Rice Finally Gets Hall Of Fame Nod

[NIGHT STALKER]

You often mention that you served, and it means A LOT in my estimation. THANK YOU!

The Rizzutto mention was to merely signify and demonstrate there are any number of players that are "borderline".

Responding to a post and commenting, I don't consider "calling out". It just appears that some Yankee fans here (some of the same ones that used to claim RedSox fans were more worried about them), have a case of Bostonitis.

How the times have changed.

Times haven't changed. It's just that you, more than anyone likes to call out Yankee fans. I've never been one to ignore a situation when someone calls me out on a topic.

I knew what you meant about Rizzuto...I guess you thought I was going to say he belonged in the HOF and thereby creating a case for your argument on the Rice topic.

Hey, it's all fun, but don't think for a second I won't stand my ground defending my teams...you can eat just so much and then you have to

[Scott Dierking]

Times haven't changed. It's just that you, more than anyone likes to call out Yankee fans. I've never been one to ignore a situation when someone calls me out on a topic.

I knew what you meant about Rizzuto...I guess you thought I was going to say he belonged in the HOF and thereby creating a case for your argument on the Rice topic.

Hey, it's all fun, but don't think for a second I won't stand my ground defending my teams...you can eat just so much and then you have to

Glad that you seem to know what I am thinking and what my responses will be. The Services may have had you in teh wrong area.

NightStalker-When you elected the Yankees as "your" baseball team, which team at that time had won more championships?

[NIGHT STALKER]

Glad that you seem to know what I am thinking and what my responses will be. The Services may have had you in teh wrong area.

NightStalker-When you elected the Yankees as "your" baseball team, which team at that time had won more championships?

Let's put it this way, when I was a kid going to Yankee Stadium, there wasn't a team on the planet called the Mets and the Yankees main WS opponent were the boys of summer. You tell me what team had won more championships.

[Scott Dierking]

Let's put it this way, when I was a kid going to Yankee Stadium, there wasn't a team on the planet called the Mets and the Yankees main WS opponent were the boys of summer. You tell me what team had won more championships.

So you jumped on teh "bandwagon, eh? No problem there, but certainly not a risky choice.

just elbowing ya in the ribs a little. I know you can take it

[JonEJet]

He was among the best offensive players for 12 years... you need a 10 year career to qualify for the HOF. Rice was a phenomenal hitter for over a decade. Certainly not too short for HOF consideration.

Graig Nettles has more home runs

[Maxman]

Graig Nettles has more home runs

And rings.

[Kidhuman]

neither does mattingly

No he doesnt belong there.

[GimmeShelter]

Rice in the HOF a joke? You guys are fricken clueless.

6 times he was in the top 5 in MVP voting and the media fricken hated him.

He is an MVP winner.

6 times he was in the top 7 in batting average.

8 times he was among the league leaders in slugging percentage leading the league twice.

8 times he was among the league leaders in hits and led the league in that category. He topped 200 hits 4 times.

He led the league in HRs 3 times and was consistently among the league leaders.

He led the league in RBIs multiple times and was consistently among the league leaders.

He was a triple crown waiting to happen and led the league in RBIs and HRs while finishing 3rd in batting average in the same year.

He was consistently among the league leaders in total bases leading the league 4 times.

He even had reasonable speed for a slugger and had led the league with triples (15) a number he reached twice.

I watched him play in the late 70s until he retired and he was a phenomenal hitter. Compare him to his peers and not against today's bloated numbers.

While not a first ballot HOF'r in my book it is a damn shame that he had to wait 15 years to get in.

Well done.

[Zeebers]

I only saw Rice play towards the end of his career so I can't really judge his on field performance myself. From what I understand, in his 12 seasons, he ranks either second or third in all the major offensive/power categories. I would consider that dominating your era. If that is the case, he belongs in the hall. From everything I've read and heard about him it was a good decision to put him there, and one of the bigger reasons for him to be kept out was his contentious relationship with the media. I am not "calling" anyone out, but it seems like the only ones on this board who have a gripe about Rice getting the Hall call seem to be Yankee fans. It's interesting.

[Gainzo]

I only saw Rice play towards the end of his career so I can't really judge his on field performance myself. From what I understand, in his 12 seasons, he ranks either second or third in all the major offensive/power categories. I would consider that dominating your era. If that is the case, he belongs in the hall. From everything I've read and heard about him it was a good decision to put him there, and one of the bigger reasons for him to be kept out was his contentious relationship with the media. I am not "calling" anyone out, but it seems like the only ones on this board who have a gripe about Rice getting the Hall call seem to be Yankee fans. It's interesting.

I saw on the news last night that from 1975-1986 Rice had more HR's, RBI's, hits, extra base hits and outfield assists than anyone in the AL.

That isn't exactly a small sample size so I don't understand the people who don't think he deserves to be in the HOF.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on those stats as my memory isn't that good anymore!

[NIGHT STALKER]

I only saw Rice play towards the end of his career so I can't really judge his on field performance myself. From what I understand, in his 12 seasons, he ranks either second or third in all the major offensive/power categories. I would consider that dominating your era. If that is the case, he belongs in the hall. From everything I've read and heard about him it was a good decision to put him there, and one of the bigger reasons for him to be kept out was his contentious relationship with the media. I am not "calling" anyone out, but it seems like the only ones on this board who have a gripe about Rice getting the Hall call seem to be Yankee fans. It's interesting.

You think it's just Yankee fans? Funny stuff. Maybe all the sports writers are Yankee fans at heart not to vote him in when he was first eligible. Odd how he gets in on his last year of eligibility. The media thing is bogus...Ted Williams had one of the worst media relationships of any player that ever brought a bat to the park.

I recall Rice as a very good player (I saw his entire career)...when he retired, I didn't think..."Man that guy is one day going to be in the HOF"...and to reiterate, a lot of writers had that mindset back then.

I'll post the argument for Rice not getting in for the third time in case you missed it...it was written a couple of years ago.

Jim Rice - Hall of Fame?

A collection of thoughts and arguments that I've made in other places as Jim Rice has failed to reach the 75% of the vote necessary for Hall of Fame induction again.

OK. The Jim Rice Hall Of Fame Debate.

First off, I want to reiterate that I'm one of Rice's biggest fans. He was my favorite player from the mid-70s (when Yaz became my favorite player emeritus) until he retired. I was certain, when I was younger, that he was a Hall of Famer, and if he elected next year or the year after, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'll be, at least in some respects, happy to see it. That said, I don't think that his career warrants induction.

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 he peak was either high enough or long enough.

The other thing that goes into a Hall of Fame case is what we might call the "intangible" package. Are there special circumstances that make this player a greater or more important player than his statistics would indicate? Kirby Puckett was the undisputed leader of two World Series Champions, for example, and that played significantly into his case.

Bill James came up with what he (or others) called the "Ken Keltner list." Let's go through it for Rice.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Yes. I think most people would or did consider him the best player in baseball in 1978. That was probably the only year, though his reputation as one of the most dangerous hitters in baseball persisted for several years in which it wasn't warranted.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

In 1978, he may have been. That was probably the only time, as he played with Fred Lynn early and Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens later. Considering everything, defense and OBP in addition to just raw power, Dwight Evans was a better player than Rice for much of his career as well.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He was the best hitter at his position a couple of times. He was never a great fielder, and it was one of the easier defensive positions.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes. He was important to the AL pennant race in 1975, 1978 and 1986. Had he not been hurt before the 1975 World Series, there are a whole host of issues that might be different, including his HoF case. (Seriously, had Rice rather than Fisk hit that HR in game 6, he might be in already.) But he was, and they aren't.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Nope. He had a precipitous decline, and was out of the game very quickly after his last good season.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No. Ron Santo, Dick Allen, Rich Gossage, Bert Blyleven - and there are others.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Looking at Rice's similarity scores, we see 4 Hall of Famers (Cepeda, who shouldn't be in, Duke Snider, Billy Williams and Willy Stargell), and 6 players who clearly aren't, including Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga and Joe Carter. So no, they aren't.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

That's really the question, isn't it? Some say yes, I say no. He didn't meet any of the big milestone numbers (3000 hits, 400 HR, 1500 RBI) that people have used in the past for "automatic" induction. His batting average fell below .300, his OBP is only .352, his SLG is .502. None of those numbers screams for HoF induction.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

There's nothing that I'm aware of to provide value above what the numbers say. He didn't have a Fisk/Puckett/Carter moment, winning a World Series game with a HR. He didn't particularly carry a team to a pennant. There's no great defensive or base-running resume. No, his case rests, stands or falls, entirely on what he did with the bat.

The one statistical accomplishment that jumps out and gets talked about was his 1978 season in which he accumulated 406 total bases, the first time that any hitter had bettered 400 TB in 30 years.

And his statistics are skewed, because he put up his best numbers in a ballpark that was exceptionally friendly to offense. If you look at that period from 1977 through 1979, when Rice was considered one of the most dangerous hitters in the game, Fenway was playing very small. Whether due to wind and weather patterns, or something else, bad hitters looked OK, OK hitters looked good and good hitters looked great in Fenway during those years. From 1977 through 1979, Rice hit .350/.405/.699/1.105 at Fenway, and .290/.347/.498/.845 everywhere else. In his MVP season of 1978, he hit .361/.416/.690/1.105 at home and .269/.325/.512/.837 everywhere else. 231 (57%) of those 406 total bases were accumulated in Fenway and only 175 (43%) on the road. He was a great hitter in his home park.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. Dick Allen was an outfielder. Was Rice clearly better than Fred Lynn or Sherry Magee or Dave Parker or Dwight Evans or Dale Murphy or Andre Dawson or Jimmy Wynn?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He won 1. He was 3rd twice and 4th twice, though I think some of those 3rds and 4ths were reputation votes, rather than deserved votes.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Jim Rice was an All Star 8 times. Half of the players with 8 All Star appearances are in, half are out. There are several 9 time All Stars who are also not in.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

A team could probably win a pennant with Jim Rice, at his peak, as its best player.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

No.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes, as far as we know, there's nothing to concern us here.

So, the Keltner list, in my opinion, leaves us where we started - he's a low-borderline case. He has some things in common with other Hall of Fame inductees, and some things in common with others who weren't. I see 7 clear "noes," 5 clear "yesses," and 3 "um, well, probably, but it's sorta-kinda-closes."

Questions and Answers:

If Kirby Puckett and Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda are in, doesn't that legitimately mean that Jim Rice should be, too?

I'm not going to dispute the legitimacy of the argument, and I'm not going to weep for the HoF if he gets in. But I am going to disagree with the argument. If every mistake is a precedent, then eventually, you have a Hall of Mistakes. There are always going to be borderline cases, and every time you shift the border, you add new guys to the borderline. Guys who clearly were borderline get in, and guys who were clearly below it become new borderline cases. If you add Jim Rice, do you all of a sudden have to start talking about Joe Carter? There are always going to be people who are close to the line but below it, whereever you draw it. I think Rice is below it, and the fact that others have been inducted who shouldn't have been doesn't change that.

How can you say that Jim Rice's peak wasn't high enough? I understand the longevity arguments, but not this. In 1978, he had one of the great offensive seasons of all time and he was the undisputed MVP. He had four truly great seasons.

I'm going to disagree with that assessment of his '78 season. He had the highest OPS+ in the AL, but it was only 158. That was the 2nd lowest OPS+ to lead the league in the 1970s. Even his raw OPS of .970 doesn't come close to the top 100 offensive seasons in history, and, as I noted above, the appearance of a monster season was greatly aided and abetted by an extreme offensive ballpark.

And any OPS discussion is going to overrate Rice, as his OBP was never great.

The 46 HR obviously doesn't make it a season for the ages. Nor does the .600 SLG, which doesn't come close to the top 100 SLG seasons of all time. Even adjusted for league context, his SLG was only 50% better than league average. Obviously, 50% better than league average is very good, but there are a lot of players with a lot of seasons that good, that did it in parks that didn't inflate their numbers the way Fenway inflated Rice's.

And that was his best season. If you look at his top 4 OPS+ seasons, they are 158 (1978), 154 (1979), 148 (1977) and 141 (1983). That's really good. But it's not an awesome peak, not when there's so little outside his peak, and little to no defensive value.

You said that he was only dominant for four years, and good for more. Doesn't that describe the careers of most Hall of Famers? Yastrzemski was only dominant for a couple of years, right? Didn't he get in because he played for so long? Don't most Hall of Fame careers consist of a few dominant seasons and a bunch of others?

That's probably true. I just don't see Rice's peak seasons being "dominant." I've seen Yaz brought up as someone who "was only really dominant for a couple of seasons." Here are the top-5 OPS+ seasons for Rice and Yaz.

Rice Yastrzemski

158 195

154 178

148 171

141 156

137 148

I think that represents a pretty big gap...

You said that Dwight Evans had a better career than Rice, and possibly even a better peak! How could you even think that?

Career OBP: Evans .370, Rice .352

Career OPS: Evans .840, Rice .856

When you take into account that OBP is more valuable than SLG, and that Evans played over 600 more games of better defense at a tougher defensive position, I think it's pretty clear that Evans had a signficantly better career than Rice did. BP's WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player, adjusted for all-time) has Evans at 119 and Rice at 89.2. Bill James Win Shares had Evans with 347 and Rice with 282.

As to the peak, that's debatable.

Rice Evans

158 163

154 156

148 149

141 147

137 137

Evans' best year was 1981, which makes it tough to evaluate, but it's a legitimate discussion as to peak, and a no-brainer as to career. Obviously, Rice hit more HR and drove in more runs than Evans. It's not at all obvious that that made him a better player. (There's more on Evans vs. Rice to be found here.)

How about Cal Ripken? His average year wasn't as good as Rice's.

He was playing SS. Well. Rice was playing LF. OK.

Robin Yount's average year wasn't as good as Rice's.

He was playing SS, and then he was playing CF. Rice was playing LF.

Dave Winfield is in the Hall of Fame. His average year didn't match Rice's. He never had 200 hits. His high in home runs was 37. He never won an MVP award. His career batting average is only .283. His career slugging percentage is well below Rice's. Isn't he in only because he hung around long enough to hit 400 HR?

Winfield finished with an OPS+ that essentially the same as Rice's, but compiled over 900 more games. That's an enormous difference in career value. Had Rice played 6 more good years, he'd be in the Hall of Fame like Winfield. But he didn't.

As to Ripken and Yount, well, arguing that Rice should be in the Hall of Fame because he has better offensive numbers than two guys who had significantly longer careers while playing SS and CF isn't a particularly strong case to make. And I don't think Rice has the peak advantage over any of those guys that you think he has.

Rice Ripken Winfield Yount

158 162 165 166

154 145 159 152

148 144 154 151

141 139 149 132

137 128 142 130

Tony Perez was not the player Rice was. His average year was inferior to Rice's in most categories, and he never had a year as good as Rice's awesome career year.

Again, I think people have an inflated view of Rice's career year. I've already said that I wouldn't have voted for Perez, but there's no dispute that he played longer and generated more value because of it. (James has him at 349 Win Shares, BP at 109.5 WARP3.) Well, the peak wasn't lower than Rice's, either.

Rice Perez

158 163

154 159

148 145

141 140

137 137

And, unlike Rice, he was credited with being a leader on one of the great Championship teams. Whether he deserves it or not is, of course, debatable. But it's definitely part of his case.

If those players have gotten in, doesn't that set a standard that should allow Rice, if he meets that standard, to get in, too?

Nope. That was a mistake. You don't compound the mistake by adding more mistakes.

Now longevity was Rice's enemy -- a couple of more even mediocre seasons to get to 400 homers and some of those milestones and he would have been in easy. Why does Kirby Puckett get in, with only 12 seasons?

1) No decline phase.

2) Reputation, now apparently undeserved, as a great guy.

3) Considered to have been the leader and best player on two World Series teams.

4) Sympathy votes for the condition that ended his career.

5) Better defense at a tougher defensive position.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but his admission doesn't make Rice's case.

If Rice had just hung on and played a couple of mediocre seasons, and hit 18 more home runs, he probably would have been a lock. But would that really have made him a more deserving player?

Yes, it would. People get credit for being good enough to still be productive Major League players at age 40 and 41. Rice's problem was that, by the time he was 36 he couldn't hang on. He couldn't play mediocre ball and build up the career numbers - he wasn't capable of it. He didn't walk away rather than play poorly - he played so poorly that no one would give him a job.

No offense to Jim Rice. I realize that some of this sounds harsh, and it's certainly not intended that way. But I really think that the case for his induction is weak, at best. I can't see any compelling reason to think he's a legitimate Hall of Famer. And it hurts me to say that - I wish it weren't the case. But I think it is...

(H/T to Sully at Baseball Analysts for doing some good Evans/Rice stuff, and Robert Machemer for information on some non-HoF outfielders, posted to the Red Sox newsgroup, and to phendrie at the Providence Journal Your Turn board, for providing some questions and impetus to do this...)

[Gainzo]

You think it's just Yankee fans? Funny stuff. Maybe all the sports writers are Yankee fans at heart not to vote him in when he was first eligible. Odd how he gets in on his last year of eligibility. The media thing is bogus...Ted Williams had one of the worst media relationships of any player that ever brought a bat to the park.

I recall Rice as a very good player (I saw his entire career)...when he retired, I didn't think..."Man that guy is one day going to be in the HOF"...and to reiterate, a lot of writers had that mindset back then.

I'll post the argument for Rice not getting in for the third time in case you missed it...it was written a couple of years ago.

Jim Rice - Hall of Fame?

A collection of thoughts and arguments that I've made in other places as Jim Rice has failed to reach the 75% of the vote necessary for Hall of Fame induction again.

OK. The Jim Rice Hall Of Fame Debate.

First off, I want to reiterate that I'm one of Rice's biggest fans. He was my favorite player from the mid-70s (when Yaz became my favorite player emeritus) until he retired. I was certain, when I was younger, that he was a Hall of Famer, and if he elected next year or the year after, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'll be, at least in some respects, happy to see it. That said, I don't think that his career warrants induction.

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 he peak was either high enough or long enough.

The other thing that goes into a Hall of Fame case is what we might call the "intangible" package. Are there special circumstances that make this player a greater or more important player than his statistics would indicate? Kirby Puckett was the undisputed leader of two World Series Champions, for example, and that played significantly into his case.

Bill James came up with what he (or others) called the "Ken Keltner list." Let's go through it for Rice.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Yes. I think most people would or did consider him the best player in baseball in 1978. That was probably the only year, though his reputation as one of the most dangerous hitters in baseball persisted for several years in which it wasn't warranted.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

In 1978, he may have been. That was probably the only time, as he played with Fred Lynn early and Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens later. Considering everything, defense and OBP in addition to just raw power, Dwight Evans was a better player than Rice for much of his career as well.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He was the best hitter at his position a couple of times. He was never a great fielder, and it was one of the easier defensive positions.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes. He was important to the AL pennant race in 1975, 1978 and 1986. Had he not been hurt before the 1975 World Series, there are a whole host of issues that might be different, including his HoF case. (Seriously, had Rice rather than Fisk hit that HR in game 6, he might be in already.) But he was, and they aren't.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Nope. He had a precipitous decline, and was out of the game very quickly after his last good season.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No. Ron Santo, Dick Allen, Rich Gossage, Bert Blyleven - and there are others.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Looking at Rice's similarity scores, we see 4 Hall of Famers (Cepeda, who shouldn't be in, Duke Snider, Billy Williams and Willy Stargell), and 6 players who clearly aren't, including Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga and Joe Carter. So no, they aren't.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

That's really the question, isn't it? Some say yes, I say no. He didn't meet any of the big milestone numbers (3000 hits, 400 HR, 1500 RBI) that people have used in the past for "automatic" induction. His batting average fell below .300, his OBP is only .352, his SLG is .502. None of those numbers screams for HoF induction.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

There's nothing that I'm aware of to provide value above what the numbers say. He didn't have a Fisk/Puckett/Carter moment, winning a World Series game with a HR. He didn't particularly carry a team to a pennant. There's no great defensive or base-running resume. No, his case rests, stands or falls, entirely on what he did with the bat.

The one statistical accomplishment that jumps out and gets talked about was his 1978 season in which he accumulated 406 total bases, the first time that any hitter had bettered 400 TB in 30 years.

And his statistics are skewed, because he put up his best numbers in a ballpark that was exceptionally friendly to offense. If you look at that period from 1977 through 1979, when Rice was considered one of the most dangerous hitters in the game, Fenway was playing very small. Whether due to wind and weather patterns, or something else, bad hitters looked OK, OK hitters looked good and good hitters looked great in Fenway during those years. From 1977 through 1979, Rice hit .350/.405/.699/1.105 at Fenway, and .290/.347/.498/.845 everywhere else. In his MVP season of 1978, he hit .361/.416/.690/1.105 at home and .269/.325/.512/.837 everywhere else. 231 (57%) of those 406 total bases were accumulated in Fenway and only 175 (43%) on the road. He was a great hitter in his home park.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. Dick Allen was an outfielder. Was Rice clearly better than Fred Lynn or Sherry Magee or Dave Parker or Dwight Evans or Dale Murphy or Andre Dawson or Jimmy Wynn?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He won 1. He was 3rd twice and 4th twice, though I think some of those 3rds and 4ths were reputation votes, rather than deserved votes.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Jim Rice was an All Star 8 times. Half of the players with 8 All Star appearances are in, half are out. There are several 9 time All Stars who are also not in.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

A team could probably win a pennant with Jim Rice, at his peak, as its best player.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

No.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes, as far as we know, there's nothing to concern us here.

So, the Keltner list, in my opinion, leaves us where we started - he's a low-borderline case. He has some things in common with other Hall of Fame inductees, and some things in common with others who weren't. I see 7 clear "noes," 5 clear "yesses," and 3 "um, well, probably, but it's sorta-kinda-closes."

Questions and Answers:

If Kirby Puckett and Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda are in, doesn't that legitimately mean that Jim Rice should be, too?

I'm not going to dispute the legitimacy of the argument, and I'm not going to weep for the HoF if he gets in. But I am going to disagree with the argument. If every mistake is a precedent, then eventually, you have a Hall of Mistakes. There are always going to be borderline cases, and every time you shift the border, you add new guys to the borderline. Guys who clearly were borderline get in, and guys who were clearly below it become new borderline cases. If you add Jim Rice, do you all of a sudden have to start talking about Joe Carter? There are always going to be people who are close to the line but below it, whereever you draw it. I think Rice is below it, and the fact that others have been inducted who shouldn't have been doesn't change that.

How can you say that Jim Rice's peak wasn't high enough? I understand the longevity arguments, but not this. In 1978, he had one of the great offensive seasons of all time and he was the undisputed MVP. He had four truly great seasons.

I'm going to disagree with that assessment of his '78 season. He had the highest OPS+ in the AL, but it was only 158. That was the 2nd lowest OPS+ to lead the league in the 1970s. Even his raw OPS of .970 doesn't come close to the top 100 offensive seasons in history, and, as I noted above, the appearance of a monster season was greatly aided and abetted by an extreme offensive ballpark.

And any OPS discussion is going to overrate Rice, as his OBP was never great.

The 46 HR obviously doesn't make it a season for the ages. Nor does the .600 SLG, which doesn't come close to the top 100 SLG seasons of all time. Even adjusted for league context, his SLG was only 50% better than league average. Obviously, 50% better than league average is very good, but there are a lot of players with a lot of seasons that good, that did it in parks that didn't inflate their numbers the way Fenway inflated Rice's.

And that was his best season. If you look at his top 4 OPS+ seasons, they are 158 (1978), 154 (1979), 148 (1977) and 141 (1983). That's really good. But it's not an awesome peak, not when there's so little outside his peak, and little to no defensive value.

You said that he was only dominant for four years, and good for more. Doesn't that describe the careers of most Hall of Famers? Yastrzemski was only dominant for a couple of years, right? Didn't he get in because he played for so long? Don't most Hall of Fame careers consist of a few dominant seasons and a bunch of others?

That's probably true. I just don't see Rice's peak seasons being "dominant." I've seen Yaz brought up as someone who "was only really dominant for a couple of seasons." Here are the top-5 OPS+ seasons for Rice and Yaz.

Rice Yastrzemski

158 195

154 178

148 171

141 156

137 148

I think that represents a pretty big gap...

You said that Dwight Evans had a better career than Rice, and possibly even a better peak! How could you even think that?

Career OBP: Evans .370, Rice .352

Career OPS: Evans .840, Rice .856

When you take into account that OBP is more valuable than SLG, and that Evans played over 600 more games of better defense at a tougher defensive position, I think it's pretty clear that Evans had a signficantly better career than Rice did. BP's WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player, adjusted for all-time) has Evans at 119 and Rice at 89.2. Bill James Win Shares had Evans with 347 and Rice with 282.

As to the peak, that's debatable.

Rice Evans

158 163

154 156

148 149

141 147

137 137

Evans' best year was 1981, which makes it tough to evaluate, but it's a legitimate discussion as to peak, and a no-brainer as to career. Obviously, Rice hit more HR and drove in more runs than Evans. It's not at all obvious that that made him a better player. (There's more on Evans vs. Rice to be found here.)

How about Cal Ripken? His average year wasn't as good as Rice's.

He was playing SS. Well. Rice was playing LF. OK.

Robin Yount's average year wasn't as good as Rice's.

He was playing SS, and then he was playing CF. Rice was playing LF.

Dave Winfield is in the Hall of Fame. His average year didn't match Rice's. He never had 200 hits. His high in home runs was 37. He never won an MVP award. His career batting average is only .283. His career slugging percentage is well below Rice's. Isn't he in only because he hung around long enough to hit 400 HR?

Winfield finished with an OPS+ that essentially the same as Rice's, but compiled over 900 more games. That's an enormous difference in career value. Had Rice played 6 more good years, he'd be in the Hall of Fame like Winfield. But he didn't.

As to Ripken and Yount, well, arguing that Rice should be in the Hall of Fame because he has better offensive numbers than two guys who had significantly longer careers while playing SS and CF isn't a particularly strong case to make. And I don't think Rice has the peak advantage over any of those guys that you think he has.

Rice Ripken Winfield Yount

158 162 165 166

154 145 159 152

148 144 154 151

141 139 149 132

137 128 142 130

Tony Perez was not the player Rice was. His average year was inferior to Rice's in most categories, and he never had a year as good as Rice's awesome career year.

Again, I think people have an inflated view of Rice's career year. I've already said that I wouldn't have voted for Perez, but there's no dispute that he played longer and generated more value because of it. (James has him at 349 Win Shares, BP at 109.5 WARP3.) Well, the peak wasn't lower than Rice's, either.

Rice Perez

158 163

154 159

148 145

141 140

137 137

And, unlike Rice, he was credited with being a leader on one of the great Championship teams. Whether he deserves it or not is, of course, debatable. But it's definitely part of his case.

If those players have gotten in, doesn't that set a standard that should allow Rice, if he meets that standard, to get in, too?

Nope. That was a mistake. You don't compound the mistake by adding more mistakes.

Now longevity was Rice's enemy -- a couple of more even mediocre seasons to get to 400 homers and some of those milestones and he would have been in easy. Why does Kirby Puckett get in, with only 12 seasons?

1) No decline phase.

2) Reputation, now apparently undeserved, as a great guy.

3) Considered to have been the leader and best player on two World Series teams.

4) Sympathy votes for the condition that ended his career.

5) Better defense at a tougher defensive position.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but his admission doesn't make Rice's case.

If Rice had just hung on and played a couple of mediocre seasons, and hit 18 more home runs, he probably would have been a lock. But would that really have made him a more deserving player?

Yes, it would. People get credit for being good enough to still be productive Major League players at age 40 and 41. Rice's problem was that, by the time he was 36 he couldn't hang on. He couldn't play mediocre ball and build up the career numbers - he wasn't capable of it. He didn't walk away rather than play poorly - he played so poorly that no one would give him a job.

No offense to Jim Rice. I realize that some of this sounds harsh, and it's certainly not intended that way. But I really think that the case for his induction is weak, at best. I can't see any compelling reason to think he's a legitimate Hall of Famer. And it hurts me to say that - I wish it weren't the case. But I think it is...

(H/T to Sully at Baseball Analysts for doing some good Evans/Rice stuff, and Robert Machemer for information on some non-HoF outfielders, posted to the Red Sox newsgroup, and to phendrie at the Providence Journal Your Turn board, for providing some questions and impetus to do this...)

Who wrote that?

[PFSIKH]

Who wrote that?

I guess he likes the OPS+ stat.

This might lose me my card to RSN, but why people use Yaz as an argument astounds me. He was the epitome of a stat compiler.

[Gainzo]

I guess he likes the OPS+ stat.

This might lose me my card to RSN, but why people use Yaz as an argument astounds me. He was the epitome of a stat compiler.

I read an article yesterday, with stats, that said Rice was better than Yaz. Your RSN card is solid.

Rice lost his eyesight after the '86 season but was too proud to admit that fact. There is a reason he wears glasses nowadays.

Rice dominated the AL for over 10 years.

[Maxman]

I saw on the news last night that from 1975-1986 Rice had more HR's, RBI's, hits, extra base hits and outfield assists than anyone in the AL.

That isn't exactly a small sample size so I don't understand the people who don't think he deserves to be in the HOF.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on those stats as my memory isn't that good anymore!

You are wrong.

I didn't look but I found that betting against you is usually safe.

[Gainzo]

You are wrong.

I didn't look but I found that betting against you is usually safe.

I'm always wrong.

[Bergen Jet]

Graig Nettles has more home runs

I love Nettles. Used to wear 9 in little league and played 3rd base because of Nettles... He was not the hitter Rice was. Not even close.

Dave Kingman has more HRs than either Rice or Nettles. I guess he should be in the HOF?

[Bergen Jet]

I saw on the news last night that from 1975-1986 Rice had more HR's, RBI's, hits, extra base hits and outfield assists than anyone in the AL.

That isn't exactly a small sample size so I don't understand the people who don't think he deserves to be in the HOF.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on those stats as my memory isn't that good anymore!

He was also consistently among the leaders in batting average.

Read my earlier post about that breaks down the type of player he was for a 12 year period.

[PFSIKH]

You are wrong.

I didn't look but I found that betting against you is usually safe.

I do not know if this is the one Gainzo is talking about.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Debate: Is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer?

Comment Email Print

ESPN.com

Jim Rice led the American League in RBIs twice.

Jim Rice hit 20 or more home runs in 11 of his 16 seasons in the majors and also drove in more than 1,400 runs in his career. But so far those numbers haven't been enough to get Rice elected to the Hall of Fame.

In this, his 14th year on the ballot, will Rice finally get enough votes to become part of the class of 2008?

ESPN.com correspondents Larry Stone and Phil Rogers discuss Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy.

FROM: Larry Stone

TO: Phil Rogers

SUBJECT: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Hi, Phil. Happy holidays. I was looking forward to debating the merits of Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy with you, but I just learned that Jim Rice was already inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001. So I guess it's a moot point. Talk to you later.

Oh, wait -- that was Jim Rice, the dirt biker from Wooster, Ohio, and it was the Motorcycle Hall of Fame in Pickerington, Ohio.

So back to Jim Ed Rice of the Red Sox. I can't believe Rice has been on the ballot 14 years, and people still have to make the case for him. He should have been basking in Cooperstown long ago. If you had asked anyone during Rice's prime -- his teammates, his opponents, the fans who watched him -- whether Rice was a Hall of Famer, I guarantee you the answer would have been an emphatic yes. Somehow, his legacy has diminished over time, when it should be just the opposite. With all the steroids-induced slugging of the '90s and 2000s, I actually think Rice's statistics look better with each passing year.

As our pal Jayson Stark said a few years ago, when he finally saw the light and began to vote for Rice, he met one essential Cooperstown criterion: the fear factor. Pitchers absolutely hated to face him, and for good reason.

I'm talking, of course, about Rice's glory years, from 1975 to '86. I recognize that his prime was relatively short, and that he suffered a precipitous drop and early career exit that have probably kept him out of the Hall.

But I maintain that Rice was so brilliant during those 12 years that it supersedes the fact that he didn't reach some of the magic numbers that excite Hall of Fame voters, particularly 500 home runs (or, in Rice's case, even 400 home runs).

MOST HOME RUNS (1975-'86)

Mike Schmidt* 440

Dave Kingman 365

Jim Rice 350

Reggie Jackson* 330

George Foster 321

*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

During those 12 years, Rice was the most dominant player in the American League. Maybe not the best player -- I'd give that nod to George Brett. But check out Rice from 1975 to '86. He ranked first in the AL in games (1,766), first in at-bats (7,060), first in runs (1,098), first in hits (2,145), first in home runs (350), first in runs batted in (1,276), first in slugging percentage (.520), first in total bases (3,670), first in extra-base hits (752), first in go-ahead RBIs (325), first in multihit games (640), fourth in triples (73) -- so much for the notion that Rice was nothing but a plodder -- and fourth in batting average (.304). He also was first in outfield assists with 125. For some reason, Rice has been labeled a lousy fielder, but even Bill James, a leading detractor of Rice's Hall of Fame credentials, concedes that he was a better left fielder than most peopled regarded him.

If you look at the entire major leagues over that same 12-year period, Rice still ranked first in RBIs, hits, total bases, go-ahead RBIs and multihit games, second in slugging, runs and extra-base hits (to Mike Schmidt), third in homers (to Schmidt and Dave Kingman), and second in outfield assists (to Dave Winfield).

That's 12 years at the very top of his profession -- enough to make a Hall of Famer of, say, Kirby Puckett. But for some reason, not good enough for Rice.

A few other points to consider, Phil, and I'll let you have your say: six finishes in the top five in MVP voting during those 12 years; Rice's transcendent 1978 season (in which he won the MVP award and became the first American League player since Joe DiMaggio to finish with more than 400 total bases); and his three-year stretch of 35-plus homers and 200-plus hits from 1977 to '79, the only person in history to do that.

I have much more, but you deserve a chance to make your pathetic -- er, well-reasoned -- case against Rice.

FROM: Phil Rogers

TO: Larry Stone

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Hey Larry. Good to hear from you, and happy holidays, even if you're making me feel a bit like the Grinch. I've never voted for Rice, which is surprising given that in practice I've been a very liberal Hall of Fame voter. I lean toward the benefit of the doubt, being aware of just how high of a standard 75 percent approval is. But I am going to take an especially hard look at Rice this year, and maybe you can change my mind -- or not.

MOST RBIs (1975-'86)

Jim Rice 1,276

Mike Schmidt* 1,221

Dave Winfield* 1,147

George Foster 1,114

Steve Garvey 1,076

*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

I'd sum up my nonvote this way -- Rice's career was short, and while he was a dominant hitter in his prime, he didn't put up big enough numbers (either season or career) to get out of the Hall of the Very, Very Good and into the Hall of Fame. Your point about assists is a good one -- even if I could throw guys out at second or third base from left field at Fenway Park, which is deep shortstop in other parks -- but I'll admit I consider him a plodder and one-trick pony. The point about triples really surprises me.

Career stats matter a lot when the Hall's considered, and your guy Jim Ed is 54th career in RBIs and 53rd career in homers -- and that was despite playing in a ballpark that fit him well, and in a lineup that was always solid, and sometimes loaded, around him. I'll give you his excellence for a brief period of time -- 35-plus homers and 200-plus hits for three years in a row ('77-79) is an awesome feat, but those career totals just don't get it done for me, no matter how you break them down. How do you overlook that 53/54 combo for a guy whose gift was hitting?

FROM: Larry Stone

TO: Phil Rogers

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Phil: My New Year's resolution is to make you a Rice convert.

And since you are concerned with Rice's career ranking, let me give you some names: Duke Snider, Hank Greenberg, Hack Wilson, Johnny Mize, Joe Medwick, Chuck Klein, Robin Yount, Roberto Clemente and Kirby Puckett. They all rank below Rice in career RBIs, and all are in the Hall of Fame. In fact, there are at least 47 position players in the Hall with fewer RBIs than Rice (there might be more, but I stopped counting).

Here are some other names for you: Joe DiMaggio, Ralph Kiner, Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, Al Simmons, Hack Wilson and Puckett. All rank below Rice in career homers, and all are in the Hall of Fame. This time, I counted more than 40 before I quit. Granted, many of those had other assets besides slugging, but I don't think Rice's career numbers disqualify him -- particularly since he played in an era that produced some of the lowest offensive totals in the live ball era. As SABR member Paul White (not to be confused with the fine USA Today writer of the same name) points out in a persuasive essay advocating for Rice's Hall of Fame credentials, "if one ranks all 101 American League seasons by the OPS figure that led the league, 12 of the 16 seasons in which Rice played finish in the bottom third."

I can't help but think that a big reason Rice hasn't gotten elected yet is that a lot of writers of his day just didn't like him. I remember covering a game at the Oakland Coliseum in the 1980s, when I was working in the Bay Area. I was in the press box writing my story when Steve Fainaru, the Red Sox beat writer for the Hartford Courant (and brother of Mark Fainaru-Wada), came back up from doing his postgame interviews in the clubhouse. His dress shirt was in tatters. I found out later that Fainaru had gotten in a heated dispute with Rice, and that Rice had reached down and yanked his shirt, sending the buttons flying and ripping the shirt. But besides being occasionally tough for the media to deal with -- which should never be a Hall of Fame disqualifier, in my opinion -- Rice never got in trouble, did a lot of good deeds off the field, and was a good family man, by all accounts. Heck, he once saved the life of a 4-year-old boy, Jonathan Keane, who was hit in the head by a foul ball off the bat of Boston's Dave Stapleton in 1982. While blood gushed from the youngster's head, Rice raced into the stands from the dugout, cradled Keane in his arms, and sprinted with him through the dugout, down the runway and into the clubhouse. Red Sox team doctor Arthur Pappas said later that Rice's quick actions may have saved Keane from serious injury.

"Time is very much a factor once you have that kind of a head injury and the subsequent swelling of the brain," Pappas told the Hartford Courant in a 1997 article. "That's why it's so important to get him to care so it can be dealt with. [Rice] certainly helped him very considerably."

Surely, Phil, you gotta give Rice a point or two in the "character" category that's listed on the Hall of Fame ballot. You know, the part that reads: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

I think Rice qualifies on all counts. Speaking of his contributions to the team on which he played, consider this: During Rice's 12 peak seasons, the Red Sox averaged 89 wins a year, reached 95 wins four times and won two American League pennants. If Bill Buckner fields that grounder, maybe Rice has one World Series ring. And if he didn't get hurt and miss the '75 World Series, maybe he has two. And then maybe we wouldn't even be having this debate.

FROM: Phil Rogers

TO: Larry Stone

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Dang it, Larry. Hall of Famers with lesser numbers, SABR calculations, you are pulling out the big guns on me here. I feel like this has turned into a mock trial, and you're making a mockery of me.

I've got a couple simple thoughts on Rice that have always stopped me from voting for him. Let me know what you think of them.

MOST HITS (1975-'86)

Jim Rice 2,145

Steve Garvey 2,121

Cecil Cooper 1,975

George Brett* 1,961

Robin Yount* 1,933

*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The first of them, which I'll hit you with now while saving the next one for later, is that he fails my tiebreaker test for borderline Hall of Famers (of which there are dozens and dozens). My first tiebreaker is always how did a guy play in the postseason, the biggest games, assuming he had a chance to play in them. You point out that Rice didn't get a World Series ring, and you're right. But you fail to make a couple of other points. For instance: In 18 postseason games, Jim Ed hit .225 with two home runs and seven RBIs. The way I interpret that, he had a chance and didn't seize the moment. It's no crime there, but to me, given that I'm on the fence about him and the Hall, it gives me a reason not to vote for him.

You mention the Bill Buckner play in 1986, and you're right. The Red Sox would have won if Buckner had handled the simplest of grounders -- or if John McNamara had taken Buckner out of the game before that inning. But there was another reason the BoSox didn't celebrate in '86 -- their cleanup hitter (Rice) didn't drive in a run during that seven-game series against the Mets. Not one.

In that fateful Game 6, the Red Sox had taken a 5-3 lead with two runs in the top of the 10th before the Mets scored three off Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley (and Buckner) in the bottom of the 10th. But the Red Sox would have had a bigger lead than 5-3 if the top of the 10th hadn't ended with a bases-loaded flyout by Rice. I know it sounds harsh to judge a career by a handful of at-bats, but when I look for a reason to give Rice the benefit of the doubt I can't find it. So, if you can, help me some more.

FROM: Larry Stone

TO: Phil Rogers

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

OK, Phil, you connected on that one. No ribbies in a seven-game series: not good. But you conveniently failed to mention Rice's full numbers in that '86 World Series against the Mets. He hit .333 (9-for-27) with six runs scored, a double, a triple, six walks, a .455 on-base percentage and .899 OPS. Not too shabby. And in the ALCS that led up to it -- the one that included Dave Henderson's epic homer off Donnie Moore in Game 5 -- it was Rice's three-run homer off John Candelaria in the fourth inning of Game 7 that broke the game open as the Red Sox won the pennant with an 8-1 win over the Angels.

I honestly don't think Rice should be penalized on this count. His teams won three division titles (Hall of Famer Ernie Banks would have killed for just one postseason appearance) and he wasn't a disgrace in the playoffs or World Series. Furthermore, from 1977 to '79, the Red Sox won 97, 99 and 91 games, and finished second, second and third. If there had been a wild card, who knows what kind of postseason numbers Rice would have put up. Are you going to blame him for Bucky Dent?

Now, if you want to mark down Rice for the Fenway Park factor, you might be on to something. But the postseason? I'll give you a solid shot to the jaw, but no knockdown.

Give me your next shot.

FROM: Phil Rogers

TO: Larry Stone

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Stoney, in regard to the '86 World Series, I will quote a great American, Hawk Harrelson -- "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit.'' But lots of Hall of Famers -- Carl Yastrzemski, to name one -- made outs in the biggest at-bats of their career. I'll grant you that it's the nature of the game, even for the greatest players. I'll also concede you make good points with the overall numbers from the postseason, '86 in particular. That's a fair point about those 90-win teams that couldn't get in the playoffs. The nature of the postseason has changed a ton since the wild card.

MOST HOME RUNS (RED SOX HISTORY)

Ted Williams* 521

Carl Yastrzemski* 452

Jim Rice 382

Dwight Evans 379

Manny Ramirez 254

*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But I said there were a couple points that stopped me from voting for Jim Ed. I feel like I'm putting myself up on a tee with the next one, but here goes. When the game got tough for him, he just walked away. He didn't fight to keep playing after his body was breaking down, the way a guy like Andre Dawson did. Rice might have revived his career elsewhere after the Red Sox released him at the end of 1989. He was only 34 when he played his last game. Rice let himself get bitter at the system, angry at the knees that were failing him, and didn't find a way to compensate. Look at how his numbers tailed off when he was only 32, 33 and 34. I'm not above cutting somebody some slack because of injuries. I was a big supporter of Kirby Puckett, who was forced out of the game early by his eyesight, and another reason I give Dawson the benefit of the doubt is because he essentially played in a parking lot on the so-called turf in Montreal. But I can't find a reason to hand Rice a pass. I know this sounds cold, but I just don't know if he fought hard enough to keep playing. Help me here. What am I missing?

FROM: Larry Stone

TO: Phil Rogers

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Phil, I can sense that I'm breaking you down on Rice. Maybe this will put you over the edge: I did a little research, and it turns out that Rice didn't have a chance to revive his career. After the Red Sox cut him loose in '89, not one team made him a contract offer. He wanted to continue, but someone has to sign you first. Rice even took the extraordinary step of playing for the St. Petersburg Pelicans of the Senior League in 1990, to show teams that he was over his knee and elbow problems that required four surgeries in 1989. Still no offers, so he hung it up.

I suspect that Rice made himself no friends around baseball with his attitude (or what his attitude was perceived to be), and he obviously didn't perform well those last few years, largely because of injuries. His retirement was forced on him, by the Red Sox, and by the rest of baseball. I maintain, yet again, that his body of work from 1975 to '86 shouldn't detract from the sour ending to his career. I'm not sure why a guy gets Hall of Fame points for hanging on and slogging through some bad years that pump up his career totals. It's a shame that someone didn't sign Rice, even to be a platoon DH against lefties, so that he could have gotten 400 homers and a few other milestones like 2,500 hits and 1,500 RBIs. But no one did, and so here we sit, arguing his merits.

I'm going to put my 14th consecutive check next to his name. Phil, I hope you put your first.

FROM: Phil Rogers

TO: Larry Stone

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Larry, I have to hand it to you, you are breaking me down as bad as my kids at the mall. The St. Petersburg Pelicans? Now that is research, and based on your lead I've gone ahead and added some of my own digging to yours. Jim Ed not only played for those Pelicans in 1990, but he had helped them into first place when the league folded. The Pelicans were 15-8 and two games ahead of the hated Sun City Rays when the league went belly up, ending the playing careers for a lot of great players, including Vida Blue and Fergie Jenkins. So I guess there goes my long-held theory about him just giving it up and walking away. Score it E-scribe.

MOST RBIs (RED SOX HISTORY)

Carl Yastrzemski* 1,844

Ted Williams* 1,839

Jim Rice 1,451

Dwight Evans 1,346

Bobby Doerr* 1,247

*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

I started covering the American League in 1984, which means I saw just about as many lean years as good ones from Rice. Maybe that's why I hadn't looked harder at his case. I had my mind made up when I first looked at his name on a ballot, even if I didn't know I did. It was nothing personal against Rice. He never gave me the Steve Fainaru treatment. But I've always just felt he was one of those great players who comes up a tick short of being among the best ever. I think you've sold me. What do you think of that?

FROM: Larry Stone

TO: Phil Rogers

SUBJECT: RE: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

I think that's great, Phil. I always knew you were a reasonable man (even if Dusty Baker didn't think so). I truly believe that Rice is worthy, though I understand the hesitation by those who don't. It's guys like Rice who make Hall of Fame voting such an agonizing and exhilarating experience. I have high hopes that this is the year Jim Ed gets to join his motorcycle-riding namesake in immortality.

Now, about Mark McGwire

[JonEJet]

Now that Rice is in, we should make a strong push for Danny Taratbull to get in

[NIGHT STALKER]

Now that Rice is in, we should make a strong push for Danny Taratbull to get in

Wait, he's not in? Damn, I thought there was a special wing in the HOF for "feared hitters" like the whiny bitch that got in yesterday.

[NIGHT STALKER]

His first year of eligibility into the HOF was 1995. Do you know what percent of the vote he got? 29.8 percent! So, you guys that are carrying his jock strap around with you, what the hell changed since 1995? Did he put on the old uniform to pad his stats since then? Same stats back in '95 as they are now. And he only made it by 1.4 percent now.

And not to pick on poor Jim Rice, but there should be a rule that if you don't make it on your first try, that's it...because nothing has changed with the statistics you retired with other than writers who have died or writers who just don't participate in the voting anymore for some reason or another.

[Garb]

...I think Rice got in because of two reasons:

1) sympathy

2) the steroid era

Scribes started feeling bad for the old man and with the taint the steriod era has left on some stats/players - you start feeling better about Rice's accomplishments.

Just an opinion here. I could not care less, really.

[JonEJet]

Wait, he's not in? Damn, I thought there was a special wing in the HOF for "feared hitters" like the whiny bitch that got in yesterday.

Either he or Mel Hall should get in

Did you know that Mel Hall hit 4 homers in 1 game:headbang: Now that's impressive

I would let Dewey Evans in the Hall before Rice

[Bergen Jet]

His first year of eligibility into the HOF was 1995. Do you know what percent of the vote he got? 29.8 percent! So, you guys that are carrying his jock strap around with you, what the hell changed since 1995? Did he put on the old uniform to pad his stats since then? Same stats back in '95 as they are now. And he only made it by 1.4 percent now.

And not to pick on poor Jim Rice, but there should be a rule that if you don't make it on your first try, that's it...because nothing has changed with the statistics you retired with other than writers who have died or writers who just don't participate in the voting anymore for some reason or another.

The media pretty much hated Rice and it was a mutual relationship... that is part of the reason he wasn't voted in.

Also while I do not understand the whole 1st ballot thing (you are either a HOF or not IMO) there is a whole school of thought shared by a lot of the media that have votes that dictate the age old adage that somebody is a HOF but not a 1st ballot HOF. There are people who will vote no to ARod and to Griffey Jr because they don't feel that anybody should be a 1st vallot HOF. Stupidity... but a fact. There are people who refuse to vote for players because it is their first time up for a vote.

There were people who didn't vote for Tom Seaver. 5% of the voters did not vote for Babe Ruth. 6% for Willie Mays 12% didn't vote for Mantle and 14% said no to Sandy Koufax. Bob Gibson? 16% of the people said no.

Cy Young only got 76% of the vote and Jimmie Foxx 79%... The system is broken and it isn't Jim Rice's fault that people who hated him as a person had complete control over his chances of making it into the HOF.

[NIGHT STALKER]

The media pretty much hated Rice and it was a mutual relationship... that is part of the reason he wasn't voted in.

Also while I do not understand the whole 1st ballot thing (you are either a HOF or not IMO) there is a whole school of thought shared by a lot of the media that have votes that dictate the age old adage that somebody is a HOF but not a 1st ballot HOF. There are people who will vote no to ARod and to Griffey Jr because they don't feel that anybody should be a 1st vallot HOF. Stupidity... but a fact. There are people who refuse to vote for players because it is their first time up for a vote.

There were people who didn't vote for Tom Seaver. 5% of the voters did not vote for Babe Ruth. 6% for Willie Mays 12% didn't vote for Mantle and 14% said no to Sandy Koufax. Bob Gibson? 16% of the people said no.

Cy Young only got 76% of the vote and Jimmie Foxx 79%... The system is broken and it isn't Jim Rice's fault that people who hated him as a person had complete control over his chances of making it into the HOF.

Sorry BJ, but no player was hated by the media (especially in Boston) than Ted Williams...that media crap with Rice doesn't hold water.

And what does your percentages of writers not voting for the HOF players you mentioned have to do with Rice? Those are mere fractions of writers that didn't vote for those guys. Over 70% didn't vote for Rice his first go around.

The system isn't flawed, it's the many chances these guys get that is flawed...if you miss the first time, that should be it...period. I sound like a broken record here because I've said it over and over. Your stats don't change once you retire. What is is the difference with Rice's stats from 1995 and 2009? Nothing!

[Maxman]

I love Nettles. Used to wear 9 in little league and played 3rd base because of Nettles... He was not the hitter Rice was. Not even close.

Dave Kingman has more HRs than either Rice or Nettles. I guess he should be in the HOF?

Technically you played 3B because nobody hit the ball there. The coaches thought it would be best.

[Bergen Jet]

Sorry BJ, but no player was hated by the media (especially in Boston) than Ted Williams...that media crap with Rice doesn't hold water.

And what does your percentages of writers not voting for the HOF players you mentioned have to do with Rice? Those are mere fractions of writers that didn't vote for those guys. Over 70% didn't vote for Rice his first go around.

The system isn't flawed, it's the many chances these guys get that is flawed...if you miss the first time, that should be it...period. I sound like a broken record here because I've said it over and over. Your stats don't change once you retire. What is is the difference with Rice's stats from 1995 and 2009? Nothing!

Ted Williams may be the greatest hitter to ever play the game. Comparing him getting voted in by people who disliked him to a very good player who is just over the HOF bar IMO doesn't hold water. You can argue that Rice belongs in the HOF... you can't argue that Williams doesn't belong. The media having issues with Rice was a real issue. For a borderline HOF'r the relationship with the media remains key.

I do like the idea of having 1 shot at the HOF (with the stipulation that you receive say 55% of the vote you are eligible for either one more try or some sort of review comittee - and not the equally broken veteran's committee).

Joe DiMaggio and Rogers Hornsby were not first-ballot Hall of Famers. Neither were Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Jimmie Foxx, Carl Hubbell, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews or Mel Ott.

If you change the rules and make it a one and done maybe the idiocy of not electing people in their first year of eligibility goes away and maybe these guys are 1st ballot HOF'r.

Until that point in time the system is indeed broken.

[Bergen Jet]

Technically you played 3B because nobody hit the ball there. The coaches thought it would be best.

Nah... that is when they moved me to right field...

[NIGHT STALKER]

Ted Williams may be the greatest hitter to ever play the game. Comparing him getting voted in by people who disliked him to a very good player who is just over the HOF bar IMO doesn't hold water. You can argue that Rice belongs in the HOF... you can't argue that Williams doesn't belong. The media having issues with Rice was a real issue. For a borderline HOF'r the relationship with the media remains key.

I do like the idea of having 1 shot at the HOF (with the stipulation that you receive say 55% of the vote you are eligible for either one more try or some sort of review comittee - and not the equally broken veteran's committee).

If you change the rules and make it a one and done maybe the idiocy of not electing people in their first year of eligibility goes away and maybe these guys are 1st ballot HOF'r.

Until that point in time the system is indeed broken.

Hey, he's in and that all that matters. Congrats to him, but personally, I will always look at his stats and wonder why he wasn't good enough for 13 years and in his last year of eligibility, he gets in....what a surprise.

[Sperm Edwards]

Rice isn't the only one who barely made it, or who were only "dominant" for a limited time. Actually there are quite a bit of them in the HOF, from Dizzy Dean to Sandy Koufax to Ryne Sandberg. Why should the line-in-the-sand be drawn at Rice if you're going to judge it on number of years of dominance or career totals?

And frankly the veterans committee made it the Hall of Very Good many years ago. Tony Lazzeri an "all-time great" hitter? C'mon. It's not like he could field either. Bobby Doerr? Luis Aparicio? There are plenty more if you want to go down the list. These guys are the first names you think of when you think of "the best of the best" to ever play the game? Fat chance.

So there are plenty of guys who "got in" and used up ALL of their years of eligibility. Then they got in when their buddies & old teammates voted them in.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Rice isn't the only one who barely made it, or who were only "dominant" for a limited time. Actually there are quite a bit of them in the HOF, from Dizzy Dean to Sandy Koufax to Ryne Sandberg. Why should the line-in-the-sand be drawn at Rice if you're going to judge it on number of years of dominance or career totals?

And frankly the veterans committee made it the Hall of Very Good many years ago. Tony Lazzeri an "all-time great" hitter? C'mon. It's not like he could field either. Bobby Doerr? Luis Aparicio? There are plenty more if you want to go down the list. These guys are the first names you think of when you think of "the best of the best" to ever play the game? Fat chance.

So there are plenty of guys who "got in" and used up ALL of their years of eligibility. Then they got in when their buddies & old teammates voted them in.

You're right and I said as much in a post several days ago. It just happens this topic is Rice driven because of his recent selection.

[Bergen Jet]

Hey, he's in and that all that matters. Congrats to him, but personally, I will always look at his stats and wonder why he wasn't good enough for 13 years and in his last year of eligibility, he gets in....what a surprise.

Does Joe D. belong in the HOF?

[NIGHT STALKER]

Does Joe D. belong in the HOF?

Does Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle? What's the point?

[PFSIKH]

Hey, he's in and that all that matters. Congrats to him, but personally, I will always look at his stats and wonder why he wasn't good enough for 13 years and in his last year of eligibility, he gets in....what a surprise.

You are old enough.

What is Joe Gordon's claim to fame?

Other then a being a Yankee and a power hitting 2B?

This is not a pro Rice rebuttal.

I just saw he was elected to the Hall via the Veteran's committee?