PDA

View Full Version : And the Hall of Famers are...



Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 02:04 PM
Goose Gossage

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 02:05 PM
8 Results
Player Total Votes Percentage
Rich Gossage 466 85.8%
Jim Rice 392 72.2%
Andre Dawson 358 65.9%
Bert Blyleven 336 61.9%
Lee Smith 235 43.3%
Jack Morris 233 42.9%
Tommy John 158 29.1%
Tim Raines 132 24.3%
Mark McGwire 128 23.6%
Alan Trammell 99 18.2%
Dave Concepcion 88 16.2%
Don Mattingly 86 15.8%
Dave Parker 82 15.1%
Dale Murphy 75 13.8%
Harold Baines 28 5.2%
Rod Beck 2 0.4%
Travis Fryman 2 0.4%
Robb Nen 2 0.4%
Shawon Dunston 1 0.2%
Chuck Finley 1 0.2%
David Justice 1 0.2%
Chuck Knoblauch 1 0.2%
Todd Stottlemyre 1 0.2%
Jose Rijo 0 0%
Brady Anderson 0 0%

HalMorrisRules
01-08-2008, 02:09 PM
Stottlemyre gets a vote and Rijo doesnt?

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 02:16 PM
Jim Rice gets screwed again. What a joke these writers are.

mlbfan30
01-08-2008, 02:23 PM
Rice gets screwed? He doesn't belong in the HOF and will get in next year.
The biggest problem is Raines only getting 24%. He's better than Rice and Dawson and if compared favorably to the average LF already in the HOF.

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 02:25 PM
Jim Rice gets screwed again. What a joke these writers are.

Yes, these writers are a joke, but not because Jim Rice didn't get in. How does Travis Fryman get 2 votes? Are these guys retarded?

Back to Rice- KT's take:

4. Rice. An absolutely dominant hitter for a decade in Boston. Like Morris, I think, Rice loses points on personality. And that's not right.

You know nobody loves Jim Ed more than I. But again...he just wasn't as dominant as everyone says he was. Look for yourself. It's true. He was awesome for like 3-4 years, but then his eyesight went south -- which maybe Heyman thinks should work in his favor -- and he had injuries and stuff. Then he had a resurgence later as a DH, but it was too late, and he was done at like 33.


People always say that Rice was "the most feared" and the "scariest guy to see at the plate" and stuff...but for many of the years he played, he wasn't actually the best hitter, or player, on his own team. Look at Rice, and now look at Dewey. And remember that Rice was not the greatest OF, and that he DHed a lot, and that Dewey was an excellent RF. Why Dewey doesn't get more love for the Hall I'll never know. I don't think he should be in, but he never even sniffs a "Consider This Guy" article, and Jim Ed gets them all the time.

Anyway, the point is, Jim Ed = no, not quite, sorry. Love you. First Sox jersey was 14. Saw you hit a mammoth HR at Fenway in 1984 that might still be airborne. Just didn't play long enough, or well enough.

EDIT- and he's a Red Sox fan...

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 02:26 PM
Gossage
Rice
Blyleven
Smith
Raines
Concepcion

Those are the only HOF's from that list in my book.

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 02:28 PM
Raines and Blylevin for sure...

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 02:38 PM
Yes, these writers are a joke, but not because Jim Rice didn't get in. How does Travis Fryman get 2 votes? Are these guys retarded?

Back to Rice- KT's take:


EDIT- and he's a Red Sox fan...

Awesome for 3 or 4 years? From 1975 to 1986 there was no better hitter in the AL. You cannot compare him to the inflated numbers of today. I was there(at least watching on TV). If you asked AL pitchers who they would rather not face George Brett or Jim Rice, you wouldn't even get to finish your question before they said Jim Rice.

smoke6
01-08-2008, 02:45 PM
Knoblauch? Really?:eek:
Why is he even on the list?

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 03:00 PM
Every one of the players on the above list down to Baines deserves some consideration. The guys getting 1 or 2 votes are mainly just writers doing it as a favor or as a joke. If I'm not mistaken, getting no votes on the ballot means getting taken off the ballot permanently even if it is your 1st year on it.

_Sir_Charles_
01-08-2008, 03:12 PM
IMO, Gossage was a no-brainer. But then again, so is Rice, Lee and Raines.

Blyleven is a tougher call. He played on some pretty bad teams but put up some pretty darned good numbers for a long period. I'd say he'll get in eventually but it'll take some politicking on his part.

Andre Dawson...another tough call. He was great, but I just don't think he warrants it.

Jack Morris, Tommy John...nope and nope. Concepcion should've been in a while ago. I think the veteran's will vote him in.

McGuire...another tough call. In terms of sheer stats, he's a no-brainer. But with the promise of those stats all being tainted...I'm a bit torn on that. Considering the fact that baseball has already screwed the pooch on the whole steroids issue, I think they should just ignore the morals of the issue and go with the numbers alone and just try to eliminate them from here on out. But with that view being taken...where we ignore the moral of the issue and just go with the stats....then it's also a no-brainer that Pete Rose gets in. If you keep Rose out due to the moral implications of his actions over-riding his statistical prowess...then you must also keep out the 'roiders.

Nobody else on the list should even be in consideration. Yes...even Rijo. Not a SHOT.

bounty37h
01-08-2008, 03:12 PM
The whole system is a joke if you ask me. If you dont make it your first year, why are you even eligble again; your retired, what did you do over the last year to improve to earn it this year as opposed to last year. I think one year, 2 max, then wait a few for the vets commmitee for any oversights. The current system, IMO, takes away from the value of the Hall.

_Sir_Charles_
01-08-2008, 03:16 PM
The whole system is a joke if you ask me. If you dont make it your first year, why are you even eligble again; your retired, what did you do over the last year to improve to earn it this year as opposed to last year. I think one year, 2 max, then wait a few for the vets commmitee for any oversights. The current system, IMO, takes away from the value of the Hall.


I agree completely. If the voters aren't quite sure if a player merits induction...then he simply DOESN'T warrant induction. A hall of fame has little meaning if borderline players get in. I mean, if he was "pretty good"...then he shouldn't be in the same club as Aaron, Ruth and Mays now should he?

FreelFanatic
01-08-2008, 03:25 PM
Every one of the players on the above list down to Baines deserves some consideration. The guys getting 1 or 2 votes are mainly just writers doing it as a favor or as a joke. If I'm not mistaken, getting no votes on the ballot means getting taken off the ballot permanently even if it is your 1st year on it.

Of the 11 first-timers on the ballot, only one -- Tim Raines -- received the requisite 5 percent to remain on the ballot. (MLB.com)

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 03:42 PM
Andre Dawson...another tough call. He was great, but I just don't think he warrants it.

I have to agree with you there. I think he has gotten a lot of mileage out of that '87 season. Good all around player but not quite HOF-worthy in my book.

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 03:49 PM
I agree completely. If the voters aren't quite sure if a player merits induction...then he simply DOESN'T warrant induction. A hall of fame has little meaning if borderline players get in. I mean, if he was "pretty good"...then he shouldn't be in the same club as Aaron, Ruth and Mays now should he?

Exactly why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall...
Career OPS+
Jim Rice 128
Adam Dunn 130
Ellis Burks 126
Moises Alou 128
Bobby Bonilla 124
Fred Lynn 129
George Foster 126
Ryan Klesko 128
David Justice 129

And his counting stats weren't that much better than most of these guys either, nor did he play great defense or steal bases...

Rice was really good from '77-'79 and then had another great season in '83. And as was said, he was basically done by age 33...

_Sir_Charles_
01-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Well, IMO Rice was one of (if not THE) most feared hitter in the AL for a good 5-7 year period. There were a couple of years where his numbers were down due to extended periods on the DL, but overall his impact was VERY substantial. In terms of other hitters on the current ballot, none of the others are really even close to Rice.

It's not entirely about stats, it's also about the impact on the game. His stats might not be as top notch as some of the BIG names in the HoF, but for a good long stretch he was dominant. In comparison to his contemporaries his numbers are VERY favorable.

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 05:51 PM
Well, IMO Rice was one of (if not THE) most feared hitter in the AL for a good 5-7 year period. There were a couple of years where his numbers were down due to extended periods on the DL, but overall his impact was VERY substantial. In terms of other hitters on the current ballot, none of the others are really even close to Rice.

It's not entirely about stats, it's also about the impact on the game. His stats might not be as top notch as some of the BIG names in the HoF, but for a good long stretch he was dominant. In comparison to his contemporaries his numbers are VERY favorable.

How can he be feared if he is on the DL? As I said, he was dominant for a 3 year stretch and then one other season. How is that dominant "for a good long stretch"? And his numbers are favorable to contemporaries? It's an offensive age... he compares best to RYAN KLESKO!

mlbfan30
01-08-2008, 06:08 PM
If Rice was so feared, why was he rarely intentionally walked?

I would think fear = IBB ; because that says the manager doesn't want to pitch to you.

He only had 77 intentional walks in his career, tying him with:

Claudell Washington
Pete O’Brien
Fred Lynn
George Hendrick
Terry Pendleton

So explain why he was feared, other than just saying he was because that's what you and other people want to think.

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 06:15 PM
Does anybody else think that at first glance Fred Lynn is a better candidate?

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 06:25 PM
Exactly why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall...
Career OPS+
Jim Rice 128
Adam Dunn 130
Ellis Burks 126
Moises Alou 128
Bobby Bonilla 124
Fred Lynn 129
George Foster 126
Ryan Klesko 128
David Justice 129

And his counting stats weren't that much better than most of these guys either, nor did he play great defense or steal bases...

Rice was really good from '77-'79 and then had another great season in '83. And as was said, he was basically done by age 33...

Comparing Rice to more recent ballplayers as far as OPS+ is flawed as well as comparing Dunn to the likes of Fred Lynn or George Foster. Different time frame and different standards as well as the proliferation of performance enhancers in this era render that argument useless. But I would also argue that his counting stats more than measure up to and better any of the above mentioned players over his career. But, to me, the question of his validity as a Hall of Famer is how he compares to the other players during his era. So, on to my points...

First, no he didn't steal bases. Although, he did tie for the team lead in 1975. That is not a reason to keep him out of the HOF. Most power hitters do not steal bases and the reasons for that go without saying. Second, no he did not play great defense. He did not play bad defense either. He had basically the same FP as Yastrzemski and a better RF although not quite the arm. His arm was still more than adequate. He had more than 10 outfield assists in a season 7 times. In 1983 he had 21 assists, the most by any Red Sox OF since 1944. He was adequate as a fielder playing LF in front of the Green Monster, which is one of the harder places to field in baseball. Third, his knack for GIDP is not a reason to keep him out either. The abovementioned Yaz grounded into more. In fact, the top 6 all time are

1. Cal Ripken
2. Hank Aaron
3. Yaz
4. Dave Winfield
5. Eddie Murray
6. Jim Rice

Clemente was also 14th, Kaline 15th, Frank Robinson 17th, and 18-20 are Doggie, Concepcion, and Lombardi. So, the GIDP argument doesn't wash against Rice either. It also bears noticing that Rice batted .310 and slugged .515 in double play situations for his career. Now, onto how he compares offensively to his era.

Rice was indeed very good from 77-79 and great in '83 but he was more than that. Six times he finished in the top 5 for AL MVP. He was 13th & 19th 2 other seasons. He is 29th all time in MVP shares, just above Joe Morgan. He also was an 8 time All-Star and wasn't even named one during his outstanding rookie season. He finished in the AL Top Ten in these categories:

AVG- 6 times
SLG- 8 times
OPS- 6 times
Runs- 6 times
Hits- 8 times
Total Bases- 9 times
3B- 4 times (he did have some speed)
HR- 6 times
RBI- 9 times

Over a 12 year period he was the best hitting OF in the AL, if not in all of baseball. The stats bear that out. He might even be the best hitter period during that time. Teams feared him and the fact he didn't hang around long enough to reach the magic 400 homer mark should not work against him. He played at a whole other level than most players during his time and he deserves to be recognized for that.

Bip Roberts
01-08-2008, 06:26 PM
I think the Hall lets in too many people

*BaseClogger*
01-08-2008, 06:39 PM
Comparing Rice to more recent ballplayers as far as OPS+ is flawed as well as comparing Dunn to the likes of Fred Lynn or George Foster. Different time frame and different standards as well as the proliferation of performance enhancers in this era render that argument useless. But I would also argue that his counting stats more than measure up to and better any of the above mentioned players over his career. But, to me, the question of his validity as a Hall of Famer is how he compares to the other players during his era. So, on to my points...

Most of the names I threw out there were just for fun. However, guys like Foster and Lynn have very similar counting totals. Rice is in a pack of very good, but not great, OF'ers...


First, no he didn't steal bases. Although, he did tie for the team lead in 1975. That is not a reason to keep him out of the HOF. Most power hitters do not steal bases and the reasons for that go without saying. Second, no he did not play great defense. He did not play bad defense either. He had basically the same FP as Yastrzemski and a better RF although not quite the arm. His arm was still more than adequate. He had more than 10 outfield assists in a season 7 times. In 1983 he had 21 assists, the most by any Red Sox OF since 1944. He was adequate as a fielder playing LF in front of the Green Monster, which is one of the harder places to field in baseball. Third, his knack for GIDP is not a reason to keep him out either. The abovementioned Yaz grounded into more. In fact, the top 6 all time are

1. Cal Ripken
2. Hank Aaron
3. Yaz
4. Dave Winfield
5. Eddie Murray
6. Jim Rice

Clemente was also 14th, Kaline 15th, Frank Robinson 17th, and 18-20 are Doggie, Concepcion, and Lombardi. So, the GIDP argument doesn't wash against Rice either. It also bears noticing that Rice batted .310 and slugged .515 in double play situations for his career. Now, onto how he compares offensively to his era.

His career was cut short. He had way less opportunites to ground into DP's and still finishes 6th all time! Funny thing is, I wasn't even using that as part of my arguement. Thanks for the ammunition! ;)


Rice was indeed very good from 77-79 and great in '83 but he was more than that. Six times he finished in the top 5 for AL MVP. He was 13th & 19th 2 other seasons. He is 29th all time in MVP shares, just above Joe Morgan. He also was an 8 time All-Star and wasn't even named one during his outstanding rookie season. He finished in the AL Top Ten in these categories:

AVG- 6 times
SLG- 8 times
OPS- 6 times
Runs- 6 times
Hits- 8 times
Total Bases- 9 times
3B- 4 times (he did have some speed)
HR- 6 times
RBI- 9 times

We can't mock the BBWA for their Hall selections and then talk about MVP's and All-Star games as credentials. Those awards are pretty much meaningless. These Top Ten finishes came in a time of weak offenses and makes them less impressive. We clearly have a difference of opinion in that you compare guys within their era while I compare them all-time. To me, it is a Hall of Fame for ALL-TIME and therefore that is what they should be compared to....


Over a 12 year period he was the best hitting OF in the AL, if not in all of baseball. The stats bear that out. He might even be the best hitter period during that time. Teams feared him and the fact he didn't hang around long enough to reach the magic 400 homer mark should not work against him. He played at a whole other level than most players during his time and he deserves to be recognized for that.

I'll sum up Jim Rice: 4 great offensive seasons, played left field and his defense and baserunning don't stand out, eventually had to move to DH because of injuries, said injuries effectively had him out of baseball by the time he was 33. Just wasn't great long enough considering how short his career was...

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 07:08 PM
Most of the names I threw out there were just for fun. However, guys like Foster and Lynn have very similar counting totals. Rice is in a pack of very good, but not great, OF'ers...



His career was cut short. He had way less opportunites to ground into DP's and still finishes 6th all time! Funny thing is, I wasn't even using that as part of my arguement. Thanks for the ammunition! ;)




We can't mock the BBWA for their Hall selections and then talk about MVP's and All-Star games as credentials. Those awards are pretty much meaningless. These Top Ten finishes came in a time of weak offenses and makes them less impressive. We clearly have a difference of opinion in that you compare guys within their era while I compare them all-time. To me, it is a Hall of Fame for ALL-TIME and therefore that is what they should be compared to....




I'll sum up Jim Rice: 4 great offensive seasons, played left field and his defense and baserunning don't stand out, eventually had to move to DH because of injuries, said injuries effectively had him out of baseball by the time he was 33. Just wasn't great long enough considering how short his career was...

Let's agree to disagree. I think that 7 100 RBI seasons amount to more than 4 great offensive seasons. You do not. Fair enough.

Handofdeath
01-08-2008, 09:02 PM
If Rice was so feared, why was he rarely intentionally walked?

I would think fear = IBB ; because that says the manager doesn't want to pitch to you.

He only had 77 intentional walks in his career, tying him with:

Claudell Washington
Pete O’Brien
Fred Lynn
George Hendrick
Terry Pendleton

So explain why he was feared, other than just saying he was because that's what you and other people want to think.

"No hitter scared me, but Jim Rice came the closest."
Goose Gossage 2008

*BaseClogger*
01-13-2008, 12:24 PM
With all the HOF talk lately, I was wondering if Jim Rice might be a candidate. Maybe you’ve seen some discussion on it – maybe not. With next year being his last year of eligibility, I figure, what the heck, take a look.

I am a Small Hall of Fame person. That means people have to be great to get in. There is room, in my Hall, for achieving milestones, because milestones are only achievable through quality over time. There are no peak-driven milestones. I am also as guilty as the next BBWAA voter with regard to some level of “feel” in my Hall. You have to.

I’m also something of a position stickler. People like to lump the HOF outfielders together, and I don’t think they would lump the HOF infielders together. The three OF positions are distinctive and teams look for different skills for each one. Yes, left fielders and right fielders are close, but they are not the same. Center fielders are clearly a different class.

So it’s pointless to look at the best HOF left fielders and pretend that Rice is in the class of Williams or Musial. But is he in the class of the rest of the HOF left fielders? Before you start saying “we can’t use the lowest common denominator”, I’m not going to. Who are Rice’s real HOF comps? On Baseball-Reference, Billy Williams and Willie Stargell pop up on his comp list. They were also both left fielders.

So I split out HOF left fielders from the “real baseball” era. I define that as 1936 to present. If you played baseball prior you were either playing against a weaker league, or a dead ball. That’s barely describable as a “modern” era. My count has the HOF left fielders as: Ducky Medwick, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner, Monte Irvin, Carl Yastrzemski, Billy Williams, Lou Brock, and Willie Stargell.

For this comparison, we’re going to not use Teddy Ballgame or Stan Musial. Rice isn’t in the inner-circle. We aren’t going to use Monte Irvin – he is in for a good portion of his Negro League career. Ralph Kiner’s career is too short. And Lou Brock is in the HOF for 3000 hits and 938 stolen bases.

That leaves Medwick, Yaz, Billy Williams and Stargell. Well, Yaz has 3419 hits, so he’s got a level of longevity over Rice. So, I will be using Ducky, Pops and Billy Williams.


Player Last G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+
Jim Rice 2089 8895 8225 1249 2452 373 79 382 1451 670 1423 0.298 0.352 0.502 128
3 HOF Avg 2277 9110 8304 1268 2471 466 85 369 1466 806 1178 0.298 0.360 0.507 141

Zoinks. Rice is getting plenty of love because his stats are right in line people considered to be “middle of the road” HOFers. I mean, I don’t recall Billy Williams, Stargell and Medwick as marginal or borderline HOFers.

I know context matters, and that difference shows up in the OPS+ numbers. But with all the other numbers, is that single data point sufficient for all the clamoring that Rice doesn’t belong? Well, yes. It basically says that the leagues that Rice played in were 13 percent easier to put up the stats he put up. So Rice is 13 percent worse than the usual HOF left fielder.

What’s funny is that Rice’s OPS+ is right beside Yaz’ (129). If Rice had hung around for another decade and got 3000 hits, he’d be elected. I don’t think the proper comparison is that Rice was the best left fielder (whether he was or not) for a given decade, but whether or not he measures up to the definition of a HOF left fielder. That’s pretty well established, and he clearly is not. In order to make the Hall, he should have 3000 hits or 900 stolen bases or 7 straight home run crowns, assuming his OPS+ is going to be less than 140.

I must say, I was really surprised at how reasonable Rice’s stats look compared to solid HOF left fielders. These aren’t the margins – so it’s understandable how anyone not looking at OPS+, or some other statistic that accounts for context, that Rice looks good. His count and rate stats are right in line with the average of Stargell/Williams/Medwick. Rice is legitimately described as a top ten left fielder in the modern era. Many people think that’s enough to be a HOFer. Is it?

No, Jim Rice shouldn’t be a Hall of Famer, but this analysis shows that Rice “put up Hall of Fame numbers”, just not at a good enough rate.


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/is_jim_rice_a_hall_of_famer/