Does Jim Rice get in this year?

[Brooklyn]

I'm not asking if you think he deserves it, that has been debated frequently.

The question is if you think he is going to get in to the Hall in his 15th and final shot on the writer's ballot.

[SamtheBravesFan]

My gut says he will, so I think "yes". That's really all I can say.

[Mongoose]

I think the relentless lobbying will finally work, even though Rice really doesn't belong.

My question is: will his nickname be etched on the plaque like that of so many other Hall of Famers?

Denton True "Cy" Young
George Herman "Babe" Ruth
James Edward "6-4-3" Rice

That's what the Boston fans used to chant while waiting for him to ground into another double play.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My gut says he will, so I think "yes". That's really all I can say.

Your gut is supported by history.



Jim RiceYear Votes PCT
1995 137 29.8%
1996 166 35.3%
1997 178 37.6%
1998 203 42.9%
1999 146 29.4%
2000 257 51.5%
2001 298 57.9%
2002 260 55.1%
2003 259 52.2%
2004 276 54.5%
2005 307 59.5%
2006 337 64.8%
2007 346 63.5%
2008 392 72.2%

Rice started out in HOF voting in 1995 at 29.8% of the BBWAA vote. He jumped to 35 percent in 1996, 37 percent in 1997, and 42.9 percent in 1998, before dropping to 29.4% in 1999.

I view the 1999 result as an aberration caused by the McGwire/Sosa HR duel. The feats of these two guys made Rice's career seem less impressive, and his vote total took a sudden dip. He would recover in 2000, breaking the 50 percent mark (51.5%). He would build on this steadily, breaking the 60 percent mark in 2006 (64.8%), solidifying this gain in support in 2007 (63.5% in a year where Ripken and Gwynn were on the ballor for the first time), and jumping to 72.7 percent in 2008. There is no question but that Rice has solidified a base of support for his HOF candidacy

Let's look at some other close calls that didn't get in:


Nellie FoxYear Votes PCT
1971 39 10.8%
1972 64 16.2%
1973 73 19.2%
1974 79 21.6%
1975 76 21%
1976 174 44.8%
1977 152 39.7%
1978 149 39.3%
1979 174 40.3%
1980 161 41.8%
1981 168 41.9%
1982 127 30.6%
1983 173 46.3%
1984 246 61%
1985 295 74.7%



Gil HodgesYear Votes PCT
1969 82 24.1%
1970 145 48.3%
1971 180 50%
1972 161 40.7%
1973 218 57.4%
1974 198 54.2%
1975 188 51.9%
1976 233 60.1%
1977 224 58.5%
1978 226 59.6%
1979 242 56%
1980 230 59.7%
1981 241 60.1%
1982 205 49.4%
1983 237 63.4%


Both of these guys came close, but didn't make it (although Fox was later tapped for the HOF by the VC). Rice's standing is better than both Hodges and Fox going into his last year of eligibility. Rice has a much more solidified base of support than Fox (who didn't even break 50% until his next to last year). Hodges had much more solid support than did Fox, but not at as high a level; he topped out at 63.4%. Hodges' support had solidified at about a 60 percent level; that would require a 15% jump in support for Hodges to get in. Rice's support has solidified at AT LEAST a 65% level; that would require only a 10% jump to get in. Then, too, neither Fox nor Hodges broke 70% having eligibility left.

The presence of "first ballot HOFers" on the HOF ballot does affect voting. There was no such candidate in 2008, so Rice made a great leap forward. That's not the case in 2009; Rickey Henderson will be on the ballot, and he will walk right in. Bert Blyleven will also be on the ballot, and while has has another year to go beyond Rice, he is more highly regarded in some quarters than is Rice. Blyleven has what Rice has going for him; an awareness on the part of the BBWAA that it's "now or never" time with his candidacy.

Despite the presence of Blyleven and Henderson, I say Rice gets in. Henderson is a first-ballot HOFer, but he has his detractors, so he won't overshadow the field as much as, say, Ripken did. And while it's ALMOST now-or-never time for Blyleven, it's zero hour for Rice, and the BBWAA is aware of this. Lastly, the steroid thing is working in Rice's favor; he hit HRs without PEDs, and this makes it for the S. S. S. (Super Sanctimonious Sportswriter) contingent in the BBWAA. Rice's election is likely; there would be no precedent for any player coming this close with eligibility left only to fall short. I don't think Rice is going to be the first exception.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think the relentless lobbying will finally work, even though Rice really doesn't belong.

My question is: will his nickname be etched on the plaque like that of so many other Hall of Famers?

Denton True "Cy" Young
George Herman "Babe" Ruth
James Edward "6-4-3" Rice

That's what the Boston fans used to chant while waiting for him to ground into another double play.

I don't see Rice's election as a case of relentless lobbying. Rice was considered a superstar while active; it was his early flameout (due to eye problems) and his BA dropping under .300 lifetime that took some of the sparkle off his HOF case.

I'm not a big fan of Rice's HOF case. His Offensive Winning Percentage for his career was only .627, and although it was probably in the .660 range if you took out his last 3 years, that's still not overwhelming for a corner outfielder with a short career. I would not support him for the HOF.

But he's going to get in. At least I BELIEVE he will get in this year. I can't emphasize enough that given the degree to which he has steadily built his base of support with the BBWAA, coupled with the fact that this is his LAST year of eligibility, I believe that Rice will increase his support to where he will (deservedly or not) break the 75% barrier, if only by a few votes, and be elected to the HOF.

[henrich]

LF Henderson 15,519
LF Rice Jim 11,347

How long has it been since a LF has been inducted. The strongest players from this field are Rose (if that's where you put him), Henderson, and Rice. The problem with Rice this year is exactly what Fuzzy pointed out that many sportswriters like some superstars to stand alone, that would be henderson this year. My hope is the S.S.S. as previously stated helps him more than the lone stage hurts him.

I thought Blyleven had more than 2 years of eligibility left. I'll have to look that up. Blyleven is the biggest oversight in all of the Hall of fame voting history and that should be rectified as well.

Dawson is also on this ballot as is Lee Smith and Jack Morris.

Newcomer Matt Williams should get some votes as well-he plays an underrepresented position and he wasn't bad. I put him in the Santo, Boyer category, though that may hurt him to be grouped with them if the writers share this opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

LF Henderson 15,519
LF Rice Jim 11,347

How long has it been since a LF has been inducted. The strongest players from this field are Rose (if that's where you put him), Henderson, and Rice. The problem with Rice this year is exactly what Fuzzy pointed out that many sportswriters like some superstars to stand alone, that would be henderson this year. My hope is the S.S.S. as previously stated helps him more than the lone stage hurts him.

What will help Rice, IMO, is the astonishing stupidity of some sportwriters. There are actually some sportswriters who view Henderson a non-superstar who "hung on to get 3,000 hits and the steals record". Amazing, but true.

Henderson's hanging on well into his forties, while a sign of ability retention, does diminish his image with the BBWAA somewhat. Rice is the beneficiary of that diminishment.

[henrich]

I hope your right Fuzzy. I want nothing more than a Rice selection and then next year give me Andre and Bert.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I hope your right Fuzzy. I want nothing more than a Rice selection and then next year give me Andre and Bert.

I'm not a Rice man, personally, but I won't be bent out of shape when (and I do believe it's "when") he goes into the Hall.

There is, IMO, something wrong with Rice going in if Allen and Belle are still out.

[henrich]

LF Rice 11,347
LF Belle 8686
1B Allen 9030

My numbers don't support that opinion, but I do recognize that both Belle and Allen were quality players and it wouldn't break my heart if both Belle and Allen got in some day.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I'm not a Rice man, personally, but I won't be bent out of shape when (and I do believe it's "when") he goes into the Hall.

There is, IMO, something wrong with Rice going in if Allen and Belle are still out.

I'm almost certain that Rice will get in this year. The "last year on the ballot effect" should give him more than the necessary boost in votes to get him in. I'd vote for Allen and Belle myself, but both of them will have a hard time ever getting in. Voters traditionally show no mercy on guys with surly reputations who aren't slam-dunk candidates. You can't rightly argue against Cobb or Hornsby, but when Belle retires prematurely due to injury, that's all the voters need to keep him out. Rice wasn't loved by the media either, but he certainly wasn't in the Belle/Allen category. If those two could've toned it down just a little, maybe they'd be viewed differently. Though they were both troubled, I don't think either of them were terrible guys, they just didn't care to court the media and smile for the camera like some of the other jerks in baseball history were willing to do.

[mwiggins]

I think Rice will most likely get in this year. I wouldn't vote for him, but I don't really have a problem with him making it. He certainly won't be the least deserving player elected this decade by the BWAA.

[mwiggins]

Voters traditionally show no mercy on guys with surly reputations who aren't slam-dunk candidates.

It'll be interesting to see how they treat Sheffield and Manny when they're on the ballot. They should be slam-dunk candidates, but you never know.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It'll be interesting to see how they treat Sheffield and Manny when they're on the ballot. They should be slam-dunk candidates, but you never know.


Sheffield and Manny will both have 500 HRs, and good batting averages. There would be no precedent for keeping either player out of the HOF.

[jjpm74]

Sheffield and Manny will both have 500 HRs, and good batting averages. There would be no precedent for keeping either player out of the HOF.

Sheffield had 2 peaks and is a prime candidate for PEDs usage. That seems to be taking its toll in HOF elections and may impede Sheffield's chances.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sheffield had 2 peaks and is a prime candidate for PEDs usage. That seems to be taking its toll in HOF elections and may impede Sheffield's chances.

Sheffield won't be a first-ballot pick, but the BBWAA will eventually come around.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

It'll be interesting to see how they treat Sheffield and Manny when they're on the ballot. They should be slam-dunk candidates, but you never know.

Manny will get elected with very little resistance. He may have to settle for 85% of the vote instead of the 95% that players of his caliber typically command, but I predict he'll be a first ballot HOFer. Sheffield will have HOF numbers, but he's a prime PED suspect. Until there is more of a precedent than just Mark McGwire, I can't say how Sheffield will be treated.

[gwynnfan]

IMO, besides not getting along with the sports writers. If he did not play his last year and retired with .300 batting average he would have got in a long time ago.
For the first 12 years out of his 15 he was one of the most feared hitters in baseball.
8 x's Allstar
MVP + 7x's top 5's
2 Silver Slugger
1st AVG 6 x's top 7 average
3 x's 1st HRs 7 x's top 10
2 1st RBIs 7 x's top 5
1 1st hits 8 x's top 10
2 1st 6 x's top 2 slugging 9 top 10
8 x's top 10 runs
4 x's 1st 9 x's top 7 total bases


In his era how many played better than that thats not in the HALL?

[mwiggins]

IMO, besides not getting along with the sports writers. If he did not play his last year and retired with .300 batting average he would have got in a long time ago.
For the first 12 years out of his 15 he was one of the most feared hitters in baseball.
8 x's Allstar
MVP + 7x's top 5's
2 Silver Slugger
1st AVG 6 x's top 7 average
3 x's 1st HRs 7 x's top 10
2 1st RBIs 7 x's top 5
1 1st hits 8 x's top 10
2 1st 6 x's top 2 slugging 9 top 10
8 x's top 10 runs
4 x's 1st 9 x's top 7 total bases


In his era how many played better than that thats not in the HALL?

This has been done to death, but...

Forget his era, how 'bout just his team.

Dwight Evans - 8 time GG, 3 time All-Star 127 OPS+, .646 OWP, in 10,569 PA's
Jim Rice - 0 GG's, 8 time All-Star, 128 OPS+, .627 OWP, in 9058 PA's
Fred Lynn - 4 GG's, 9 time All-Star, 129 OPS+, .648 OWP, in 7923 PA's

I would say Evans is easily more worthy than Rice. Lynn's also probably got a better case, but I wouldn't put him in the Hall either. Lynn also vastly out performed Rice in the post season. .407/.450/.593 in 15 games for Lynn, .225/.313/.366 in 18 games for Rice. He was also a GG winning CF, not a poor fielding LF.

Rice was certainly more feared, but even as a kid back in the early 80's I understood that Evans was the better all-around player. And when Lynn was healthy he was often the better player, too. See 1975 & 1979 for the best examples of that.

[gwynnfan]

This has been done to death, but...

Forget his era, how 'bout just his team.

Dwight Evans - 8 time GG, 3 time All-Star 127 OPS+, .646 OWP, in 10,569 PA's
Jim Rice - 0 GG's, 8 time All-Star, 128 OPS+, .627 OWP, in 9058 PA's
Fred Lynn - 4 GG's, 9 time All-Star, 129 OPS+, .648 OWP, in 7923 PA's

I would say Evans is easily more worthy than Rice. Lynn's also probably got a better case, but I wouldn't put him in the Hall either. Lynn also vastly out performed Rice in the post season. .407/.450/.593 in 15 games for Lynn, .225/.313/.366 in 18 games for Rice. He was also a GG winning CF, not a poor fielding LF.

Rice was certainly more feared, but even as a kid back in the early 80's I understood that Evans was the better all-around player. And when Lynn was healthy he was often the better player, too. See 1975 & 1979 for the best examples of that.

They definitely had one of the top outfields for a stretch I have seen. 75 to 80 they were great. I watch them growing up in Boston. I had a Rice and Evans bat. My Dad worked the Police detail in the dugout. I have played golf with both of them, you should see Rice hit a driver. But Evans was a solid hitter but did not have the avg or slg Rice did. He had one the best arms I have personally seen. Lynn was a solid hitter too but only in Boston. He hit like 40 HR one year then went to the Angels and thought he could do it all the time. kind of became average after that.

[mwiggins]

But Evans was a solid hitter but did not have the avg or slg Rice did. He had one the best arms I have personally seen. .

True, but Rice didn't have the OBP that Evans did. Evans was a different kind of hitter, but he was just as productive, over a significantly longer career. And Rice wasn't nearly the defensive player that Evans was.

[jaxxr]

Among countless stats, numbers, awards, league leading performances, the following is a pretty good indicator,

Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, only nine other completely retired ballplayers rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average. They are: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The only way Rice does not get in this year is if there are multiple first-year locks. That's how Jim Bunning did not get voted in after coming so close with a couple years left, he took a back seat to Bench and Yaz in 1989 and Morgan and Palmer in 1990. Rickey Henderson obviously will get in, probably clearing 95% because of all the records he held. Rice will clear 80%.

You can argue day and night he doesn't belong or he does. His election is imminent.

[gwynnfan]

If 15 years is not long enough to play compared to Reggies 21 here are some season average #s

Jim Rice
36 pts higher average, 42 more hits, 2 more dbl, 3 more trpl, 2 less hrs, 15 more RBIs, 39 less strike outs, 12 pts higher slugging, 42 more total base
Pretty dominate stats over Reggie.


career totals per season ( don't forget Reggie has 6 more season to achieve )
of standard marks of strong seasons in each category.

............................. Reggie Jackson...............Jim Rice

+280 avg seasons............... 5.............................11
+300 avg seasons................0.......................... ....7
+160 hits............................0................. .............9
+200 hits............................0................. .............4
+100 runs...........................1.................. ............3
+100 RBIs...........................6.................. ............8
+25 dbls.............................9................ ..............8
+5 triples...........................1...(6)......... ...............6...( 15 2 x's )
+35 home runs....................4...( high 47 )..............4...( high 46 )
+60 extra base hits............. 6...............................7
+300 total bases.................3........................... ....6
+350 total bases.................0........................... ....3
+400 total bases.................0........................... ....1
+ 100 strike outs................18...(14 xs top 5 ).........6
+130 strike outs.................10..(league leader 5 x's)..0
MVP awards.......................1.................... ............1
top 5 MVPs........................5..................... ...........6
led league in rbi
avg,hr,slg,tb,xbh................12............... ...............19

[mwiggins]

If 15 years is not long enough to play compared to Reggies 21 here are some season average #s

Jim Rice
36 pts higher average, 42 more hits, 2 more dbl, 3 more trpl, 2 less hrs, 15 more RBIs, 39 less strike outs, 12 pts higher slugging, 42 more total base
Pretty dominate stats over Reggie.




He also has dominate stats over Clemente on a per season basis. 14 more HR's, 27 pts higher slugging, 21 more total bases, 26 more RBI.

And over Ty Cobb...24 more HR's, 10 more RBI, 8 more total bases,

[parlo]

If 15 years is not long enough to play compared to Reggies 21 here are some season average #s

Jim Rice
36 pts higher average, 42 more hits, 2 more dbl, 3 more trpl, 2 less hrs, 15 more RBIs, 39 less strike outs, 12 pts higher slugging, 42 more total base
Pretty dominate stats over Reggie.


career totals per season ( don't forget Reggie has 6 more season to achieve )
of standard marks of strong seasons in each category.

............................. Reggie Jackson...............Jim Rice

+280 avg seasons............... 5.............................11
+300 avg seasons................0.......................... ....7
+160 hits............................0................. .............9
+200 hits............................0................. .............4
+100 runs...........................1.................. ............3
+100 RBIs...........................6.................. ............8
+25 dbls.............................9................ ..............8
+5 triples...........................1...(6)......... ...............6...( 15 2 x's )
+35 home runs....................4...( high 47 )..............4...( high 46 )
+60 extra base hits............. 6...............................7
+300 total bases.................3........................... ....6
+350 total bases.................0........................... ....3
+400 total bases.................0........................... ....1
+ 100 strike outs................18...(14 xs top 5 ).........6
+130 strike outs.................10..(league leader 5 x's)..0
MVP awards.......................1.................... ............1
top 5 MVPs........................5..................... ...........6
led league in rbi
avg,hr,slg,tb,xbh................12............... ...............19There are so many flaws with your argument, that I don't know where to begin.
I think Rice will get in this year, but I disagree strongly with your post.
You ignore parks, and also attempt to emphasis Jacksons flaws and compare them to Rices strengths. Also, since Reggie played into his 40s, his season averages are going to include more declining years. Season averages almost always favor a shorter career.

You also decide to focus on +5 triples, but conveniently omit BBs and OBP.
I could go on for an hour, but its late,.....and I am going to bed.

[parlo]

He also has dominate stats over Clemente on a per season basis. 14 more HR's, 27 pts higher slugging, 21 more total bases, 26 more RBI.

And over Ty Cobb...24 more HR's, 10 more RBI, 8 more total bases,Clemente and Cobb are not in the HOF because of their HRs and Slugging Percentages!!!!! You are comparing apples to oranges.

[gwynnfan]

There are so many flaws with your argument, that I don't know where to begin.
I think Rice will get in this year, but I disagree strongly with your post.
You ignore parks, and also attempt to emphasis Jacksons flaws and compare them to Rices strengths. Also, since Reggie played into his 40s, his season averages are going to include more declining years. Season averages almost always favor a shorter career.

You also decide to focus on +5 triples, but conveniently omit BBs and OBP.
I could go on for an hour, but its late,.....and I am going to bed.

I mentioned triples because its part of slugging and of course you would have less doubles if you have more triples. How do you state the I focused on Rices strengths. I used all hitting categories. About playing into Reggies 40's did you not noticed all also put in how many seasons that each one of them reached what people consider to be strong production in each offensive hitting category. OBTW, Rice OBP .352 Reggie .356.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Clemente and Cobb are not in the HOF because of their HRs and Slugging Percentages!!!!! You are comparing apples to oranges.

I think he's pointing out the ridiculousness of pick and choose candidate advocacy.

[mwiggins]

Clemente and Cobb are not in the HOF because of their HRs and Slugging Percentages!!!!! You are comparing apples to oranges.

So is comparing the raw hitting stats of a guy who played his home games in Fenway in the mid-70's to early-80's to a guy who played many of his best seasons in Oakland in the late-60's to early-70's. And so is comparing the seasonal averages of a guy who played 15 years to a guy who played 21 years and had a long decline.

The guy could make the same comparison, using seasonal averages, to prove that Dante Bichette was nearly as good as Jim Rice. And that Todd Helton was better than Willie Mays.

[parlo]

I think he's pointing out the ridiculousness of pick and choose candidate advocacy.Thank You!!!
Upon further review, I agree. I am a little slow at things sometimes. Especially when I am up past my bedtime.:nosleep:

[parlo]

So is comparing the raw hitting stats of a guy who played his home games in Fenway in the mid-70's to early-80's to a guy who played many of his best seasons in Oakland in the late-60's to early-70's. And so is comparing the seasonal averages of a guy who played 15 years to a guy who played 21 years and had a long decline.

The guy could make the same comparison, using seasonal averages, to prove that Dante Bichette was nearly as good as Jim Rice. And that Todd Helton was better than Willie Mays.I agree!!! Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

[curveball]

If 15 years is not long enough to play compared to Reggies 21 here are some season average #s

Jim Rice
36 pts higher average, 42 more hits, 2 more dbl, 3 more trpl, 2 less hrs, 15 more RBIs, 39 less strike outs, 12 pts higher slugging, 42 more total base
Pretty dominate stats over Reggie.


career totals per season ( don't forget Reggie has 6 more season to achieve )
of standard marks of strong seasons in each category.

............................. Reggie Jackson...............Jim Rice

+280 avg seasons............... 5.............................11
+300 avg seasons................0.......................... ....7
+160 hits............................0................. .............9
+200 hits............................0................. .............4
+100 runs...........................1.................. ............3
+100 RBIs...........................6.................. ............8
+25 dbls.............................9................ ..............8
+5 triples...........................1...(6)......... ...............6...( 15 2 x's )
+35 home runs....................4...( high 47 )..............4...( high 46 )
+60 extra base hits............. 6...............................7
+300 total bases.................3........................... ....6
+350 total bases.................0........................... ....3
+400 total bases.................0........................... ....1
+ 100 strike outs................18...(14 xs top 5 ).........6
+130 strike outs.................10..(league leader 5 x's)..0
MVP awards.......................1.................... ............1
top 5 MVPs........................5..................... ...........6
led league in rbi
avg,hr,slg,tb,xbh................12............... ...............19



I think there was a lot of cherry picking going on here. In stats that really matter,


Player (Top 10) Slugging OPS Adj OPS+

Rice ------------8-------6------5---
Jackson---------12-----10-----11--

Player (Titles) Slugging OPS Adj OPS+

Rice------------2--------1------1---
Jackson--------3--------2------4---

[AstrosFan]

I wonder, if Rice does get in, considering all the controversy he causes as a HOF candidate, will he be viewed as one of the worst Hall of Famers? And would Rice's induction open the doors for other similar players (not thinking of anyone in particular)?

Edit: When I say "worst Hall of Famers", I mean by more stat-oriented people, like myself. I should have clarified that earlier. Sorry.

[mwiggins]

I wonder, if Rice does get in, considering all the controversy he causes as a HOF candidate, will he be viewed as one of the worst Hall of Famers? And would Rice's induction open the doors for other similar players (not thinking of anyone in particular)?

Edit: When I say "worst Hall of Famers", I mean by more stat-oriented people, like myself. I should have clarified that earlier. Sorry.

His case is so well known and has been debated so much that I'm sure his name will come up a lot when the "worst" are discussed. But rationally, he's going to be FAR from the very worst. And he's not completely out of whack from recent HoF selections, like some of the early 70's selections. And with Catfish and Suter in the Hall, he won't stand out as the worst from his era.

[parlo]

I wonder, if Rice does get in, considering all the controversy he causes as a HOF candidate, will he be viewed as one of the worst Hall of Famers? And would Rice's induction open the doors for other similar players (not thinking of anyone in particular)?

Edit: When I say "worst Hall of Famers", I mean by more stat-oriented people, like myself. I should have clarified that earlier. Sorry.I don't really see it as a "controversy". I simply think Rice is a borderline candidate, and this is what happens in those cases.
With that being said, I have no problem with him being elected. His career numbers may not be spectacular, but he was arguably the premier player of the late 1970s. Many in the HOF can't make a similar claim.

[AstrosFan]

I think the word controversy is appropriate here, because fans argue more about Rice than any other player when it comes to who belongs in the Hall, near as I can tell. I understand your point, but I think "controversy" is okay to use in this case.

[gwynnfan]

I don't think Rice is the best player ever. By my problem is more how sports writers etc vote. When Ripkin and Gwynn did not get votes, people gave reasons like if Willy Mays didn't get 100% no one should. What does how many votes Mays got have to do with your opinion if someone played well enough to get in. Voters said that I will not vote for anyone in the steriod era. Gwynn went from I guy who stole 50 bases to what he looked like when he finished. Does anyone really think that was from steroids. Obviously I am a Gwynn fan but how could someone vote for Ripkin and not for Gwynn. If you are one of the best hitters for 20 straight years and 5 Gold Gloves. You got my vote. Does anyone really feel that Carton Fisk doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame? How could over 20% of the voters not vote for him? What happens when Greg Maddux and Ivan Rodriguez become eligible?

If a voter does not vote for either one of them should they get their voting privileges revoked?

[Dodgerfan1]

If Jim Rice is elected to the HOF, he may just be the second-best player named Rice thus inducted. I have very mixed feelings about him. Jim Rice struck out too often for me. I know that doesn't matter to some people, so long as he hit home runs, but it does to me. The second half of his career was good but marred by his hitting into many double plays, and the fact that he struck out a lot makes his 'out production' even higher. It tends to suggest he killed almost as many rallies as he may have started. He had an outrageous year in 1978. Good SA and OBP and a good peak are his best bets for induction, IMO.

I'm on the fence with Rice. Is he among baseball's all-time greats? No way. Was the Hall of Fame created to induct only the all-time greats of the game? Yes.

Jim Rice is not a HOFer in my opinion. The bar has been lowered for induction, however, and it's likely he will be enshrined before long. I don't have a huge problem with his induction, however it paves the way for others who may not be worthy like Garvey, Mattingly and Will Clark. Clark and Mattingly had great peaks but are undeserving while Garvey had a very good steady career but is equally undeserving.

Oh well. What do I know?

[parlo]

I think the word controversy is appropriate here, because fans argue more about Rice than any other player when it comes to who belongs in the Hall, near as I can tell. I understand your point, but I think "controversy" is okay to use in this case.Fair enough.
I think his career matches up pretty well with Cepeda (not just because of their BR similarity scores). And I don't recall a lot of outrage over his election, and I don't think Cepeda is the worst choice. I guess we will see!

BTW- I read your article, and have read one or two previously. I liked it. Rough year for the Padres, and 2009 doesn't look much better.

[gwynnfan]

My point is Reggie got 93% vote first shot out. Rice got 1/2 up to 2/3 of the votes as the years past. Did he get better in those years? Did the steroid case help him, maybe. But players get elected because who is on the ballot. There are no strong names on the ballot until the more controversial names in 2013 like Bonds, Sosa and Clemens. Piazza will be the easiest pick in 5 years. Does Lofton than get in so they can hold a ceremony? There could there be no one elected til Piazza? This will also make the case for Maddux to be the first 100% guy after having no one to vote for unless I missed someone. Answer me this.. If Maddux comes back for 1 more and Smoltz, Glavine, Ramirez gets fed up , Ivan Rodriguez. Jeter gets hurt, Frank Thomas, Schilling tries one more, Randy Johnson, Hoffman, Pedro Martinez, Omar Vizquel, Andy Petitte, Jeff Kent, Jim Edmunds, Moises Alou, Jim Thome, Mariano Rivera, Billy Wagner, Mike Mussina, Ken Griffey Jr, Gary Sheffield all play there last season next year.

Those maybe not all likely but certainly possible names for 2014. Does that mean only 3 of them get in. I am not making the case for all of them or even half of them. Just simple stating if a class like that all come out at once ( or in a 2 year span ) there is no way that people are going to vote for a player first time out because there are way too many names. So if you leave someone off their first year of eligibility because there are better players on the list. Is that not a slap in the face by voting for them the next year. Saying you were good but not really good enough. Then why vote for them the second time out. What changed in that year to make them a better player. More interesting times are going to come! The voting process and especially the people who allowed to vote need to be addressed.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I wonder, if Rice does get in, considering all the controversy he causes as a HOF candidate, will he be viewed as one of the worst Hall of Famers? And would Rice's induction open the doors for other similar players (not thinking of anyone in particular)?

Edit: When I say "worst Hall of Famers", I mean by more stat-oriented people, like myself. I should have clarified that earlier. Sorry.

If Rice is elected, he won't be the worst OF in the Hall. Arguably, he could be considered on par, or better than any of the following corner outfielders:

Kiki Cuyler
Chick Hafey (What on earth is this man doing in the HOF!)
Joe Kelley
Heinie Manush
Harry Hooper
Tommy McCarthy
Sam Rice
Enos Slaughter
Ross Youngs (Another bad choice)

So by no means would Rice be the worst player in the Hall at his position. I would argue the bar is not lowered by his selection. But had Rice put up those stats through the bulk of the 90's into the 21st century, I would be more fervently opposed to his selection.

[STLCards2]

If Rice is elected, he won't be the worst OF in the Hall. Arguably, he could be considered on par, or better than any of the following corner outfielders:

Kiki Cuyler
Chick Hafey (What on earth is this man doing in the HOF!)
Joe Kelley
Heinie Manush
Harry Hooper
Tommy McCarthy
Sam Rice
Enos Slaughter
Ross Youngs (Another bad choice)

So by no means would Rice be the worst player in the Hall at his position. I would argue the bar is not lowered by his selection. But had Rice put up those stats through the bulk of the 90's into the 21st century, I would be more fervently opposed to his selection.

Slaughter seems a step above the rest of these guys, but this is a good comp group to Rice. You are correct that Rice will be far from the worst player in the HOF, but he will be up there as one of the worst BBWAA selections. That needs to be distinguished.

[gwynnfan]

Slaughter seems a step above the rest of these guys, but this is a good comp group to Rice. You are correct that Rice will be far from the worst player in the HOF, but he will be up there as one of the worst BBWAA selections. That needs to be distinguished.

I see that you placed Maddux, Johnson and Pedro in your top 11 alltime. can you see any reason why these 3 don't get 100% vote?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I wonder, if Rice does get in, considering all the controversy he causes as a HOF candidate, will he be viewed as one of the worst Hall of Famers? And would Rice's induction open the doors for other similar players (not thinking of anyone in particular)?

Edit: When I say "worst Hall of Famers", I mean by more stat-oriented people, like myself. I should have clarified that earlier. Sorry.

No. If Rice gets inducted, he won't be among the worst HOFers, and I don't imagine he'll be viewed as such, even by stat-oriented fans. Stats, especially sabermetric ones, are the main reason Rice has sparked so much debate. I don't think that HOF candidates/inductees were as hotly debated in past eras because people didn't have easy access to very many stats. If a famous player got inducted, people were naturally okay with it. If an obscure player got inducted, no one could easily point to why it was a mistake. Now fans have loads of stats at their fingertips. Not only can they use them to evaluate current candidates, they can use them to evaluate past inductees. They have done this and determined which ones were bad selections, and they don't want to see something like that happen again. That is why Rice's critics are so vocal. If pressed, though, I don't think any of them would call him worse than everyone currently in the HOF.

Would Rice's induction open the doors for other lesser candidates? That depends on what you mean. Someone with Rice's traditional stats (sub .300 average, fewer than 400 homers, etc.) who peaked in the late 90s or early 2000s wouldn't stand a chance unless they were a catcher/middle infielder. If you adjust for era, someone of Rice's caliber may be inducted in the future, but I don't think it will be based on Rice's induction opening the door for them.

[STLCards2]

I see that you placed Maddux, Johnson and Pedro in your top 11 alltime. can you see any reason why these 3 don't get 100% vote?

All it takes is for one voter for each to:

1. Feel "if Ruth, Mays, etc. didn't get 100%, nobody should."
2. Think 300 wins is important enough to not vote for Pedro.
3. Place a protest vote - not vote for anybody during the "steroid era" since it is "impossible to tell who is or is not guilty"
4. Personaly dislike Pedro, Johnson, etc. "They will get in, but I will vote against them to show I dislike them, etc.
5. Some other strange, barely comprehensible reason.

I would be shocked if at least one of these things did not occur to all of them.

[gwynnfan]

All it takes is for one voter for each to:

1. Feel "if Ruth, Mays, etc. didn't get 100%, nobody should."
2. Think 300 wins is important enough to not vote for Pedro.
3. Place a protest vote - not vote for anybody during the "steroid era" since it is "impossible to tell who is or is not guilty"
4. Personaly dislike Pedro, Johnson, etc. "They will get in, but I will vote against them to show I dislike them, etc.
5. Some other strange, barely comprehensible reason.

I would be shocked if at least one of these things did not occur to all of them.

I agree, but does it make it right. I tend to look at 10 year spans. If they were consistently one of the best in baseball for 10 years I think they deserve it. If I was to start a franchise I would pick Ozzie Smith over Cal Ripken. Ozzie only got 91% of the vote. That would not stop me for voting for Ripkin. But I still think that the people who don't vote for such obvious selections should have to make a valid baseball argument why they didn't vote for someone. or they should have their voting rights removed. It supposed to be about the player elected not the guys who do the voting. These are supposed to be top baseball people. Have you ever heard of anyone ever arguing that Ozzie should not be in the hall? But somehow almost 10% people did not vote for him.

[rich]

Hawk, Santo,Blyleven,John,Kaat....Puckett...RIzzuto,Maze roski non HOF'ers,
Rice ? Eh...I'd vote no. The closest thing I 've seen of an HOF'er is Albert Belle.

[rich]

My friends pop sent this out today....

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/columnists/20081230_Bill_Conlin__Rickey_Henderson__Hall_of_a_ player.html

[STLCards2]

I agree, but does it make it right... Have you ever heard of anyone ever arguing that Ozzie should not be in the hall? But somehow almost 10% people did not vote for him.

1. You never asked me if I thought it was right.

2. There are more people that you think who don't think Ozzie is a deserving HOFer. I am sure you can do a search on threads about Ozzie and find more than a handfull of folks.

[gwynnfan]

I am sure that is true. Find one in real life. People like to make obscure comments trying to be smarter then they should be. With the always low % of votes that every player receives. He was elected with in the top 20 highest percentage of votes all time. A rare feat for a middle infielder. Only Wagner got a higher percent and you have to go all the way down to Aparicio to find the next highest % for a SS/2nd. 13 NL Gold Gloves in a row next highest was 4. 15 ALLSTAR selections top ten all time, 11 times a starter. Every player eligible except McGuire even close to that number is in the Hall.
You might not think he was the best SS of all time. But not to vote for him is a statement and nothing else. Unless you think there should only be 9 guys in the Hall, one at each position.

[mtortolero]

I suppose that once Rice will be elected the next week, we can hope to see Juan Gone first ballot elected in 2011.
Was Rice feared than Juan Gone?
Was better slugger?
And I think Juan Gone is not a HOF (but is near).

[PVNICK]

If Belle got short shrift then I can't see Juan Gone getting close especially since he has the taint of PEDs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I suppose that once Rice will be elected the next week, we can hope to see Juan Gone first ballot elected in 2011.
Was Rice feared than Juan Gone?
Was better slugger?
And I think Juan Gone is not a HOF (but is near).

If it will take Rice 15 ballots to make it, why would it take JuanGone one?

[STLCards2]

I am sure that is true. Find one in real life. People like to make obscure comments trying to be smarter then they should be. With the always low % of votes that every player receives. He was elected with in the top 20 highest percentage of votes all time. A rare feat for a middle infielder. Only Wagner got a higher percent and you have to go all the way down to Aparicio to find the next highest % for a SS/2nd. 13 NL Gold Gloves in a row next highest was 4. 15 ALLSTAR selections top ten all time, 11 times a starter. Every player eligible except McGuire even close to that number is in the Hall.
You might not think he was the best SS of all time. But not to vote for him is a statement and nothing else. Unless you think there should only be 9 guys in the Hall, one at each position.

A lot of voters and even some more thoughtful analysts continue to underrapretiate the value of defense in baseball. Many feel (no agenda) that Ozzie's relative lack of offense is not enough combined with his defense to be a HOFer. Most metrics that I have seen show that if you add the number of runs Ozzie saved defensively with the number he created offesnively, it usualy puts him 12-13 all time for SS. Not as great as his fame warrants, but certainly well into HOF range. Those who do not like his case do not know how many runs he saved defensivley, or they would probably change their minds. They look at a guy like Conception and say "well Dave was almost as good as Ozzie defensivley (not true) and was a much better hitter(not true either), and he isn't in the HOF - so niether should Ozzie." It all comes down to voters and writers not knowing how to evaluate defense other than error totals and eyewitness - two methods that don't work very well.

You are making quite an assumption thinking that people voting against Ozzie are only making a statement.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In truth, if Rice, why not Juan Gone?

Juan Gone has 2 MVPs to Rice's one.

I'm not advocating. Just sayin' . . .

[gwynnfan]

In truth, if Rice, why not Juan Gone?

Juan Gone has 2 MVPs to Rice's one.

I'm not advocating. Just sayin' . . .

Juan, steroids. Like Albert Bell being nuts.

I don't think Rice is a shoe in hall of Fame. I think he is boarder line. But I also think he deserves it. I also think if he did not try to play one more season after his eye troubles. Those 56 games brought his career average under .300 ( I remember as a kid watching his #'s drop under .300 and said the same thing then ) he would be a much stronger canidate. People will vote for .300 much quicker than .298. Getting into the Hall is not all about sabermetrics.

Hall voting rules: 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.

Community activities

Rice was associated with a variety of charitable organizations during his career, primarily on behalf of children, some of which have carried on into his retirement. He was named an honorary chairman of The Jimmy Fund, the fundraising arm of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in 1979,[5] and in 1992 was awarded that organization's "Jimmy Award", which honors individuals who have demonstrated their dedication to cancer research.[6] Rice is also active in his support of the Neurofibromatosis Foundation of New England.[7] Rice's involvement with Major League Baseball's RBI program (Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities) resulted in the naming of a new youth baseball facility in Roxbury, Massachusetts in his honor in 1999.[8] A youth recreation center in Rice's hometown of Anderson, South Carolina is also named in his honor.

Rice's most notable humanitarian accomplishment occurred during a nationally televised game on August 7, 1982, when he rushed into the stands to help a young boy who had been struck in the head by a line drive off the bat of Dave Stapleton. As other players and spectators watched, Rice left the dugout and entered the stands to help 4-year old Jonathan Keane, who was bleeding heavily. Rice carried the boy onto the field, through the Red Sox dugout and into the clubhouse, where the young boy could be treated by the team's medical staff. Team doctor Arthur Pappas later said that Rice's actions may have saved the boy's life.

The media did not like him but the Boston fans sure did.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I am sure that is true. Find one in real life. People like to make obscure comments trying to be smarter then they should be. With the always low % of votes that every player receives. He was elected with in the top 20 highest percentage of votes all time. A rare feat for a middle infielder. Only Wagner got a higher percent and you have to go all the way down to Aparicio to find the next highest % for a SS/2nd. 13 NL Gold Gloves in a row next highest was 4. 15 ALLSTAR selections top ten all time, 11 times a starter. Every player eligible except McGuire even close to that number is in the Hall.
You might not think he was the best SS of all time. But not to vote for him is a statement and nothing else. Unless you think there should only be 9 guys in the Hall, one at each position.

Plenty of serious baseball fans believe that Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF. I'm personally not one of them, but they are out there. Their case against him usually focuses entirely on his hitting. Ozzie Smith was not a good hitter, in fact he is one of the worst hitters in the HOF. I believe that he did enough outside of the batter's box to warrant HOF induction, but some people aren't willing to overlook what they consider to be the most important facet of the game for a position player.

[parlo]

Plenty of serious baseball fans believe that Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF. I'm personally not one of them, but they are out there. Their case against him usually focuses entirely on his hitting. Ozzie Smith was not a good hitter, in fact he is one of the worst hitters in the HOF. I believe that he did enough outside of the batter's box to warrant HOF induction, but some people aren't willing to overlook what they consider to be the most important facet of the game for a position player.I agree. Just about any player who was elected based on their glove, seems to draw a lot of debate. Ozzie, Mazzeroski, Bill Dickey, Aparicio, etc

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree. Just about any player who was elected based on their glove, seems to draw a lot of debate. Ozzie, Mazzeroski, Bill Dickey, Aparicio, etc

That's because "defense" isn't half the game in baseball, as it is in football. Unless you consider "pitching" as "defense".

[STLCards2]

Ozzie Smith was not a good hitter, in fact he is one of the worst hitters in the HOF. .

True, but Ozzie was better than the average SS offensively at the time. Throw in a lot of PA the 600 SB and good SB rate, and his run creation was far better than the average SS of his era.

Of course this does nothing to change the fact that a small portion of legit baseball minds feel Ozzie wasn't deserving. Again, that usualy shows a lack of acceptance of how many runs can be prevented by great defense or an unwillingness to look at positional adjustments in terms of offensive production.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Someone mentioned it helped Sutter the year he was selected. Here is a fact. Over the last 15 years only Ryne Sandberg and Gary Carter has made it in when a 1st time nominee was elected. The only year that no one made it was 96, 97 Niekro after 5 years on the ballot then 98 when Sutter made it after 13 years! The first 6 years he only got 24-33% of the vote. How much better could he become after the next 7 years? Imagine if he had 1 less save what his voting % would have been. IMO, a voter wants to vote for somebody, probably 2 or 3 and not much after that. It would have been hard to only have 1 ceremony in 3 years. Then Goosage started out at 33% and did not get over 41% for 5 years and then the next 4 he must have must have stopped walking guys and stroke out a few more.

In another thread, gwynnfan made an interesting observation that applies to Rice's candidacy.

If Rice is elected this year, he will be the third excpetion to the apparent rule, as Rickey Henderson is sure to be elected on the first ballot. Carter and Sandberg were both, IMO, clear-cut HOFers, whose earlier rejections had been, to be kind, foolish. Rice's candidacy does not rise to that level by any means. On the other hand, Rice is in his 15th (and final) year of eligibility on the BBWAA ballot. The writers appear very conscious of this, and Rice has been building support to the point where it looks like he'll get those few special votes (he's at over 72 percent last time). We'll see soon enough.

[mtortolero]

In truth, if Rice, why not Juan Gone?

Juan Gone has 2 MVPs to Rice's one.

I'm not advocating. Just sayin' . . .

Thats my point :waving
He was in roids. Probably but the same as the half of players played those years, including pitchers.

[Mike90]

Thats my point :waving
He was in roids. Probably but the same as the half of players played those years, including pitchers.

Do you think Juan had a HOF-level career without considering the PED implications?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Do you think Juan had a HOF-level career without considering the PED implications?

I know you weren't asking me, but this is my answer: yes, but, like Jim Rice, only by the thinnest of margins. I support Jim Rice, and Gonzalez is more or less Jim Rice's equal in terms of career value, so I'd vote for Gonzalez if there were no PED implications. Gonzalez is very close to the HOF cutoff though, so even a small negative factor makes him a "no" for me. That being said, I wouldn't vote for him as the situation currently stands. I think most people considered Gonzalez a lock for the HOF after 2001. Subsequently, his unbelievably fast decline, the PED implications, and, to a lesser degree, the rise of sabermetrics, made him a mediocre candidate at best. At one point, it looked very, very unlikely that he would fail to reach 500 homers, much less 450. His career numbers are extremely good for a guy who did virtually nothing after the age of 31, and pretty good period. I don't think he'll ever actually get into the HOF though. There are too many PED suspects with better numbers that he'll be behind in line.

[gwynnfan]

In another thread, gwynnfan made an interesting observation that applies to Rice's candidacy.

If Rice is elected this year, he will be the third excpetion to the apparent rule, as Rickey Henderson is sure to be elected on the first ballot. Carter and Sandberg were both, IMO, clear-cut HOFers, whose earlier rejections had been, to be kind, foolish. Rice's candidacy does not rise to that level by any means. On the other hand, Rice is in his 15th (and final) year of eligibility on the BBWAA ballot. The writers appear very conscious of this, and Rice has been building support to the point where it looks like he'll get those few special votes (he's at over 72 percent last time). We'll see soon enough.


Ok, OK, I will concede. Growing up in Boston I idealized Rice and Fisk. ( Evans a close 3rd ) I was a catcher who copied Rice's batting style. I do think he gets a raw deal with voting because of the media. His career being cut short by his vision problems did not help either. If you read my other posts I am not a big fan of milestones. If a player bats .298 or .300 is not the same in the medias eyes. ( as .304 and .306 is the same ) He also had to live up to Williams, Yaz, Manny and even Greenwell hit over .300. No team in baseball has had such a strong run of years by a single position. Now add Bay for a few and its going on 70 years. I have met Rice personally a few times he is a good guy. I am hoping he will get in and will always fight for his side.

[gwynnfan]

I know you weren't asking me, but this is my answer: yes, but, like Jim Rice, only by the thinnest of margins. I support Jim Rice, and Gonzalez is more or less Jim Rice's equal in terms of career value, so I'd vote for Gonzalez if there were no PED implications. Gonzalez is very close to the HOF cutoff though, so even a small negative factor makes him a "no" for me. That being said, I wouldn't vote for him as the situation currently stands. I think most people considered Gonzalez a lock for the HOF after 2001. Subsequently, his unbelievably fast decline, the PED implications, and, to a lesser degree, the rise of sabermetrics, made him a mediocre candidate at best. At one point, it looked very, very unlikely that he would fail to reach 500 homers, much less 450. His career numbers are extremely good for a guy who did virtually nothing after the age of 31, and pretty good period. I don't think he'll ever actually get into the HOF though. There are too many PED suspects with better numbers that he'll be behind in line.

I agree with the increase in power #'s in the 90s would make it a little harder even if there was not such a steroid scandal. He would have been compared to McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, Canseco along with the dozen of other guys with more HR's who is not tainted or as tainted by steroids.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Plenty of serious baseball fans believe that Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF. I'm personally not one of them, but they are out there. Their case against him usually focuses entirely on his hitting. Ozzie Smith was not a good hitter, in fact he is one of the worst hitters in the HOF. I believe that he did enough outside of the batter's box to warrant HOF induction, but some people aren't willing to overlook what they consider to be the most important facet of the game for a position player.


There were years, however, where Ozzie Smith was the best OFFENSIVE shortstop in the NL.

Ozzie deserved the NL MVP award. He was the best offensive SS, the best defensive SS, and the best player on a team that won the pennant.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

There were years, however, where Ozzie Smith was the best OFFENSIVE shortstop in the NL.

Ozzie deserved the NL MVP award. He was the best offensive SS, the best defensive SS, and the best player on a team that won the pennant.

I consider Ozzie Smith a deserving HOFer, but I wouldn't go that far. If you're talking about '87, I think that there were a host of more qualified candidates, including Jack Clark, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn, and Eric Davis.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I consider Ozzie Smith a deserving HOFer, but I wouldn't go that far. If you're talking about '87, I think that there were a host of more qualified candidates, including Jack Clark, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn, and Eric Davis.

He said offensive shortstop. As for the MVP... well, I see your point, but that would basically mean that no all-fielding players would ever win the award if the criteria was like that.

[spark240]

That's because "defense" isn't half the game in baseball, as it is in football. Unless you consider "pitching" as "defense".

If baserunning is offense, then pitching is defense.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

He said offensive shortstop. As for the MVP... well, I see your point, but that would basically mean that no all-fielding players would ever win the award if the criteria was like that.

I was only referring to the MVP comment, not the comment about Ozzie Smith being the best offensive shortstop in the league. Sorry for the confusion. I took fielding into consideration. I just don't happen to think it gave Ozzie Smith a leg up on the offensive juggernauts of 1987. It would take a lot to make up for a 105 OPS+ from a so-called MVP candidate. Brooks Robinson won the award in 1964 playing Smith's caliber of defense, but he had a 145 OPS+. That's still low for an MVP, but not too low to be made up for with uncommonly good glovework.

[Colorado Express]

No, he won't get in, but he should.

[Mike90]

Ok, OK, I will concede. Growing up in Boston I idealized Rice and Fisk. ( Evans a close 3rd ) I was a catcher who copied Rice's batting style. I do think he gets a raw deal with voting because of the media. His career being cut short by his vision problems did not help either. If you read my other posts I am not a big fan of milestones. If a player bats .298 or .300 is not the same in the medias eyes. ( as .304 and .306 is the same ) He also had to live up to Williams, Yaz, Manny and even Greenwell hit over .300. No team in baseball has had such a strong run of years by a single position. Now add Bay for a few and its going on 70 years. I have met Rice personally a few times he is a good guy. I am hoping he will get in and will always fight for his side.

I don't really care that Rice hit .298 instead of .300 for his career. I'm more concerned about his .277/.330/.459 hitting outside of Fenway and relatively short career. Rice was an outstanding hitter in his prime, but he's not especially close to having an HOF-caliber career. He's getting in this year though...

[parlo]

I don't really care that Rice hit .298 instead of .300 for his career. I'm more concerned about his .277/.330/.459 hitting outside of Fenway and relatively short career. Rice was an outstanding hitter in his prime, but he's not especially close to having an HOF-caliber career. He's getting in this year though...I agree! Rice having a career BA of .298 is not the reason why he has not been voted in so far. It is just a straw man argument. There are plenty of hitters who batted below .300 that have been elected.

[gwynnfan]

I dont think that is the reason. I am saying it does not help. As 300 instead of 299 helped Sutter.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree! Rice having a career BA of .298 is not the reason why he has not been voted in so far. It is just a straw man argument. There are plenty of hitters who batted below .300 that have been elected.

But most of the players in the HOF with BAs under .300 have something else to sell. Baserunning/steals. Longevity (500 HRs/3,000 hits). Defense at a critical position (middle infield, C, 3B, maybe CF).

Rice's whole HOF package is his offense. The problem is that he has none of the "milestones" that mark an "offense only" candidate. Dropping below .300 affected Rice's IMAGE, as did his failure to reach 400 HRs (let alone 500). Rice's offensive reputation has taken a beating by the sabermetric world, and that beating started even before he retired. To top all of this off, Rice finished slow; he was a guy who, in 1982, was viewed as a sure-fire eventual HOFer who, when he retired, was viewed as a guy who let the HOF slip away.

Rice has made up a lot of lost ground here. How much credit he gets for NOT doing PEDs is in question, but he's getting some credit on this score. He's on the verge of induction, and, all things considered, if I were betting, I'd bet Rice gets in. But I think he'd have been in long ago if he'd have kept his BA over .300, and he'd have been in within the first 5 years (possibly on the first ballot) if he had stayed over .300 and made it to 400 HRs. Image isn't everything, but it's something, and a .300 lifetime BA is part of the HOF image.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I think that a .300 average would've helped Rice's cause a lot because he is a borderline candidate who needs all of the help he can get. He doesn't have any one particular thing on his resume that jumps out at you and screams Hall of Fame. In this context, he doesn't have much value outside the batter's box either. That leaves his candidacy to rest upon the overall perception of him as a hitter. Anything to tip the scales in his favor helps. 400 homers would've done the same thing. It didn't matter that Mickey Mantle hit .298 or that Lou Gehrig finished with 493 homers because those guys were both locks who didn't need milestones. Rice is not Mantle or Gehrig.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think that a .300 average would've helped Rice's cause a lot because he is a borderline candidate who needs all of the help he can get. He doesn't have any one particular thing on his resume that jumps out at you and screams Hall of Fame. In this context, he doesn't have much value outside the batter's box either. That leaves his candidacy to rest upon the overall perception of him as a hitter. Anything to tip the scales in his favor helps. 400 homers would've done the same thing. It didn't matter that Mickey Mantle hit .298 or that Lou Gehrig finished with 493 homers because those guys were both locks who didn't need milestones. Rice is not Mantle or Gehrig.

To elaborate on ONB's point: Bill James has often stated that as time passes, the strength of a player's HOF candidacy is derived, more and more, from his batting stats. That's because the image of the player fades, and the image that the BBWAA has to go on is derived from the batting record, and especially a player's triple crown stats.

Rice would be in the HOF already if he were "a .300 hitter with 400 home runs". That SOUNDS SO MUCH MORE than "he hit .298 with 382 home runs". The former sounds "special". The latter sounds "near-special". I firmly believe that if Rice had the little extra that would have made him "special", he would have made the HOF years ago.

[gwynnfan]

Rice led the league in this category in four consecutive seasons (1982-1985), matching Hall of Famer Ernie Lombardi for the major league record. It should be noted that the on-base prowess of Rice's teammates placed him in a double play situation over 2,000 times during his career, almost once for every game he played, and that he posted a batting average of .310 and slugging percentage of .515 in those situations, better than his overall career marks in those categories. In addition, the Red Sox were far more successful as a team in the games in which Rice faced at least one double play situation, posting a winning percentage of .572 in those games compared to a mark of .489 in games when Rice didn't face a double play situation.[citation needed]

Does anyone have stats on this? GIDP%, MLB avg, career % leaders.

I remember all the DP's Rice hit into, I also remember all the singles hitters who never stole in front of him. Did you know Ripken is the alltime leader DP's offensive and defensive. Just want to see how bad Rice's 16% DP rate actual is.
thanks

[Mike90]

To elaborate on ONB's point: Bill James has often stated that as time passes, the strength of a player's HOF candidacy is derived, more and more, from his batting stats. That's because the image of the player fades, and the image that the BBWAA has to go on is derived from the batting record, and especially a player's triple crown stats.

Rice would be in the HOF already if he were "a .300 hitter with 400 home runs". That SOUNDS SO MUCH MORE than "he hit .298 with 382 home runs". The former sounds "special". The latter sounds "near-special". I firmly believe that if Rice had the little extra that would have made him "special", he would have made the HOF years ago.

Unfortunately, everything you say is true. Rice not making the Hall has more to do with not getting those nice, round numbers -- 400 and .300 -- than his low OBP, high GIDP rate, lack of defensive value and inflation of his stats by Fenway.

Jim Rice's career has almost everything that baseball writers love: 8 all-star teams, 8 100-RBI seasons, 4 200-hit seasons, an MVP. He hit for both power AND average (4 seasons with both 30 HR and .300 BA), which of course meant he was a great player. He never won a World Series, but he did play in one and was very good in Boston's 7-game loss. I don't think it says much of the writers that Rice did not get in until his 15th ballot.

[Yankwood]

I am predicting that this is the year Rice gets in!!!!!!! Count on it...

[hudsonharden]

I am predicting that this is the year Rice gets in!!!!!!! Count on it...
you're a bit late on that prediction. that's like me saying that Barack Obama will... nevermind.

[bambambaseball]

you're a bit late on that prediction. that's like me saying that Barack Obama will... nevermind.

I predict Rich Gossage will get in last year!

[brett]

Rice led the league in this category in four consecutive seasons (1982-1985), matching Hall of Famer Ernie Lombardi for the major league record. It should be noted that the on-base prowess of Rice's teammates placed him in a double play situation over 2,000 times during his career, almost once for every game he played, and that he posted a batting average of .310 and slugging percentage of .515 in those situations, better than his overall career marks in those categories. In addition, the Red Sox were far more successful as a team in the games in which Rice faced at least one double play situation, posting a winning percentage of .572 in those games compared to a mark of .489 in games when Rice didn't face a double play situation.[citation needed]

Does anyone have stats on this? GIDP%, MLB avg, career % leaders.

I remember all the DP's Rice hit into, I also remember all the singles hitters who never stole in front of him. Did you know Ripken is the alltime leader DP's offensive and defensive. Just want to see how bad Rice's 16% DP rate actual is.
thanks


I do realize that Rice had basically no one stealing bases in front of him, but he did have a lot of doubles hitters.

Rice barely cracked 2000 games, and hit and fielded like an average first baseman. Find me an average hitting and fielding first baseman for 2000 games and you have Rice's approximate value.