Jim Rice.....Hall of Fame?

[Bugg 44,563]

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 December 6, 2008 by Bugg

[Bugg 44,563]

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 December 6, 2008 by Bugg

[Bugg 44,563]

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

[Bugg 44,563]

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.

[Bugg 44,563]

Joe Posnanski-

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/

Walks and Fumbles

I was reading this fine Christopher D. Green article on Baseball Analysts about Jim Rice and the Hall of Fame, it really clicked something for me, something I