Jim Rice?

[NYYanks26]

Hi everyone, im new to the board as of today and I just wanted to see what everyones opinion of Mr. Rice's HOF status is. So, should he or shouldnt he? Thanks.

[southpaw]

i view him as being just short of hall-worthiness.

[Brad Harris]

Welcome to the board, NYYanks26!

Hope you stick around a while a treat us to some thoughtful baseball discussion. Please check out our "Baseball Fever Hall of Fame" threads and cast your vote in our current election. We'd love to hear your opinions!

As for Jim Rice, I guess the answer depends on what you feel the Hall of Fame's standards should be.

If you believe that only Ty Cobb, George Brett and Johnny Bench are the kinds of players we ought to be electing (not Ozzie Smith, Don Sutton or Phil Rizzuto), then Rice would be an automatic "no".

If you believe that there's room in the Hall for recognizing great player with shorter careers or very, very good players with really long careers, then you're probably going to say "yes" to Rice.

I've long felt that the Hall of Fame should be about the former, but realize that is is about the latter. So I've sat on the fence with regards to Rice for a long time. Just depends on the day you ask me.

Recently, however, I've been touting him for election by the BBWAA so you can put me down as a YES.

Rice was an outstanding player and one of the most feared sluggers in baseball in his prime. I think Rice deserves to be remembered as such with the honor of induction to Cooperstown.

[NYYanks26]

Since i first asked this question, ill throw my 2 cents in. Being only 20, I dont remember him as a player. However, from the raw offensive stats and stellar defensive numbers, i would certainly put him in. In an era when 35 to 40 HRs would lead the league more times than not he was at the top of that list 3 times as well as a nearly 300 lifetime batter. I thought being the best player or one of the top few for 8 to 10 years or more warrants easy election. I know i'll hear people complain about Rice as being not the nicest person around but neither was eddie murray or presently barry bonds. Im not going to compare rice to bonds cause there is no comparison. However, while he was the epitome of consistant, at both rice and murrays peak who would you be more afraid to face as an opposing pitcher? Yes I know the voters look at bottom line stats in which murray has it won by far but I definitely think Rice's total output is enough and his lack of election for the past 9? years is not fair by any means.

[Cougar]

I think Jim Rice should be in the HOF. However, he gets there pretty much solely on his bat; his defense was average at best. (I'm old enough to remember at least most of Rice's career.)

But Rice's offense is more than enough by all existing standards of HOF performance to merit induction. Peak value, career value, black ink...whatever you want to use. It's obvious enough that I'm confident he'll get in eventually.

[TXRangerFan]

Rice's numbers were much more impressive in comparison to his peers at the time of his retirement than they are now when compared to the numbers that have been put up since he retired.

I believe he was the player with the most home runs not elected to the HOF prior to Kingman.

I have long thought he should have been in the HOF and have wondered why he wasn't.....but as the years go by his numbers lose their luster at an astonishing rate even to his aredent supporters..I think the chances that he won't be elected grow greater...and to tell you the truth I lose less and less sleep over that fact as every year goes by.

No my big attentions are focused on Sandberg..it's a travesty he isn't in the HOF..I tell you it's amazing how quickly fans forget the differences in eras.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by TXRangerFan

I believe he was the player with the most home runs not elected to the HOF prior to Kingman.

A little hard to believe, seeing's how Kingman became eligible for the HOF BEFORE Rice.

[TXRangerFan]

Well there you go..see what the years to do numbers?

Maybe he had the most RBI of anyone not in the HOF..I know he had the most something at one point but dang if I can remember what it was.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by TXRangerFan
Well there you go..see what the years to do numbers?

Maybe he had the most RBI of anyone not in the HOF..

No, that would be Rusty Staub.

[TXRangerFan]

Hmmm maybe it was that he was the only guy with over 375 homers and 1400 RBI and a 298% BA not in the HOF..

Or maybe it was that he was the only guy to have lead the league in hits, triples, homers, SLG%, OPS, XBH and RBI and to win an MVP not in the HOF..

Or maybe it was that he was the only guy to lead the league in total bases at least 4 times not in the HOF.

He lead it in something..and BTW you didn't help Edgar's HOF chances .

[Zeth]

Bill James pointed out in "The Politics of Glory" that you can make a group with arbitrary cutoffs like .298 BA, 375 and 1400 for just about anybody who was a good ballplayer and use that as a hall of fame argument. James did it, just to prove his point, making a couple of arguments for players like Frank White and Amos Otis.

I don't see that Jim Rice was a lot better than Reggie Smith, or Rusty Staub. Rice was a feared slugger, that's true. But hitting for power was about the only thing he did well.

Sandberg will get in, eventually. His qualifications are overwhelming. Then again, the same has been true of Ron Santo for a long time...

[Cougar]

Rice hit for both average and power exceptionally well.

The rest of his game was ordinary, true, but for a left fielder, that's basically all right -- the requirements of the LF position are essentially offensive. Defense and baserunning (of the sort you get from, say, Barry Bonds) is wonderful, but. generally, it's a bonus. (Shortstop or catcher would obviously be another story.) The offensive production is the baseline requirement, and Rice provided that plentifully.

Staub and Smith were both fine players (I'm not sure Rusty shouldn't get a look by Cooperstown), but Rice's peak production and career stats are pretty clearly superior, I think.

[Zeth]

Sure, Rice hit for power exceptionally well, and average too, I'll give you that. But take his road numbers and double them, and does that player look like a Hall of Famer left fielder to you, considering he's an average fielder and a poor baserunner? Rice has one of the highest GIDP rates in history, too, which is more important than people think.

If you want to see a man who has truly awesome hitting stats relative to his position and era, look up Vern Stephens. Most of the arguments that work for Jim Rice work for Junior Stephens, too. Rice had a longer career (Stephens drank/injured himself out of the game), but Stephens was a very good defensive shortstop. Neither, in my mind, is Hall of Fame worthy, because both were good players who were tremendously aided by Fenway Park.

[Cougar]

I've always been unmoved by the GIDP thing. Sure, it's really bad, but you've obviously got to be doing some awfully good things to compensate, or you won't stay in the lineup.

It's indisputable that Fenway helped Rice; I think the question is how much. I don't have his actual home/road splits; do you?

Anyway, I've always been a little leery of actually punishing a guy for where he happened to play. Teams acquire players that fit their park, and players tailor their games to their home field. It should be taken into consideration, sure, but one must be careful not to overdo it.

[Zeth]

Sure, you can't overdo it, but you can't ignore it, either. A player's home park *does* distort the perception of what kind of player he really was. In Jim Rice's case, it makes him appear at least a little better than he was. Now, if Jim Rice had hit .295 with 550 homers for his career, then obviously I wouldn't argue he shouldn't be a hall of famer because of Fenway.

But the thing is, Rice is a marginal HoF candidate even before you adjust for his home park. That's why, in my mind, when you take Fenway into consideration it moves him down a bit, into the category of not quite good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Don't get me wrong. Jim Rice can play for my team anytime, no matter what park I'm playing in. He was a very good player. But I don't think, all things considered, he was a great player.

(I only have the home/road splits in book form, and don't have the motivation to type them right now. They're not huge, not as huge as Gavy Cravath or somebody's, but they're big. I need to find a good place to reliably get this data, being too poor to purchase a CD with all the stats in history on it.)

[Cougar]

I guess that's where we disagree. I think Rice is a little better than marginal. His numbers compare favorably with HOF from any era. Look at the James ranking from baseball-reference.com:

Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (56) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 42.9 (116) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 147.0 (75) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Rice is a little low (not extremely low) in Standards due to his shorter-than-average career, but above average for everything else. I think he's hurt perceptually by his fast fade 1987-1989, but from 1975-1986, he was a monster offensive force.

[Zeth]

Yeah, everything you say about the raw numbers is right on target. I think where we're agreeing to disagree is on how much park effects has to do with that. Even the numbers you gave me... well, they don't qualify a guy to be an automatic Hall of Famer unless he's an extraordinary defensive player, baserunner, or something of the like. I still see him as marginal.

[TXRangerFan]

Originally posted by Zeth
Bill James pointed out in "The Politics of Glory" that you can make a group with arbitrary cutoffs like .298 BA, 375 and 1400 for just about anybody who was a good ballplayer and use that as a hall of fame argument. James did it, just to prove his point, making a couple of arguments for players like Frank White and Amos Otis.

I don't see that Jim Rice was a lot better than Reggie Smith, or Rusty Staub. Rice was a feared slugger, that's true. But hitting for power was about the only thing he did well.

Sandberg will get in, eventually. His qualifications are overwhelming. Then again, the same has been true of Ron Santo for a long time...

You are right..you can make up arbitrary cutoffs for just about anyone..and I am guilty of doing it and I get the feeling many do that when talking about certain players. ESPN is really bad about doing that BTW.

I think Rice's qualifications show beyond any arbitrary cut off though..His numbers have really lost their luster in todays era, they were much more impressive at the time of his retirement...

Leading the league in triples and HR in a career is an impressive feat in itself..what's the list of guys that have had that combo?

I know Sandberg did it..Ty Cobb, Willie Mays..but that's about it..maybe Musial..that's an impressive list for Rice to be a part of, arbitrarily cutoff or not..

Leading the league in total bases 4 different times in a career is equally impressive..no matter what method you like to use to judge players..Jamesian or more traditional methods..that stat is impressive.

I think it's pretty much a lost cause..even I don't get excited by Rice's totals looking at todays numbers...and as evidenced in this thread, I have forgotten quite a bit about why I thought he was Hall worthy in the first place..but at the time of his retirement, to me, he was a no brainer HOF'er...

I hope the same thing that happened to Rice doesn't happen to Sandberg...we say he'll get in..but it's been two years..two years and Sandberg still isn't in the Hall? That's stunning to me. What are they thinking?


A secondbaseman that was a HR champ? GG'er? Steals 54 bases in one season and hits 40 homers in another? Leads the league in triples..

No second baseman of any era does that..

Willie Mays and Barry Bonds don't even do that..

And he did it in the 80's?

I just wonder how I can be that out of touch with the HOF voters..I repeat..What in THE heck are they thinking..

Sorry didn't mean to high jack the thread..but I feel the same fate that befell Rice is also going to get Sandberg..

[fivemagics77]

anybody else agree that sportswriters are on good crack to not be inducting rice, i dont have his stats now, but go to baseball-almanac. he won 3 hr titles, 2 batting titles i think, he had a few gold gloves to

[fivemagics77]

JIM RICE: 11th year on the ballot ... Played 16 seasons, all with the Boston Red Sox ... Named AL MVP by BBWAA and The Sporting News Player of the Year in 1978 ... Finished in top five MVP voting five other times: 1975 (3rd), '77 (4th), '79 (5th), '83 (4th), '86 (3rd) ... Finished 2nd in 1975 AL Rookie of the Year voting ... Eight All-Star teams (1977-'80, '83-'86); batted .200 in 20 ASG at-bats ... Led AL in HR three times (1977, '78, '83), RBI twice (1978, '83), slugging percentage twice (1977, '78), hits once (1978) and triples once (1978) ... Ranks 38th in career RBI, tied for 48th on all-time HR list, and tied for 40th in sacrifice flies ... Seven .300 seasons, four 200-plus hit seasons, three 100-plus run season (consecutively from 1977-'79), 30-plus doubles three times, 20-plus HR 11 times, 30-plus HR four times, 40-plus HR once, and 100-plus RBI eight times ... Two three-HR games (Aug. 29, 1977 and Aug. 29, 1983) ... Led AL in total bases four times in 1977 (382), '78 (406), '79 (369) and 1983 (344); his 1978 total of 406 total bases was the most since Stan Musial's 429 in 1948 ... Two AL Championship Series (1986, '88); batted .159 with seven RBI, two HR, and eight runs scored in 44 ALCS at-bats ... One World Series (1986); batted .333 with six runs scored in 27 WS at-bats.

YRS AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB OBP SLG
1974-89 .298 2089 8225 1249 2452 373 79 382 1451 670 1423 58 .352 .502

[iPod]

I'd probably say no to Jim Rice, to be honest. He does get a decent amount of support here though, if memory serves.

To his credit, there is a solid argument behind him, and if he was selected it wouldn't be a bad pick. He was selected to 8 all-star teams and was in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times. I highly doubt that there are any non-Hall of Famers with 6 or more top 5 MVP finishes other than Rice, though I don't have any figures to back that up. I do know that players like Rickey Henderson, Frank Thomas, Mike Schmidt, and Ken Griffey Jr haven't done it, so even finishing in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times at all is pretty rare. He also has 33 black ink (49th all-time), and 176 gray ink (56th all-time), both figures well into Hall of Fame territory. Among his similar batters are Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. In his 15 years in the majors, he was most similar by age to a Hall of Famer 10 times. And, perhaps most importantly, for the period between 1977 and 1979, he was the most feared hitter in baseball, especially in 1978 when he was named MVP. Nearly everyone who saw him firsthand remembers him as being a great player, and he was a big reason that those Red Sox teams in the 1970s were as good as they were.

Players with at least 6 top 5 MVP finishes and at least 1 win:
Barry Bonds*
Henry Aaron*
Yogi Berra*
Willie Mays*
Ted Williams*
Stan Musial*
Joe DiMaggio*
Harmon Killebrew*
Frank Robinson*
Mickey Mantle*
Jim Rice

Not only are all those guys Hall of Famers, they're all inner circle Hall of Famers, with the exception of Killebrew. This list does strategically eliminate many players which are clearly better than Rice however, like Mike Schmidt, who won 3 MVP awards, played gold glove caliber third base, and has an extra 19 points of OPS+ on Rice but isn't in the group because he had only 5 top 5 MVP placings. Overall, though, Rice's showing in the MVP voting was very, very impressive, which is certainly a major point in his favor in my opinion, and is probably the #1 reason I wouldn't feel the Hall of Fame had been insulted if he ever got in.

Still, with all that in mind, there are plenty of reasons not to induct Jim Rice. First, his career OPS+ was only 128. I don't know how that ranks all-time, but nobody in the top 100 has one below 136. There are 29 retired players between #51-100 on the all-time OPS+ list who are not in the Hall of Fame, and 7 active players (Griffey, A-Rod, Chipper Jones, Bobby Abreu, Carlos Delgado, Larry Walker, and Jim Edmonds), some of whom will get to the Hall of Fame, some of whom won't. Rice's OPS+ is 7 points behind that of Gene Tenace, a catcher who hit .241 for his career and isn't within 10 miles of shouting distance of the Hall of Fame. It's 4 points behind Joe Morgan, who is in the Hall of Fame, but who was a wizard at 2nd base and stole nearly 700 bases. Its only 8 points ahead of Joe Gordon, who is also one of the best fielding 2nd baseman in baseball history, who was named to more all star teams than Rice (9), and who is not in the Hall of Fame. For a mediocre corner outfielder who doesn't run, a 128 OPS+ just isn't that impressive. And he was getting pretty much all of it from his adjusted slugging average, 1.236, which is measurably below Reggie Jackson's career adjusted slugging average of 1.283, which many people argued on the right fielder thread wasn't good enough for a pure slugger.

Even his peak isn't all that impressive, in terms of OPS+. His best year was his MVP year, 1978, when he led the league with a 158. After that, his best years were 154 (1979), 148 (1977), 141 (1983), 137 (1986), and 131 (1982). In his 16 year career, those were his only 6 years where he posted an OPS+ above his career average. A 158 OPS+ is pretty good, but its below the career OPS+ of 15 players, 1 of whom is eligible for the Hall of Fame but isn't in (Browning), and another who is only ineligible because he didn't play enough, but had he played enough wouldn't be in anyway (Orr). Rice only placed in the top ten in his league in OPS+ 5 times in 16 seasons. Kevin Mitchell, who had an OPS+ better than 158 four times in his career, had an OPS+ of 140 (12 points better than Rice) and won an MVP award of his own, became eligible for the Hall of Fame last year, received 2 votes, and was removed from the ballot. So, his OPS+, both in terms of peak and career, just isn't anything to get excited about.

Even if you just want to look at the traditional stats, which are summarized in stats like runs created and OPS+ anyway, and are inflated because of Fenway Park, he's still very borderline. He's got 382 home runs, 48th all-time and dropping. For a slugging outfielder in Fenway Park, its just not that amazing of a figure. Frank Howard also has 382 home runs with similar rate stats, but he played in Dodger and RFK Stadium in the 1960s, which is reflected in his much better career OPS+. Nobody wants to put Frank Howard into the Hall of Fame.

Rice did have many more hits and RBI than Howard, but Rice's totals in those stats aren't jaw-dropping either. He has 2452 hits, 91st all time. Ted Simmons, a contemporary of Rice's, had 2472 hits, was named to exactly as many all-star teams as Rice (8), and played catcher. Simmons isn't in the Hall of Fame. Ozzie Smith had 2460 hits in his career and was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his bat.

Rice had 1451 RBI, 48th all-time. This is a bit stronger evidence in support of him, since there are only a few players above him on the career RBI list who are not either already in the Hall or are locks to go to there. Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Dave Parker, and Rusty Staub are the only ones I see. Is he better than all those guys? He's better than Harold Baines, unless you really value longetivity. He's also probably better than the Cobra and Rusty Staub. But he's not better than Dawson, who was named to 8 all-star teams, won 8 gold gloves, hit 50 more home runs than him, stole 250 more bases than him, and also won an MVP award. And I wouldn't take Rice over Fred McGriff, who played respectable first base, hit 100 more homers than him, and has a better OPS+.

Setting aside his good counting stats, its important to remember Rice was a pretty one dimensional player. His career on-base percentage, .352, just really isn't that impressive, and it never rose above .384. He walked only 670 times in his career, while striking out 1423 times (49th all-time). And the thing that just kills me whenever I take a look at his stats is his GIDP numbers. He grounded into 315 double plays in his 16 year career, the 6th highest total of all time. #1-10 on the list had careers of 21 years, 23 years, 23 years, 22 years, 21 years, 16 years (Rice), 22 years, 23 years, 23 years, and 20 years respectively. I don't know for sure, but I bet Rice grounded into more double plays per game than anyone in the history of baseball, by a pretty wide margin. On the single season list, he holds the #1, #2, and #6 spots (36, 35, and 31). This led to a huge number of outs. In his MVP year, 1978, he was charged with 490 outs, which is not in the top 100 of all-time but its close. In 1984, when he grounded into 36 double plays, he was charged with 515 outs, 39th all-time. He made 6221 outs in his career, 95th all-time.

Its a close call, considering all this, but I just don't see some overwhelming, compelling reason why Jim Rice needs to go to the Hall of Fame.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Jim Rice retired in 1989 and is still not in the Hall of Fame. Rice's resume is very impressive with 2 silver sluggers, an m.v.p., 3 home run titles, 2 r.b.i. crowns, led the league in total bases 4 times including 400 in 1978, and 8 all-star teams in 10 years. 2450 hits, 380 homers, 1450 ribs. But was is the most telling and, surprisingly most overlooked qualification for hall consideration is the number of beast seasons. Whenever I check out a guy's career, that is by far the number that means the most to me. It separates the greats from the compilers. Compilers are guys that maybe hit a 170 hits every year, but play forever so they pile up 3,000 hits. A corner outfielder hitting in the middle of the order in Rice's generation would, for me, have to have a minimum of 90 runs, 180 hits, 25 2Bs, 25 HRs, 90 r.b.i., 90 walks, 285 AVG, and 375 OBP. To me, if a guy can get at least 3 of these qualifications in a season, he has himself a Hall caliber season. For example, 100 r.b.i., with 35 2Bs, and 195 hits is a H.O.F. season even if there are only 17 homers.

Rice, by my count, has himself 9 HOF seasons. I'll count 1982 since he's only 1 short in HRs and 2Bs. A very impressive number. Almost a full decade's worth of Hall caliber play. When you look at how big his biggest years were, which is also an important factor in my opinion, it becomes obvious that Rice is a no doubt about it hall of famer.

Since I have never heard anybody dispute Rice's credentials, is it safe to say that he's not in because the writers hate him personally? Or do any of you believe that Rice's career falls short?

[julusnc]

I have always felt Jim Rice is a worthy player for consideration for the Hall of Fame.

I would vote for him.

[The Dude]

I would vote for Rice as well. He's not an all-time great, but he's well above a border-line candidate IMHO.

One of the unlucky players iof the 70's and the 80's whose numbers were dwared by juicers and the juiced ball.

[abacab]

Rice's numbers are deflated by his era, but inflated by his home park, so it more or less balances. He was also a poor fielder. I feel he is borderline at best. I'd like to know why he has so much more support than Dale Murphy, a far superior candidate IMO. But that's off topic. If Rice was elected, I wouldn't call him a mistake, but I'd rather he was left out.