I used to go to the A's games super early to watch the full session of batting practice. Rickey always walked into the stadium through center field wearing some scandalous suits. Bright purple numbers that would've made Prince blush.
15 winning seasons as a starter and a career ERA of 3.31 is pretty unfuckwithable
He was NEVER a superstar. Semi-star at best.
Dude won 15 or more games 10 times....trouble was he was on a long list of bad, losing teams......I agree he never got labeled superstar.....he just got it done.
That's the problem with the extinction period between the last year of a hall-eligible player's career and he first ballot; the Hall Committee tends to focus solely on stats. Jim Rice was the unquestioned leader of the BoSox; yes, more than Wade Boggs or (later on) arguably more than Roger Clemens. You have to remember how Rice played the game; he consistently led by example, clutch hitting, and sundry intangibles. Rice is a prime example of why numbers are not the end-all-be-all in the Cooperstown critera. Even so, Rice's gaudy Slugging % and OPS+ rank among the best. And as good as Boggs was, he only hit more than 74 RBI twice. Rice averaged 113 RBI (prorated for 162 games) for his career. Boggs averaged a mere 67. For a man to hit so well for average yet so poorly for his teammates is certainly a deficiency.
Congrats to Jim Rice for finally receiving his due.
Actually, Rice's clutch hitting stats (2 outs and RISP, late & close, tie game, etc.) were lower than his career averages. (Of course, the whole notion of 'clutch' existing over a career outside of our cloudy memories is another debate altogether, but since it's brought up as evidence...)
His slugging/OPS+ stats are definitely not gaudy compared to other corner OF/DH guys - it's probably the main reason why stat guys have a problem with the induction.
And RBI is a team-dependent stat; I sure do hope a clean-up hitter has significantly more RBIs (and RBI chances) than the leadoff man. Rice is hitting in the likes of Boggs, while Boggs is hitting in the likes of Spike Owens and Rich Gedman.
But if you want to factor being a fan favorite, nostalgia, star power, being on a good team, etc., that's fine. It's not necessarily a bad thing. There's no established criteria outside of having 10 years of service (which itself can be overlooked under special circumstances) anyway. It just means that Rice's inclusion gives more credence to guys who are locks for perhaps their own team's HoF, but on stats alone would be borderline at best. I'm thinking people like David Justice and Luis Gonzalez.
Actually, Rice's clutch hitting stats (2 outs and RISP, late & close, tie game, etc.) were lower than his career averages. (Of course, the whole notion of 'clutch' existing over a career outside of our cloudy memories is another debate altogether, but since it's brought up as evidence...)
His slugging/OPS+ stats are definitely not gaudy compared to other corner OF/DH guys - it's probably the main reason why stat guys have a problem with the induction.
And RBI is a team-dependent stat; I sure do hope a clean-up hitter has significantly more RBIs (and RBI chances) than the leadoff man. Rice is hitting in the likes of Boggs, while Boggs is hitting in the likes of Spike Owens and Rich Gedman.
But if you want to factor being a fan favorite, nostalgia, star power, being on a good team, etc., that's fine. It's not necessarily a bad thing. There's no established criteria outside of having 10 years of service (which itself can be overlooked under special circumstances) anyway. It just means that Rice's inclusion gives more credence to guys who are locks for perhaps their own team's HoF, but on stats alone would be borderline at best. I'm thinking people like David Justice and Luis Gonzalez.
Well, I'd certainly put Rice over Justice, who had some very inconsistent years and hit sub-.280 career. And Luis Gonzalez was a great hitter for a time, but unfortunately only really distinguished himself when his career was half over (wink wink). Especially because of mid-career spikes, the dreaded [STEROIDS] stamp looms over both players as it does their whole era, deserved or not. It's fair to compare Rice with the greats and find him wanting. I can totally understand the reason why Rice might have been the All-Time Bubble Player along with Ron Santo. But as EPSN's Sean McAdam put it in an article from 3-4 years back, context counts:
For a period of 12 years -- 1975-86 -- Rice led all American League players in 12 different offensive categories, including home runs (350), RBI (1,276), total bases (3,670), slugging percentage (.520), runs (1,098) and hits (2,145).
In that span, his typical season looked something like this: 29 homers, 106 RBI, 91 runs scored and an average above .300.
But what really elevates the case for Rice is context. He led every player in his league in virtually every significant offensive category for a dozen years. And when you add in all of the National League players from the same era, Rice still leads in five categories and finishes second in three others.
First or second in eight different categories for a dozen years? That sounds plenty dominant enough for me.
Rice's stats aren't what I would call "borderline," unless your border is at the door of Cooperstown. But 18 more homers and two points higher in the BA (had he retired in 1987 instead of 1989 the latter would have been achieved with only 18 fewer homers) and there would probably be no question.
As much as I love Santo, the guy doesn't quite deserve it. What's your take on Dawson? I think he's eventually in, and Grace as well. Well, maybe not Grace.
15 winning seasons as a starter and a career ERA of 3.31 is pretty unfuckwithable
He was NEVER a superstar. Semi-star at best.
Dude won 15 or more games 10 times....trouble was he was on a long list of bad, losing teams......I agree he never got labeled superstar.....he just got it done.
Bert's stats:
287 Wins 250 L's 3.31 LIFETIME ERA 4970 Innings with 3701 K's 242 COMPLETE GAMES (Find me a pitcher in our era that's going to come CLOSE To that) 60 Shutouts
In fact, just randoms off the top of my head for CG's and SHO's:
Maddux? 109 and 35 Pedro? 46 and 17 Rocket? 118 and 46
Nolan comes in at 222 and 61...hell, let's compare Nolan and Bert's stats.
Bert:
W L PCT ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP 287 250 .534 3.31 692 685 242 60 0 4970
Nolan:
W L PCT ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP 324 292 .526 3.19 807 773 222 61 3 5386
PLEASE someone explain to me WHY Blyleven's stats are not HOF worthy? The only thing Ryan hit was the "magic" 300 win number and of course, the K's and No hitters. Ryan won 36 more games, yet lost 40 more, Bert had a slightly better winning %, more complete games, and Ryan had one more shutout. Ryan had 400 more innings and 115 more games than Bert.
Come on now. Don't make me look up other HOF pitchers.
Well, I'd certainly put Rice over Justice, who had some very inconsistent years and hit sub-.280 career. And Luis Gonzalez was a great hitter for a time, but unfortunately only really distinguished himself when his career was half over (wink wink). Especially because of mid-career spikes, the dreaded [STEROIDS] stamp looms over both players as it does their whole era, deserved or not. It's fair to compare Rice with the greats and find him wanting. I can totally understand the reason why Rice might have been the All-Time Bubble Player along with Ron Santo. But as EPSN's Sean McAdam put it in an article from 3-4 years back, context counts:
For a period of 12 years -- 1975-86 -- Rice led all American League players in 12 different offensive categories, including home runs (350), RBI (1,276), total bases (3,670), slugging percentage (.520), runs (1,098) and hits (2,145).
In that span, his typical season looked something like this: 29 homers, 106 RBI, 91 runs scored and an average above .300.
But what really elevates the case for Rice is context. He led every player in his league in virtually every significant offensive category for a dozen years. And when you add in all of the National League players from the same era, Rice still leads in five categories and finishes second in three others.
First or second in eight different categories for a dozen years? That sounds plenty dominant enough for me.
Rice's stats aren't what I would call "borderline," unless your border is at the door of Cooperstown. But 18 more homers and two points higher in the BA (had he retired in 1987 instead of 1989 the latter would have been achieved with only 18 fewer homers) and there would probably be no question.
As much as I love Santo, the guy doesn't quite deserve it. What's your take on Dawson? I think he's eventually in, and Grace as well. Well, maybe not Grace.
Yeah, when I said borderline, I meant it in Bubble Player kinda way you described, not in a "pfft - that guy? not a million years" way. His most impressive counting stat (RBIs) is helped by having one of the most impressive number of men on base while batting during his peak years, and he gained an advantage from his home park (check the home/away splits). He definitely started as a HoF-worthy player, but petered out around age 26/27 and had another half-dozen very good but not HoF (IMO) years. That 12 year period average is skewed heavily by the 70s years.
I guess I'm of the type who probably would've just voted in Rickey on this ballot. If I voted for Rice, I would also vote for like 5 or 6 other people too.
As far as Dawson, I say he doesn't deserve even with Rice in, but he'll get a big bump anyway next time around because Rice is now in and he won't be "competing" against him for recognition. Worst case scenario, he'll be voted in his last year of eligibility without vet committee reconsideration, just like Rice.
players up for HOF inductment should NEVER be judged against players from different eras. EVER. the only criteria should be how dominant they were in their own eras. different eras, different game. and the stats are not going to be the same.
as for barry bonds, no QUESTION is he a hall of famer. steroids or not. he was one of the greatest ever even before he started juicing. mark mcgwire and sammy sosa, on the other hand...
Hall of Fame officials have the final call on which team a Hall of Famer represents, and Rickey represented no team like the A's. He's Oakland's leader in career games, at-bats, hits, doubles, triples, walks, total bases, runs - and, of course, stolen bases.
He's GOTTA go in wearing an A's jersey. It's only right.
It's not up to the player to choose his induction team.
Hall of Fame officials have the final call on which team a Hall of Famer represents, and Rickey represented no team like the A's. He's Oakland's leader in career games, at-bats, hits, doubles, triples, walks, total bases, runs - and, of course, stolen bases.
He's GOTTA go in wearing an A's jersey. It's only right.
It's not up to the player to choose his induction team.
far be it for me to jump in front of you or SOI or any of my boston bros, but i will admit i am borderline on Jim Ed Rice...
yes, he had some great years,,, his 78 season was one of the best offenasive years in baseball history,...
but, his career was so short.... , as a stud, 75-85... basically, in the mid 80's, he and eddie murray had the same type of stats, and then jim rice fell the F*ck off and eddie murray continued to have decent seasons for like 6 more years...
i love jim rice but i am a stickler about a HOF with strict standards and honestly, in my heart of hearts, jim rice is a tragic case who was 2 good seasons away from the HOF....
I remember reading a Sports Illustrated story on Jim Rice when I was a kid. The whole article was about how ridiculously strong he was. They said he could drive a golf ball 350 yards, no problems, and that he once hit a check-swing home run.
Now, when I looking at pics of him in his prime, he doesn't look that huge compared to today's roid-stars.
I agree. How Jim Rice made it to the Hall of Fame is beyond me. I guess because Mcgwire and Pete Rose have been ostracized from the Hall of Fame, Rice was able to get in.
Comments
He was NEVER a superstar. Semi-star at best.
Dude won 15 or more games 10 times....trouble was he was on a long list of bad, losing teams......I agree he never got labeled superstar.....he just got it done.
Yaz & Rice played together, '75 - '83.
Rice credits Yaz w/ teaching him how to play left at Fenway. So Yaz essentially passed the Bosox leadership torch to Jim Ed.
I stand corrected...damn...Yaz played 23 years.
Actually, Rice's clutch hitting stats (2 outs and RISP, late & close, tie game, etc.) were lower than his career averages. (Of course, the whole notion of 'clutch' existing over a career outside of our cloudy memories is another debate altogether, but since it's brought up as evidence...)
His slugging/OPS+ stats are definitely not gaudy compared to other corner OF/DH guys - it's probably the main reason why stat guys have a problem with the induction.
And RBI is a team-dependent stat; I sure do hope a clean-up hitter has significantly more RBIs (and RBI chances) than the leadoff man. Rice is hitting in the likes of Boggs, while Boggs is hitting in the likes of Spike Owens and Rich Gedman.
But if you want to factor being a fan favorite, nostalgia, star power, being on a good team, etc., that's fine. It's not necessarily a bad thing. There's no established criteria outside of having 10 years of service (which itself can be overlooked under special circumstances) anyway. It just means that Rice's inclusion gives more credence to guys who are locks for perhaps their own team's HoF, but on stats alone would be borderline at best. I'm thinking people like David Justice and Luis Gonzalez.
Well, I'd certainly put Rice over Justice, who had some very inconsistent years and hit sub-.280 career. And Luis Gonzalez was a great hitter for a time, but unfortunately only really distinguished himself when his career was half over (wink wink). Especially because of mid-career spikes, the dreaded [STEROIDS] stamp looms over both players as it does their whole era, deserved or not. It's fair to compare Rice with the greats and find him wanting. I can totally understand the reason why Rice might have been the All-Time Bubble Player along with Ron Santo. But as EPSN's Sean McAdam put it in an article from 3-4 years back, context counts:
Rice's stats aren't what I would call "borderline," unless your border is at the door of Cooperstown. But 18 more homers and two points higher in the BA (had he retired in 1987 instead of 1989 the latter would have been achieved with only 18 fewer homers) and there would probably be no question.
As much as I love Santo, the guy doesn't quite deserve it. What's your take on Dawson? I think he's eventually in, and Grace as well. Well, maybe not Grace.
Bert's stats:
287 Wins
250 L's
3.31 LIFETIME ERA
4970 Innings with 3701 K's
242 COMPLETE GAMES (Find me a pitcher in our era that's going to come CLOSE To that)
60 Shutouts
In fact, just randoms off the top of my head for CG's and SHO's:
Maddux? 109 and 35
Pedro? 46 and 17
Rocket? 118 and 46
Nolan comes in at 222 and 61...hell, let's compare Nolan and Bert's stats.
Bert:
W L PCT ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP
287 250 .534 3.31 692 685 242 60 0 4970
Nolan:
W L PCT ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP
324 292 .526 3.19 807 773 222 61 3 5386
PLEASE someone explain to me WHY Blyleven's stats are not HOF worthy? The only thing Ryan hit was the "magic" 300 win number and of course, the K's and No hitters. Ryan won 36 more games, yet lost 40 more, Bert had a slightly better winning %, more complete games, and Ryan had one more shutout. Ryan had 400 more innings and 115 more games than Bert.
Come on now. Don't make me look up other HOF pitchers.
Yeah, when I said borderline, I meant it in Bubble Player kinda way you described, not in a "pfft - that guy? not a million years" way. His most impressive counting stat (RBIs) is helped by having one of the most impressive number of men on base while batting during his peak years, and he gained an advantage from his home park (check the home/away splits). He definitely started as a HoF-worthy player, but petered out around age 26/27 and had another half-dozen very good but not HoF (IMO) years. That 12 year period average is skewed heavily by the 70s years.
I guess I'm of the type who probably would've just voted in Rickey on this ballot. If I voted for Rice, I would also vote for like 5 or 6 other people too.
As far as Dawson, I say he doesn't deserve even with Rice in, but he'll get a big bump anyway next time around because Rice is now in and he won't be "competing" against him for recognition. Worst case scenario, he'll be voted in his last year of eligibility without vet committee reconsideration, just like Rice.
as for barry bonds, no QUESTION is he a hall of famer. steroids or not. he was one of the greatest ever even before he started juicing. mark mcgwire and sammy sosa, on the other hand...
You will never be inducted into the RIF HOF.
ROF
...L
true...
far be it for me to jump in front of you or SOI or any of my boston bros, but i will admit i am borderline on Jim Ed Rice...
yes, he had some great years,,, his 78 season was one of the best offenasive years in baseball history,...
but, his career was so short.... , as a stud, 75-85... basically, in the mid 80's, he and eddie murray had the same type of stats, and then jim rice fell the F*ck off and eddie murray continued to have decent seasons for like 6 more years...
i love jim rice but i am a stickler about a HOF with strict standards and honestly, in my heart of hearts, jim rice is a tragic case who was 2 good seasons away from the HOF....
plus, he hit into a shitload of double plays!
Now, when I looking at pics of him in his prime, he doesn't look that huge compared to today's roid-stars.