shouldn't be voted in. Unless of course you're a Red Sux fan and then vote everyone in that played in bean town.

He won 3 AL HR titles 77, 78, & 83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He won 3 AL HR titles 77, 78, & 83.

Read the link in one of my threads comparing him to the all time greats...I stand corrected on the HR titles...thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2,400 hits, less than .300 career batting average, less than 400 home runs = pass.

He had some good seasons. But all in all it just isn't good enough. If there were some World Series championships in there you could make the case that he was a winner.

But it is what it is so that case simply can not be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,400 hits, less than .300 career batting average, less than 400 home runs = pass.

He had some good seasons. But all in all it just isn't good enough. If there were some World Series championships in there you could make the case that he was a winner.

But it is what it is so that case simply can not be made.

The old Jeter condition.;) Rice career avg is .298 and I think he just misses but don't ever argue Mattingly either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not this crap again...NO! He was a very good ballplayer, not great. When I think of HOF players, I think of guys like the splendid splinter, the say hey kid and the Mick...Rice couldn't carry their jock straps.

And I don't want to hear he was one of the most feared hitters of his time. That is not a prerequisite for entry...he never won a HR title if that was the case. Greg Luzinski was a feared hitter as well.

Rule of thumb. If you have to think about it, then he shouldn't be voted in. Unless of course you're a Red Sux fan and then vote everyone in that played in bean town.

You are wrong as two boys fu...well you know. Yes, it is this argument again until he gets in, I will beat this horse until it dies. Deal with it.

Rice was the most dominant AL player for 10 years. There is no disputing that. I tore up every argument the naysayers had last year.

Arbitrary numbers like Max bring up means nothing after the roid era. Rice dominated his ERA. He deserves the Hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are wrong as two boys fu...well you know. Yes, it is this argument again until he gets in, I will beat this horse until it dies. Deal with it.

Rice was the most dominant AL player for 10 years. There is no disputing that. I tore up every argument the naysayers had last year.

Arbitrary numbers like Max bring up means nothing after the roid era. Rice dominated his ERA. He deserves the Hall.

You must be dreaming. I was in on that debate last year and you proved nothing...and nothing has changed since then unless Rice added some numbers to support your argument.

People make it to the Hall of Fame through either a period of dominance during a middling-length career, or being good enough to be productive over the course of a very long career. Clearly, the latter is not the case for Rice. Given the relative shortness of his career, he needs to go in on peak performance. And I don't think he makes it. I don't think that his peak was either high enough or long enough.

And again, if you have to think about it...well, you know the answer to that. It seems other than Red Sux fans like yourself, the people that have a vote have thought about it.

Edited by NIGHT STALKER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must be dreaming. I was in on that debate last year and you proved nothing...and nothing has changed since then unless Rice added some numbers to support your argument.

People make it to the Hall of Fame through either a period of dominance during a middling-length career, or being good enough to be productive over the course of a very long career. Clearly, the latter is not the case for Rice. Given the relative shortness of his career, he needs to go in on peak performance. And I don't think he makes it. I don't think that his peak was either high enough or long enough.

And again, if you have to think about it...well, you know the answer to that. It seems other than Red Sux fans like yourself, the people that have a vote have thought about it.

Opposed to the obvious Yankee anti-Sox everything you bring?

Rice is not in because he was an a-hole to writers.

Period of dominance.

From 1975 through 1986, he led the AL in 12 statistical categories.

Games (1,766)

ABs (7,060)

Runs (1,098) 2nd in MLB

Hits (2,145)

HRs (350) 3rd in MLB

RBIs (1,276) 1st in MLB

Slugging (.520) 2nd in MLB

Total Bases (3,670) 1st in MLB

Extra Bases (752) 2nd in MLB

Go-Ahead RBIs (325) 1st in MLB

Multi-Hit games (640) 1st in MLB

Outfield Assists (125) 2nd in MLB

4th in 3Bs (73)

4th in BA (.304)

What is not dominant here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opposed to the obvious Yankee anti-Sox everything you bring?

Rice is not in because he was an a-hole to writers.

Period of dominance.

From 1975 through 1986, he led the AL in 12 statistical categories.

Games (1,766)

ABs (7,060)

Runs (1,098) 2nd in MLB

Hits (2,145)

HRs (350) 3rd in MLB

RBIs (1,276) 1st in MLB

Slugging (.520) 2nd in MLB

Total Bases (3,670) 1st in MLB

Extra Bases (752) 2nd in MLB

Go-Ahead RBIs (325) 1st in MLB

Multi-Hit games (640) 1st in MLB

Outfield Assists (125) 2nd in MLB

4th in 3Bs (73)

4th in BA (.304)

What is not dominant here?

Come on, quit being a homer. You started the original thread and here's the title.....Jim Rice.....Hall of Fame? Notice that ?...that says it all right there. No way you start a thread with Ted Williams...Hall of Fame? It would have been Ted Williams...Hall of Fame!

And as far as the press goes, that's BS and you know it. Ted Williams was about as hated by the press as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying it's right, but when you start letting the likes of Kirby Puckett in, by comparson, in every way spare BA, Rice was superior.Ironic that they let Puckett in because he was supposedly a wonderful guy(douchebag Costas named one of hsi sons after him!), which turned out to be not true at all.

Again, I understand the idea that the HoF should be for superior no brainers. But once the writers started putting in good players they liked, they opened the floodgates with comparisons that define HoF greatness down. Rice was a better player than Puckett, and further once you let Puckett in how do you deny Mattingly? Not saying I agree with any of that, but once you allow Puckett is, you open the floodgates.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not saying it's right, but when you start letting the likes of Kirby Puckett in, by comparson, in every way spare BA, Rice was superior.Ironic that they let Puckett in because he was supposedly a wonderful guy(douchebag Costas named one of hsi sons after him!), which turned out to be not true at all.

Again, I understand the idea that the HoF should be for superior no brainers. But once the writers started putting in good players they liked, they opened the floodgates with comparisons that define HoF greatness down. Rice was a better player than Puckett, and further once you let Puckett in how do you deny Mattingly? Not saying I agree with any of that, but once you allow Puckett is, you open the floodgates.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml

I'm a Yankees fan and Mattingly just didn't play enough years. As far as Puckett goes, those two WS rings put him over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The old Jeter condition.;) Rice career avg is .298 and I think he just misses but don't ever argue Mattingly either.

Mattingly doesn't belong in the hall of fame. And he is probably my favorite player of all time.

Jeter gets in if he retires today. 4 rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are wrong as two boys fu...well you know. Yes, it is this argument again until he gets in, I will beat this horse until it dies. Deal with it.

Rice was the most dominant AL player for 10 years. There is no disputing that. I tore up every argument the naysayers had last year.

Arbitrary numbers like Max bring up means nothing after the roid era. Rice dominated his ERA. He deserves the Hall.

He dominated all the way to no championships. He dominated all the way to a bazillion less home runs than Reggie Jackson.

Rice may have dominated. He didn't do it for long enough to be a Hall Of Famer. No worries though, Manny will get in some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not saying it's right, but when you start letting the likes of Kirby Puckett in, by comparson, in every way spare BA, Rice was superior.Ironic that they let Puckett in because he was supposedly a wonderful guy(douchebag Costas named one of hsi sons after him!), which turned out to be not true at all.

Again, I understand the idea that the HoF should be for superior no brainers. But once the writers started putting in good players they liked, they opened the floodgates with comparisons that define HoF greatness down. Rice was a better player than Puckett, and further once you let Puckett in how do you deny Mattingly? Not saying I agree with any of that, but once you allow Puckett is, you open the floodgates.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml

A agree 100%. No way Puckett should be in. He really shouldn't even be close. I think Rice may deserve it more than Puckett. It is just that neither player really deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A agree 100%. No way Puckett should be in. He really shouldn't even be close. I think Rice may deserve it more than Puckett. It is just that neither player really deserves it.
You can point to Puckett's election as when the writers officially cheapened the HoF. The Vets did it will Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi, Pee Wee Reese aNd Rizzuto. I loved Rizzuto, but when you look at this numbers now, they do not hold up. If they wanted to create a category for contributors who were players and broadcasters and managers(where I think Hodges, Kaat and Joe Torre might have a good shot if there was such a category), may be Rizzuto deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opposed to the obvious Yankee anti-Sox everything you bring?

Rice is not in because he was an a-hole to writers.

Period of dominance.

From 1975 through 1986, he led the AL in 12 statistical categories.

Games (1,766)

ABs (7,060)

Runs (1,098) 2nd in MLB

Hits (2,145)

HRs (350) 3rd in MLB

RBIs (1,276) 1st in MLB

Slugging (.520) 2nd in MLB

Total Bases (3,670) 1st in MLB

Extra Bases (752) 2nd in MLB

Go-Ahead RBIs (325) 1st in MLB

Multi-Hit games (640) 1st in MLB

Outfield Assists (125) 2nd in MLB

4th in 3Bs (73)

4th in BA (.304)

What is not dominant here?

C'mon. You know he just wasn't a dominant hitter like HOF'ers Paul Molitor or Tony Perez or Ryne Sandberg or Robin Yount or Ozzie Smith or Orlando Cepeda (also a convicted felon to boot), Luis Aparicio, Carlton Fisk, Nellie Fox, Billy Herman, etc.

Setting artificial thresholds like 400 home runs is silly. There is no threshold for that. There are different eras of power-hitting. Nowadays it seems unthinkable for a league HR leader (or 2nd-highest total) to hit under 40, but it used to be quite common when Rice played.

I really don't care whether he gets in or not personally. Baseball has lost pretty much all of the excitement (for me( that it had when I was a kid. I hated the Red Sox my whole baseball-watching life. But I just remember him as the best hitter in what was annually one of the league's most dangerous lineups. Baseball's HOF has been changed to the Hall of Very Good, or the Hall of Opinionated Importance for over a decade now. So who really gives a crap that Rice would be in there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon. You know he just wasn't a dominant hitter like HOF'ers Paul Molitor or Tony Perez or Ryne Sandberg or Robin Yount or Ozzie Smith or Orlando Cepeda (also a convicted felon to boot), Luis Aparicio, Carlton Fisk, Nellie Fox, Billy Herman, etc.

Setting artificial thresholds like 400 home runs is silly. There is no threshold for that. There are different eras of power-hitting. Nowadays it seems unthinkable for a league HR leader (or 2nd-highest total) to hit under 40, but it used to be quite common when Rice played.

I really don't care whether he gets in or not personally. Baseball has lost pretty much all of the excitement (for me( that it had when I was a kid. I hated the Red Sox my whole baseball-watching life. But I just remember him as the best hitter in what was annually one of the league's most dangerous lineups. Baseball's HOF has been changed to the Hall of Very Good, or the Hall of Opinionated Importance for over a decade now. So who really gives a crap that Rice would be in there?

True. It is nice to harken back to an era when players were juiced with amphetamines instead of roids. ;)

He dominated all the way to no championships. He dominated all the way to a bazillion less home runs than Reggie Jackson.

Rice may have dominated. He didn't do it for long enough to be a Hall Of Famer. No worries though, Manny will get in some day.

Please show me in the Hall of Fame charter where rings are a prerequisite? It is not.

While Rice may have been almost 200 HRs behind (he also played around 700 less games), he was by far a better hitter.

Your argument is dumb. You want to knock him for his limited PS experience fine, but if you hold that as a measure. How many people are giving up plaques because they played during ERAs when two teams made it. Going to kick Ernie Banks out because he did not get any rings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, after careful consideration...put him in. In fact, put every player that's borderline in the HOF...hell, the Yanks should have at least a minimum of 30 more retired numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. It is nice to harken back to an era when players were juiced with amphetamines instead of roids. ;)

Please show me in the Hall of Fame charter where rings are a prerequisite? It is not.

While Rice may have been almost 200 HRs behind (he also played around 700 less games), he was by far a better hitter.

Your argument is dumb. You want to knock him for his limited PS experience fine, but if you hold that as a measure. How many people are giving up plaques because they played during ERAs when two teams made it. Going to kick Ernie Banks out because he did not get any rings?

You said he dominated. Players that dominate a sport often win rings. Doesn't always happen but I was responding to the word dominate.

My argument is dumb but the Hall Of Fame voters seem to agree with me. But my argument is dumb. Excellent point.

Like I said he was a good hitter. He played in the major leagues for 16 years and had 14 full seasons so that means his average season is 25 home runs, .298 average 100 RBIs and 20 plus doubles.

I can't find it but I would be curious to see what his stats look like away from Fenway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said he dominated. Players that dominate a sport often win rings. Doesn't always happen but I was responding to the word dominate.

My argument is dumb but the Hall Of Fame voters seem to agree with me. But my argument is dumb. Excellent point.

Like I said he was a good hitter. He played in the major leagues for 16 years and had 14 full seasons so that means his average season is 25 home runs, .298 average 100 RBIs and 20 plus doubles.

I can't find it but I would be curious to see what his stats look like away from Fenway.

He hit .320 at home and had a .546 slugging percentage.

On the road he hit .277 and slugged .459.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He hit .320 at home and had a .546 slugging percentage.

On the road he hit .277 and slugged .459.

Thank you.

I should probably lock this thread since that officially ends this discussion but I will be a sport and leave it open, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said he dominated. Players that dominate a sport often win rings. Doesn't always happen but I was responding to the word dominate.

My argument is dumb but the Hall Of Fame voters seem to agree with me. But my argument is dumb. Excellent point.

Like I said he was a good hitter. He played in the major leagues for 16 years and had 14 full seasons so that means his average season is 25 home runs, .298 average 100 RBIs and 20 plus doubles.

I can't find it but I would be curious to see what his stats look like away from Fenway.

He did dominate.

You made it about the rings.

If there were some World Series championships in there you could make the case that he was a winner.

Jeter gets in if he retires today. 4 rings.

He dominated all the way to no championships.

I just said that is not entirely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PF --

I am sorry, maybe you missed it but this debate is basically over. Rice was a good player who had inflated stats at Fenway.

Eventually he will get in though. He will be in the Puckett, Rizzuto, Sutton wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF --

I am sorry, maybe you missed it but this debate is basically over. Rice was a good player who had inflated stats at Fenway.

Eventually he will get in though. He will be in the Puckett, Rizzuto, Sutton wing.

Lock it then. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...