This is it – my final tally. I’ve reached 120 ballots between published ones I found (with help from many folks, including the Tango and the indefatigable Repoz) and ones I gathered myself by talking to voters. That should push us up to around 20% of the total voting pool.
Without knowing whether or not there’s a skew to this sample, I’ll stick with what it tells us for predictions:
1. Goose Gossage will be elected to the Hall of Fame this year. He will be the only candidate elected.
2. If there are two players elected, the second one will be Jim Rice. However, it’s more likely that he will be elected in 2009 as he gains sympathy votes for his final year on the ballot.
3. Of the other players on this ballot, Blyleven, Dawson, and Raines will all eventually earn induction, but no one else will.
Also, my disclaimer: In response to a concern voiced in the comments by a Hall of Fame voter, let me emphasize that the totals below are a tally of published ballots and of ballots I have received from individual voters. It is not an official count.
As of 4:20 pm, Monday, 1/7:
| TOTAL | 120 | Pct |
| Gossage | 108 | 90% |
| Rice | 82 | 68% |
| Blyleven | 79 | 66% |
| Dawson | 79 | 66% |
| Morris | 58 | 48% |
| Smith | 44 | 37% |
| Raines | 42 | 35% |
| McGwire | 29 | 24% |
| Trammell | 29 | 24% |
| John | 22 | 18% |
| Concepcion | 16 | 13% |
| Murphy | 13 | 11% |
| Parker | 11 | 9% |
| Mattingly | 6 | 5% |
| Baines | 4 | 3% |
| Rose (write-in) | 2 | 2% |
Is c morgan trolling? I am not sure whether it is the insistence that park effects don’t matter or the use of the phrase “dominate player” that gives it away. I’ll take the bait.
Why does where he placed in MVP voting matter? Are you unable to look up his statistics and evaluate them for yourself? Some of us don’t need to rely on the interpretation of a group of writers with a dubious track record at best when it comes to evaluating player value. The BBWAA gave Palmeiro a Gold Glove in a year he played less than 30 games in the field. Look at the 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2001 AL MVPs…the voters displayed a criminal lack of basic understanding of what makes a baseball player valuable.
Rice was overvalued during his career because people did not understand park effects or the importance of OBP fully. We now understand these factors better, why use votes from 30 years ago to evaulate him today?
Taken from Posnanski’s blog:
OPS+
Jim Rice (1975-86): 133
Fred Lynn (1975-86): 135 (worth nothing that these are the precise 12 years we’re talking about with Rice — he did not even have the best OPS+ among non-Hall of Famers on HIS OWN TEAM during that 12-year stretch).
“If hitting at Fenway is so easy why did no other hitter or Rices era put up similar stats.”
Fred Lynn at Fenway- .347/.420/.601-1.021
Jim Rice at Fenway- .320/.374/.546-.920
Lynn career OPS+ 129
Rice career OPS+ 128
When you factor in defense/base running.
Fred Lynn was the superior player…and he didn’t get a sniff of the HOF.
And Dwight Evans was basically the same hitter, only he fared better on the road and played for a lot longer. So right there in the Fenway outfield you’ve got two guys who put up Rice’s numbers in Rice’s era.
The MVP voters were wrong, but to be fair most people didn’t have a great understanding of the stats and what they meant back then(nor do they now obviously). And the same MVP voters are wrong again for having Rice close to the HOF in the two wrongs don’t make a right kind of way.
And I’d argue that Rice being a dick has actually helped his cause, since the whole “feared” thing is probably more a circumstance of writers being scared “crap”less of a mad black man in the 70’s. There are definitely no stats to back it up as Joe Posnanski clearly demonstrated in his blog.
The ESPN.com votes are a joke for the most part. It just shows that the Flat Earth Society members of the BBWAA still dominate at ESPN as well. It isn’t just how few vote for Raines and Blyleven (although he did receive 10), but how many vote for Rice, Morris and to a lesser extent, Dawson.
c morgan,
Juan Gonzalez won 2 MVPs, and finished in the top 5 two other times. Suffice to say anything you could say about how “feared” Rice was, you could apply it to Gonzalez as well. His counting stats are significantly inflated, relative to the peers of his day, by playing in Arlington, which is like Fenway in its effects.
Does Gonzalez belong in the Hall too? Because based on your arguments, the answer is yes.
i really hope mcqwire eventually makes it. i have no problem whatsoever if he roided. to me, it just means he sacrificed his body for the team.
Can I ask a basic question? What should the minimum threshold be regarding ops and the Hof. I am accepting the accuracy of sabermetrics over the outdated criteria ( .300, 400 homers etc)that has long been used to justify a vote. I can figure out starting pitchers, but I need a base with the hitters. Thanks for tolerating this remedial student.
Good for Gossage, he deserves to be in the hall. As for Jim Rice, I don’t think he is close but does not belong in the hall. Thanks for doing all the hard work!
Ronaldo
were you born after 1980. You must have been. Juan Gon was full of Roids and you know it. He will never get even 2% ov the vote. Nor should he. Rice was a clean player did not even get messed up in th coke problems of the 70’s early 80’s see Parker ,Raines,Molitor,Eckersley,the list goes on and on. character should count when determining hall credentials. This is America and everyone deserves a second chance but tha fact is if you are borderline and made mistakes you should not get the nod over a player who was borderline and a solid citizen. All of the players mentioned attoned for their mistakes but in the case of Parker and Raines it may keep them out. By the way 14 out of 15 espn writers with a vote voted for Rice. One last barb. The red sox would of never traded Rice for Gossage straight up at any time during Rices tenure nor would they of made the trade for sutter.Both Hall of famers or soon to be.(ok i will give you 88 89 when rice was just about done. sutter was as well.)
Ken Big mac sacrificed his body for fame and the almighty dollar.
Bill Dewey should of received more votes then he did. He was an amazing defender and great hitter.
c morg – maybe he did, but what do i care if it helps the team win games? now that they test, i want my players clean cause i dont want them suspended, but when there wasnt, why shouldnt i still support them after they put their health on the line to increase production?
and who cares about players doing coke? honestly. thats like 1000th on my list of things to care about. the fact that raines sought treatment and got clean and is an example to others means is a plus if anything.
as for rice, i dont know much about him but the numbers, since i was born after 1980, so i guess that means i dont think he should be in the HOF. what i find odd tho, is that ever rice supporter seems to be from boston, while everyone saying he is good just doesnt make the cut, has no reason to be bias.
Repoz
Correct me if I am wrong but did you take into account Rices entire career and just Fred lynn prime 75-809His red rox therefore fenway years). I think that you did therefore working the #. You can not just count Lynns prime against Rices prime and decline That is not a fair assement. While teammates. Therefore playing the same schedule. Rices numbers crush those of lynns. 73 more runs,180 more hits,72 more hr,26 more triples,148 more rbi, and even 4 more sb. lynn hit more 2b 45. Rice even stayed healthy enough to play 100 more games. I know lynn played hard therefore wad injured often. He is my all time favorite player.But those injuries cost him a shot an the hall. Rice was the superior offensive player head to head when comparing their Fenway careers in the proper contex.
I guess it shouldn’t bother me so much, but more and more it seems as if the BBWA is no longer qualified to vote on the Hall of Fame. I really wish the HoF would completely revamp its election system…perhaps by having voters selected by more meritorious qualifications, as opposed to membership in a trade group. The current system was set up for a time when games weren’t on TV and stats weren’t easily accessible. It’s time for the Hall of Fame to catch up with the times.
Bob,
I don’t have a numeric answer for you, but your post made me think of the coming era when borderline guys hang around an extra year or two hoping to reach that minimum OPS threshold. Hah!
Bobby Swift,
That just about nailed it. Well said.
I agree that the HOF needs to catch up with the times. In a game that is so statistically based when valuing players achievements, does it really make sense to have people with a/an english/literature/whatever based skill set to determine the merits of entry into the HOF. I think that’s part of the problem that has come up with the internet, that analytical people in other careers have an avenue to do the statistical analysis, which they can do much, much better because they that’s their backround or skill set. And the writers (or at least most of them) can’t handle this because it seems that writing fluff columns for 10-20+ years really jacks up ones ego (re. Bill Conlin) so they stay in their same old, wrong ways of valuing players. The fact that the BBWAA didn’t allow in Neyer or Keith shows how far off they are with reality and the new approaches to baseball discussion.
Good to see a DJF in the mix. Nice.
Thanks John. I understand what you’re saying about English-types not being able to handle the mathematical heavy lifting required for statistical analysis, but not being able to do the actual calculations shouldn’t prevent anybody from being able to see the data and interpreting it rationally. I don’t really think you were exactly saying that anyway, but the thing about Conlin types isn’t necessarily that they don’t have the brain power to handle more intricate stats than they’re used to (though I might be willing to bet…), it’s more that they refuse to do it. Perhaps they figure it’s too late for them to embrace new ways of looking at the game. I imagine that for some people, especially those whose livelihood for decades has depended on their ability to analyse baseball, it’s got to be hard to come around to the idea that their whole careers are tied up in flawed statistics. That’s the kind of blow to the ego that a lot of people probably can’t handle– obviously. Anyway, considering the eligibility rules for Hall voters (10 years in the BBWAA), we’re still in for a long transition period as the dinosaur majority is slowly overtaken– hopefully that starts to happen in time for a deserving guy like Raines.
c morgan
“Rice was a clean player did not even get messed up in th coke problems of the 70’s early 80’s see Parker ,Raines,Molitor,Eckersley,the list goes on and on. character should count when determining hall credentials.”
1. One of the reasons Rice hasn’t made the HoF yet is because of his attitude with reporters of the time, who have HoF votes. Is a surly demeanor not part of your “character”, whatever the hell that means?
2. I’m not sure how you can say so confidently that Rice was a “clean player”, considering how ridiculously rampant amphetamines where in EVERY baseball clubhouse in the 70’s, 80’s, before, and after. Just because he didn’t take coke like Raines does not necessarily make him clean.
Perhaps The Beatles’ shouldn’t be in the R&R HoF because they took illegal drugs while writing/performing their music?
Yeah, I wasn’t indicating that they lack the brainpower but their job is to find and write good stories (not create new statistical analysis) and most seem threatened to accept new ideas that are from non-journalists. It doesn’t seem like it should be that difficult for writers to at least investigate the new stats that have been put out there and try to understand them. When you read stuff from, for example, Heyman at si.com that basically states that HOF credential should not be statistically based at all, they should lose credibility. And unfortunately since a guy like that is mainstream, the masses follow them.
Its like if I want to read a column that makes me feel like I went on a bender the night before, I go to your blog instead of keith’s. Doesn’t mean that Keith isn’t able to get drunk, but its not his strength. But he should be able to at least look at your columns and interpret accordingly.
I am old enough to have experienced, first hand, baseball in the 70’s and 80’s. I only lived in Boston long enough to attend college. There were many great MLB players from this era that fans enjoyed and Jim Rice was clearly one of the most dominant. He belongs in the HOF. In considering statistics, one I find compelling is that Jim Rice was valued enough to consistently be among the highest paid players during his career. I understand that this is not a definitive argument, but the fact is that roughly two thirds of HOF voters believe he is hall worthy. I find it challenging to track with critics who summarily dismiss Jim Rice.
A snapshot of 1988 Salaries
Rank Player Salary
1 Carter, Gary $ 2,360,714
2 Smith, Ozzie $ 2,340,000
3 Schmidt, Mike $ 2,250,000
4 Rice, Jim $ 2,214,865 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
5 Murray, Eddie $ 2,142,904
6 Brett, George $ 2,138,661
7 Sutcliffe, R $ 2,070,000
8 Valenzuela, F $ 2,050,000
9 Clark, Jack $ 2,000,000
10 Mattingly, D $ 2,000,000
11 Murphy, Dale $ 2,000,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
12 Morris, Jack $ 1,988,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
13 Winfield, Dave $ 1,983,652 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
14 Bell, George $ 1,900,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
15 Dawson, Andre $ 1,900,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
16 Hernandez, K $ 1,850,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
17 Gibson, Kirk $ 1,833,333 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
18 Lynn, Fred $ 1,790,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
19 Molitor, Paul $ 1,775,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
20 Henderson, R $ 1,770,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
21 Sutter, Bruce $ 1,729,167 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
22 Guerrero, P $ 1,720,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
23 Ripken Jr., C $ 1,710,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
24 Boggs, Wade $ 1,700,000 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
25 Raines Sr., T $ 1,666,333 Â
Based on your salary argument then Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton should be in as well. I’m sold.
I think the biggest thing the Rice arguments (for & against) bring up is that valuation of players has been flawed in the past by writers, GMs, and, as an extension of those, the general public. Thus, its no surprise that Rice backers can never bring up why he should be enshrined based on “new” stats, only on “old” ones, which have in many cases been proven to misjudge a players value. Example, if you took a poll of what 2+2 equals and 2/3 said 5 because the poll was taken at a concert and the majority of your focus group was an acid, that doesn’t necessarily make it so does it.
As the previous posts went into, just because the BBWAA by and large is too lazy/ignorant/unintelligent/biased/old or Conlin (new term, i advocate it becoming part of the baseball vernacular) to look at advanced methods of statistical analysis doesn’t mean that the new stats are irrelevant but that the HOF voting is flawed.
If any Rice support can show me rate stats that take into account park effects that show Rice to be a HOF, I’m/we’re all ears.
So, Rice got 72.2% of the vote, which seems to add up to him getting in next year on his 15th (and final) attempt.
Robert – is that a joke? Jason Giambi will make more than David Ortiz next year, by a lot, does that make him a better player? It’s not like the stock market, where price somewhat indicates value in ‘real time’. A player’s on field production is obviously only one of many factors that goes into determining his salary. You conveniently ignored a few little factors like ‘multi-year contracts’ and ‘MLB service time’.
In 1998 Rice hit 15 HRs in 485 ABs and put up a ‘monster’ line of .264/.330/.406. Clearly, though, his ‘intangibles’ led him to be the 4th most valuable player in the league. I mean, look at his salary.
You probably find it challenging to argue with critics of Rice’s candidacy because you are wrong and have to cherry-pick statistics, take them out of context, and misinterpret them completely in order to support his candidacy.
Whoah, now. There’s a big difference between English/Literature majors and Journalism majors. The two don’t even use the same style (MLA vs AP). The BBWAA folks everyone rails against are j school guys, mostly. And, for what I’ve seen as a comp professor, and habitual reader, j school kids, by and large, can’t write.
But, in any case, I wanted to address something C. Morgan said earlier nn in this light. regarding park effect…: Or why dont we put every player who had to play in the astrodome into the hall. It would actually be interesting to look at a player like Jimmy Wynn to see why C. Morgan just hurt his case for Rice. Look at Wynn’s stats in the Astrodome, a ballpark that was undeniably an awful hitter’s park. We all know that Fenway helped Rice quite a bit. And we all know that the Astrodome hurt Wynn quite a bit. Wynn hit in an even worse era for offense than Rice, and nobody cares a whit for his HOF candidacy. Look, Rice simply isn’t as good as folks thought he was. He played in a huge market, put up high counting stats for a few years, and coasted off of his reputation for a long time. Even a mindless backer like C. Morgan has to acknowledge that the press can do a tremendous amount to help or hurt a player’s reputation. Look at the case of Kirby Puckett Vs. Albert “Don’t Call Me Joey” Belle. Both were execrable wife beaters, with demons out the wazoo. One smiled a lot on the field, and the other threw things at fans. One made the HOF, one didn’t. And the one who didn’t actually put up much better numbers. Rice benefits more from the writer’s who worship his “most fearsome presence” than from any actual dominance. He was a great generational player. He was not an all-time great. He deserves a spot in our memories, but not in the HOF.
Only two typos in that post. I give myself a B+… Keith: your color scheme makes links blend in, and leads me to say that the look of this page is “all art, no function.” Maybe the green color to the right would be better for links…?
So how does your count compared to the actual vote?
120 votes counted, 546 votes total (22%)
Gossage: 90% vs. 86% actual (+4% difference)
Rice: 68% vs. 72% actual (-4% difference)
Blyleven: 66% vs. 62% actual (+4% difference)
Dawson: 66% vs. 66% actual (0% difference)
Morris: 48% vs. 43% actual (+5% difference)
Smith: 37% vs. 43% actual (-6% difference)
Raines: 35% vs. 24% actual (+11% difference)
McGwire: 24% vs. 24% actual (0% difference)
Trammell: 24% vs. 18% actual (+6% difference)
John: 18% vs. 29% actual (-11% difference)
Concepcion: 13% vs. 16% actual (-3% difference)
Murphy: 11% vs. 14% actual (-3% difference)
Parker: 9% vs. 15% actual (-6% difference)
Mattingly: 5% vs. 16% actual (-11% difference)
Baines: 3% vs. 5% actual (-2% difference)
Everybody else: 0% vs. 0% actual (0% difference)
So, would this difference stay about the same for future years? That’s a good question to examine for next year.
If I could cherry-pick one fact, it would be this. The minute the Red Sox hired Bill James they broke some “curse.” And have the mainstream media figure out the correlation.
Bobby Swift – I respect your point of view. My comment was intended to be anecdotal and compliment the information already presented here. It was not my intent to present an entire case for Jim Rice’s enshrinement. I followed your HSAC link and saw that you have a significant body of work to back up your assertions. I look forward to reading “Improving Major League Baseball Park Factor Estimates”.
Ken ” who cares about palyers doing coke” I am sure that you have do not kids. If you did you would not want their heroes and the people that they rightly or wrongly look up too getting busted for coke and or other drugs. Then again in this Britney world that we live in maybe no one cares anymore.
Rice bashers With Jim’s showing in the vote he is a lock for next year. What player are you going to focus you wrath on next? Dawson? Larkin?I guess the Rice 15 years on ballott has at least given fans something to talk about .
Robert – I’m sorry if I came off as hostile, this HOF stuff really gets to me. Salaries are actually something I have not seen discussed in this context. It is another interesting factor to look at. As for our Park Factors paper, it won’t be published until April, but you can read the current version of it on our site.
c morgan,
Dawson and definitely Larkin are much better candidates than Rice.
All you’ve shown is that you are biased. You want Rice in. Good for you. Every time he is compared to a non-Hall of Famer, you find some difference between the two that, in your mind, is the dividing line between HOF and not HOF. Every time a flaw in found in his stats, you dismiss it as irrelevant, no matter how justified you are in doing so.
It must be nice going through life without having to critically think. I’m jealous.
c morgan, i really don’t think your kids are looking up to Timmy Raines and if they are he’s probably a good example for rehabilitation anyway. that’s a pretty lame argument statement. He screwed up when he was 20 years old and overcame it to be a good member of society. And its baseball, most people in the HOF are f@ckups. Even clean looking white guys like Molitor were going the way of the white pony back then.
And for next year I will bash whichever candidates HOF credentials are completely bogus and consist of “fear” and other subjective measures that completely misrepresent a candidates value versus their actual performance. Basically candidates backed by writers with a conlin towards statistics. I look forward to it, this has been good times during some boring work days.
Kudos to c morgan for pulling out the “Will Someone Please Think of The Children” card.
Will
That is very funny. I actually was laughing when I typed it. You got me.
Ronaldo
we obviously will never see eye o eye on Rice. You stated your case I stated mine. I think that OPS+ is overhyped and other stats HR/RBI/AVG etc still are important. 10 years from now there will be a new stat formula thet will change the way we view players. You have to view players in the contex of the time in which they played. Certain stats were more important in the 70’s than they are today.Walks and obp were not as important when no one was going to knock you in anyway. Get your head out of the stats books and put the abacus down and enjoy the game.
And now we have the “People who actually understand statistics are all nerds who live in their garages and don’t watch/like baseball” card. Well played.
C Morgan, while your stance on Rice could be construed as admirable, your advice to Ronaldo and to other adherents of sabermetrics was off-base. Quite frankly, I believe these posters are enjoying the game. The difference being that unlike you, they appear to have a natural curiousity that goes beyond the writings of page 6. And I do believe there is a correlation between the success of the Red Sox and Bill James being on their payroll. Do you?
Bob
You can not argue with success. I am sure that James like everyone else on the payroll had had a hand in it. However I think that the majority of the success has to do with the red sox front office stressing the importance of building a strong pitiching staff. also being in the same division as the yanks has caused them to spend more and spending $ is no guarente of success but it can obviously help. In all fairness it was a different time in the 70s only 4 teams made the playoffs and a team could have a great year and have nothing to show for it. the red sox won 83,97,99,91 games in the years 76-79. in those years they did not qualify for post season play(unless you count the 1 game playoff in 78. By todays standards they certainly would have been a wild card team in at least two of those years and who knows what would of happened. marlins 03 red sox 04 wild card winners. cardinals 06 83 win(i think). Today rarely the best team in baseball wins. this years sox and the 2000 yanks are probly the only 2 best teams to do it this decade.
as for my stance on rice. I will never understand the complete cast off of the facts that he led his league in almost every category over a 12 year period.( i know i know splits and ops+ i stated my stance earlier and i dont expect you to buy it) when you combine both leagues he still is the leader or in the top 3 in almost EVERYTHING.also6 top 5 mvp voting. not to mention that he was durable and played hurt and played hard.no stat for that.also when asked players of his time think that he is a hofer. I know my views are not popular on this keith law (rice basher)post.
C Morgan, if I am correct the firing of Grady Little for having Pedro go beyond his pitch count in 2003, and the Nomar trade in 2004 were both products of viewing stats, and viewing them well, at least from the sox view.
BOB
It is all part of the mix. If you looked only at stats the yankee historic flop in 04 seemed impossible. It had never happened in baseball postseason history. You have to look past the stats sometimes.
C Morgan, one last post for you. I think what you are missing from most of the posts is that people understand where you are coming from because we’ve all been in your situation before we were introduced to and had a chance to understand the new statistics. And I think we are mainly trying to get you to convert or at least investigate them more heavily because they really do tell the better and more complete story.
Its similar to you only using an abacus (since you brought it up before) to solve a problem with only addition and subtraction, while the rest of us are using those methods in addition to multiplication, subtraction, and differential equations. in this hypothetical situation (this is not reflective of the current argument, but an analogy) you can come up with something using your more simplified methods, but it almost certainly won’t be as complete and in the end “correct” as the answer using all available methods and techniques. To ignore the more in-depth stats that taken into account everything going on (era, parks, competition, etc) is really just cheating yourself (sorry I love the “your cheating yourself” phrase).
Many sites and books are great for getting up to date on the latest statistical measures and why they do a better job of evaluating player performance. I urge you and hopefully all HOF backers and Jim Rice fan club members to take a look.
Addition to previous post, add the jack morris fan club to that as well as the anti-timmy raines contingent. Thanks.
John
I have read them and still am not sold. Stats do not tell the whole story and never will. But I appreciate the banter. One last thing off the rice subject(cooperstown lock for 09) any difference between catfish and tiant? I know that your god bill james loves that discussion.
ok c morgan, stats don’t tell the whole story, so what exactly did Rice do to overcome his mediocre stats?
Did his leadership take the Sox to a world championship? No.
Was he an ambassador to the game? No.
Did he have any specific defensive ability that wouldn’t show up in the stats? No.
Was he a good baserunner? God no.
Was he a good situational hitter that could do the little things, like move runners over? No.
What part of the story are the stats missing? Enlighten us.
Ronaldo
Sounds like I hit a nerve. Rice played hurt and always played hard. There is something to be said for showing up day in and day out.He worked hard to be decent outfielder. I have already stated his assist stats (which I am sure that you have completly thrown out because of Fenway). I think that his statement after missing out this year speaks to what kind of person that he is. No sour grapes,no crying look at me. The arguement that he never won the big one therefore he has not a leader is stupid. I guess ernie banks,craig biggio, yaz, williams,helton,etc.(dan marino if you want to talk football) had no leadership skills. It appears that you love doing research. So read howard bryants “shut out” maybe it will enlighten you to the part of the story that your selected stats are missing.
“Rice played hurt and always played hard. There is something to be said for showing up day in and day out.He worked hard to be decent outfielder”
That is NOT a HOF resume. I can’t possibly see how that could put someone over the top in your mind.
As for the “he never won the big one”, my point is, if you’re going to give someone extra credit for that, you have to show some evidence. You can’t just say he was a leader. I personally think that attributes like these are so vague and indefinable that we shouldn’t use them at all, or only in very extreme cases. If you can show me, somehow, that Rice was one of the great leaders in the history of baseball, I might be willing to listen. But his stats are so very marginal that being a good clubhouse guy isn’t nearly enough to put him over the top.
We are looking to put the best of the best into the Hall. Rice simply doesn’t belong there.
He showed up every day and played hard.
He worked hard to be a decent outfielder.
A leader.
The kind of person he is.
That’s part of a HOF resume?
You are better than that C Morgan.
Regarding stats, the beautiful thing about baseball is that it is a series of individual efforts and thus we can really create means of evaluating players. Stats aren’t the only thing but should be 90% of the discussion.
The funny thing about Rice is that 10 years ago, when we had very little access to advanced methods of evaluating players, he was still dog poo in terms of getting into the HOF. How we can now have better means of evaluating, which show Rice to be non-worthy of enshrinement, yet he may get in next year. Baffling. I guess the “fear” he struck into pitchers really went up in recent year.
Hopefully people like Keith and Joe get more face time like yesterday and change people’s opinions of Rice, Morris, Raines, Santo, and maybe even Bert. The baseball HOF is the elite of the elite, let’s keep it that way.
We agree to disagree. but read the book. I know that it will be tough it has words in it not just numbers. What other hof players would you remove Perez? Carter? cepeda? Sutton? niekro?perry?B williams?(my god he is not even the best williams. throw him out).Maz? Irvin?catfish?fisk?sutter?drysdale?everyone voted in by the veterans? It would make for a very boring hall.luckly the voters feel the same and they are in. What I dont also understand is why backers of dawson,raines, blyleven,morris,rice attack each other . It is not a either or debate. Each one deserves induction. Are they the “best of The best”maybe not. Sometimes they were not even the best player on their own teams. but they defined an era and would make my hall of fame. I think that there is room for each. It appears that rice is in next year “simply doesn’t belong” or not.Dawson and blyleven with their momentum in 2010. Raines will have to wait about 12 years(thats a joke.He sould be in today).And life will go on. The self appointed guardians of the hall will have to deal.
(I hope that it is not lost in translation that I have enjoyed the debate and that my barbs are not ment to be personal.)
john
kieth yesterday also stated that steroids and peds do not help a player to become a better player. steroids and ped’s make you stronger thus inhancing your preformance.If strength (not to mention the recovery benefits) that these drugs bring dont help 1)why do the players use ( I think that a player know his body better and the effect that that they have better than any stat geek. 2) if strength does not matter why would any player work out at all.(i hope we can agree that these drugs can increase strength).Therefore if they increase strength they increase preformance.
as far is joe is concerned (i think he was the guy in the espn discussion with tim k.and steve p. If he feels that the numbers do not support Rice fine. But dont be a complete fool and say that jim had 2 good years on national tv. He said that rice 2 good seasons were 78 and 86. Come on even if you hate rice you cant honestly say that he had only 2 hof seasons. splits or no splits fenway or no fenway he had 3 years in a row with 200 hits and 35 hr and an avg over .300 to say he only had 2 good seasons is a joke. No more air time for that clown.