Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

[MassNole]

Honestly speaking, why do so many people think he should be in the HOF?

I just don't get it, he had some monster seasons in the 70's, but then once 1980 hit he became slightly above average at best, sans the monster 1983 season.

Looking at the measurables that typically define a HOFer, he had less than 3000 hits, less than 500 homeruns, and didn't hit over .300 for his career while spending it in the ultimate hitter's ballpark his entire career. Statistically speaking, he isn't that much different than Andres Galaragga, yet there is no huge out cry for him to make the HOF. It isn't like Rice was a gifted fielder, in fact he doesn't have a single Golden Glove to his credit.

So please, someone tell me why this man should be in the HOF?

[caseyd]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Honestly speaking, why do so many people think he should be in the HOF?

I just don't get it, he had some monster seasons in the 70's, but then once 1980 hit he became slightly above average at best, sans the monster 1983 season.

Looking at the measurables that typically define a HOFer, he had less than 3000 hits, less than 500 homeruns, and didn't hit over .300 for his career while spending it in the ultimate hitter's ballpark his entire career. Statistically speaking, he isn't that much different than Andres Galaragga, yet there is no huge out cry for him to make the HOF. It isn't like Rice was a gifted fielder, in fact he doesn't have a single Golden Glove to his credit.

So please, someone tell me why this man should be in the HOF?

Two totally different eras (Galaragga). Guys like Rice, Dawson, and Murphy get the shaft because they're being compared to guys from later eras instead of their contemporaries. These guys were at the top of the game. Galaragga, while very good, was never considered one of the top 3-5 players in the game. These guys were. I hope at least one of them gets some support this year. If they're going to, this year is the one to do it with no other standout candidates. Sadly, Murphy will never get the support he needs. His only hope is the Veteran's Committee.

[Rod_Carew29]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

thanks for saying that...you said it all...what some folks also don't understand is that it's NOT ALWAYS about those 'magic number milestones'....3,000 hits or 500 home runs...but IT IS MORE about dominance...dominance over a period of time...usually around a 10-year period...

If anyone is OLD ENOUGH to have seen Rice play, then you get it. And no....reading clippings or watching a Yankees/Bosox classic game does not qualify...

Lastly, there are more than a few players whose numbers don't ever deserve them being in the HOF...but they're in there....and for some of those ver ones I'm talking about, Rice's numbers FAR exceed theirs....

Two totally different eras (Galaragga). Guys like Rice, Dawson, and Murphy get the shaft because they're being compared to guys from later eras instead of their contemporaries. These guys were at the top of the game. Galaragga, while very good, was never considered one of the top 3-5 players in the game. These guys were. I hope at least one of them gets some support this year. If they're going to, this year is the one to do it with no other standout candidates. Sadly, Murphy will never get the support he needs. His only hope is the Veteran's Committee.

[Rod_Carew29]

to show you how CRAZY this HOF thing can be...

over in mlb.com, Cal Ripkin feels that BRADY ANDERSON SHOULD be in the HOF....
Hmmmmmmmmmmm

thanks for saying that...you said it all...what some folks also don't understand is that it's NOT ALWAYS about those 'magic number milestones'....3,000 hits or 500 home runs...but IT IS MORE about dominance...dominance over a period of time...usually around a 10-year period...

If anyone is OLD ENOUGH to have seen Rice play, then you get it. And no....reading clippings or watching a Yankees/Bosox classic game does not qualify...

Lastly, there are more than a few players whose numbers don't ever deserve them being in the HOF...but they're in there....and for some of those ver ones I'm talking about, Rice's numbers FAR exceed theirs....

[PhantomPain]

Re: to show you how CRAZY this HOF thing can be...

over in mlb.com, Cal Ripkin feels that BRADY ANDERSON SHOULD be in the HOF....
Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Am I wrong thinking that Brady Anderson is the guy who hit leadoff and then magically hit like 50 hr's one season (mitchell report)?

[Rod_Carew29]

@ PhantomPain

you're on...that's the guy! LOL

Am I wrong thinking that Brady Anderson is the guy who hit leadoff and then magically hit like 50 hr's one season (mitchell report)?

[SPTO]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Cal Ripken thinks Brady Anderson should be a HOF'er? That's a joke right?

I'm not one to look for milestones numbers all the time (Hell i've been campagning for Jack Morris who doesn't have those magic numbers for pitchers) but I do think that hitters need to at least have ONE of those milestones. If Rice had 3000 hits he'd be in the Hall already IMO.

It's true that he dominated his era but there were other guys who were slightly better then him in that same era so it's not like he was clearly the best player in the Majors or the AL for that matter. Still with the steroid era and the questioning of whether those who've gone ahead of him are legit then I do think he deserves enshrinement.

[fistofrage]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Cal Ripken thinks Brady Anderson should be a HOF'er? That's a joke right?

I'm not one to look for milestones numbers all the time (Hell i've been campagning for Jack Morris who doesn't have those magic numbers for pitchers) but I do think that hitters need to at least have ONE of those milestones. If Rice had 3000 hits he'd be in the Hall already IMO.

It's true that he dominated his era but there were other guys who were slightly better then him in that same era so it's not like he was clearly the best player in the Majors or the AL for that matter. Still with the steroid era and the questioning of whether those who've gone ahead of him are legit then I do think he deserves enshrinement.

Jack Morris should definitely be in. He was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's and then won multiple world series in the twilight of his career.

I think people clamor for Jim Rice for the smae reason. For multiple years in a row, he was one of the marquis players.

You can't compare stats between eras. If anyone gets the shaft in that department its Dewey Evans. He hit 20 HR's + how many years in a row? Now your bat boy better be able to put up 30 HR's or you have a major power outage. Same can be said for Whitaker & Trammel. Best Double Play combo in the game for close to 20 years. Yet their stats don't match up now because they were team players that would move runners, hit for power only when they were told to and valued gold gloves as much as offensive stats.

The Hall of Fame has been ruined. Until all this garbage shakes out, I wouldn't induct anybody.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Lastly, there are more than a few players whose numbers don't ever deserve them being in the HOF...but they're in there....and for some of those ver ones I'm talking about, Rice's numbers FAR exceed theirs....

This is true...IMO Bill Mazeroski is in the HOF because of one career hit that just happened to win a World Series. From what I've heard, his defense was outstanding, but outstanding enough to ignore the fact that he was a career .260 hitter and never batted over .283 in a season? I'd put Rice in before him for sure.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ JJLinn

you wanna laugh? Mazeroski was the VERY ONE I was referring to...lol

This is true...IMO Bill Mazeroski is in the HOF because of one career hit that just happened to win a World Series. From what I've heard, his defense was outstanding, but outstanding enough to ignore the fact that he was a career .260 hitter and never batted over .283 in a season? I'd put Rice in before him for sure.

[mgoblue]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Jack Morris should definitely be in. He was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's and then won multiple world series in the twilight of his career.

I think people clamor for Jim Rice for the smae reason. For multiple years in a row, he was one of the marquis players.

You can't compare stats between eras. If anyone gets the shaft in that department its Dewey Evans. He hit 20 HR's + how many years in a row? Now your bat boy better be able to put up 30 HR's or you have a major power outage. Same can be said for Whitaker & Trammel. Best Double Play combo in the game for close to 20 years. Yet their stats don't match up now because they were team players that would move runners, hit for power only when they were told to and valued gold gloves as much as offensive stats.

The Hall of Fame has been ruined. Until all this garbage shakes out, I wouldn't induct anybody.

80's Tigers are getting screwed! Morris definitely deserves to be in. The only reason he's not is because he wasn't the perfect interview for sportswriters.

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Rice is grossly overrated by Sox fans.

[nyqua]

Re: Why do people think Jim Rice should be in the HOF?

Blyleven should get in before Morris.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ nyqua

Agreed!

Blyleven should get in before Morris.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: @ nyqua

Here is a very interesting thing I read on Blyleven on some blog called Cardboard Junkie:

An amazing Bert Blyleven statistic that I wouldn’t wish upon any major league pitcher:
From his 1970 rookie season through 1977 I’ve accumulated his quality starts that I’ve defined as: 6innings, 2earned runs or less; 7,8,9innings, 3earned runs or less; and 9innings+ 4 earned runs or less in which he garnered a no decision or a loss only……

The totals are:
82 games
658 innings
583 hits
185 runs
160 earned runs
184 base on balls
540 strikeouts
2.19 ERA
His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA

1970 0-3 2.09 9 games
1971 0-6 1.90 9 games
1972 0-9 2.35 13 games
1973 0-8 2.55 9 games
1974 0-8 1.80 10 games
1975 0-6 2.00 10 games
1976 0-8 2.29 15 games
1977 0-5 2.45 7 games

I understand that pitchers put up great games and get snakebit on occasion, but this accounted for almost 1 of every 3 starts, 82 of 279 to be exact or 29%. Show me a Hall of Famer that had to go through this year by year. Fortunately once Blyleven ended up in Pittsburgh and later some good Minnesota teams, this trend eased to what I would consider normal levels (I had researched this in the past but don’t have the numbers on hand)

Imagine 1974, your 17-9 in 27 games, and in the other 10, all of which are essentially quality starts, you post a 1.80ERA and go 0-8. You end up 17-17. If you don’t know the facts, and your voting for the Cy Young award, and you see 17-17. Do you cast a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place vote? Probably not. This is what Blyleven faced in yesteryear, and the same writers, who I contend do not know the facts, are what Blyleven faces every year in the HOF vote.

Go ahead, plug in a different year, or harken back to Baseball-reference and neutralize the stats, do it for every one of Blyleven’s contemporaries. The numbers don’t change much, but for Bert Blyleven, they do. The example given above is my attempt to show why. Teams that didn’t score runs and booted the ball around like it was a soccer match.