|
Post by 9 on Jul 30, 2007 12:15:21 GMT -5
I'd vote for Rice. But as a Yankee fan, my opinion is biased because of how much fear I had when the Yanks faced him. I feared him more than Yaz, who's already in the Hall (and rightfully so).
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jul 30, 2007 13:11:30 GMT -5
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 30, 2007 13:53:51 GMT -5
The old, "he didn't play for the Yankees" argument. The funny part is, the people who make that argument are guilty of doing what they accuse me of doing--except they argue AGAINST anything to do with the Yankees.
No one came close to 46 HRs? Reggie and Gorman Thomas both hit 41 in 1980. Thomas hit 45 HRs (I guess that's not close) in 79. In his career, Rice led in HRs three times.
As for the Pujols comparison, given that I mentioned the difference in eras in the original post, the argument of not knowing about the ball flying out of the parks today is also a waste of typing--or a lack of reading of my post.
And given the pace Rice was setting in 1981, he would not have hit another 18 HRs without the strike. Again, the man hit over 30 HRs just 3 times. He hit 24 HRs in each of the full seasons before and after 1981. Giving him the benefit of the doubt based on proportion, at most, he would have had another 10-12 HRs. At MOST. And either way, 400 HR is hardly an automatic HOF stat.
The only problem is that Rice's actual STATS still don't make him HOF worthy. I don't care what team he played for. Unless you lower the bar like they did for Puckett, Jim Rice is borderline at best, but not worthy.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jul 30, 2007 13:58:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jul 30, 2007 14:07:11 GMT -5
I read the original post. You glossed over the difference in eras and summarily dismissed them. Mentioning them doesn't mean much. The era is the whole argument.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 30, 2007 14:09:48 GMT -5
Tom-- Justin-- What I dismissed was the comparison to Pujols. Rice isn't in the guys league in any era.
|
|
|
Post by drock2006 on Jul 30, 2007 16:48:20 GMT -5
Rice should be in. Anyone who actually watched baseball in that time period will tell you that.
Puckett could not carry Rice's jock, but he hit a big Home run, was nice to people and the press felt bad the way he had to retire. Maybe they should have asked the waitress' of the Twin Ctites about his character.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 30, 2007 17:36:10 GMT -5
Rice should not be in. In his prime, he was the man, but his career as a whole is not HOF worthy. If it was such a no brainer, he'd already be in.
|
|
|
Post by drock2006 on Jul 30, 2007 19:24:48 GMT -5
Let me ask you..in all honesty, did you see Rice in his prime?
Not saying he is Bae Ruth but if Rizzuto, Niekro and sutton are in, there is no way Rice should not be
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jul 31, 2007 0:04:31 GMT -5
The comparison to Pujols isn't just in stats Balls, there is a comparison on how each player was looked upon by the peers of his era, and both were/are feared. Borderline players are not feared for a decade. You're also starting to gloss over arguments you can't counter, which means, well, you're about to lose another baseball argument.
You of all people, one of the biggest criticizers of the HOF process, should know why he isn't in, and it's not because of his stats.
What funny is I bet the same assholes saying he would be in with a few more seasons and higher totals would pull the old compiler argument out.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 5:55:34 GMT -5
Niekro and Sutton are 300 game winners. That's an automatic stat. Rizzuto? I realize it's a different position and era, but you have more of a case there easily.
Grover, I get how Rice was feared, but he had one year similar to Pujols.
If he was feared for a decade, it was on the strength of the 3 good years he had in the 1970s. From 1980-82, he was still good, but nothing HOF worthy. He had a resurgence in 83-84. In 85-86, he was still putting up excellent numbers, but not "most feared guy in the game" numbers.
And you're wrong about losing a baseball argument again. When you declare victory in an argument, it's a sign that you have nothing as always.
Jim Rice was nothing special on defense. He was a power hitter that hit over 30 HRs just 4 times. He has no HOF worthy stats. 500 HRs? Nope. 400 HRs? Nope.
1500RBI? Nope.
Lifetime .300 AVG? Nope.
3000 hits? Nope.
2500 hits? Nope.
No OFer from his era with those numbers are in the HOF. There's a reason. He's not good enough.
If you want to make the lower the bar argument like with Puckett, you have a different story. Puckett hit 20 points higher than Rice and was a much better defender. But Rice hit 175 more HRs. Is 175 more HRs worth 20 points in average? Can't say, but if you aren't going to lower the bar for Rice, then he doesn't belong in the same category as the other OFers in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jul 31, 2007 9:23:11 GMT -5
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 9:30:41 GMT -5
For those not willing to click, Domi's article is a detailed analysis about why Rice falls short.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jul 31, 2007 9:42:38 GMT -5
That link doesn't work
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jul 31, 2007 9:43:07 GMT -5
Also, last I checked, "put 'fear' in heart of pitcher" wasn't one of the qualifications for the Hall of Fame.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 9:51:30 GMT -5
John, you need to get off Tom's computer.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jul 31, 2007 10:51:08 GMT -5
Balls, by declaring that Rice was nothing special on offense, you are clearly stating that you have no idea what you are talking about. His lifetime average is .298. You telling me he needs that .02 to be a HOFer? You telling me he needs 50 more hits? Give me a fucking break. That's the same fucking argument where if someone has 499 HRs they are out but one more they are in. It's fucking, stupid, and it's why the MLB Hall of Fame is a fucking joke and a half. It's only a step above the NHL Hall.
That article is a joke. Dwight Evans better? Give me a break. Every Anti-Rice argument comes from assholes like Rob Neyer who come up with the usual made up stat line like "Rice didn't have many extra base hits while a squirrel was running across the grass, so his lack of SATGEBH% of .670 does not put him in the Hall." or they hover around magic numbers.
Stark says he had no speed but how the fuck do you lead the league with triples with no fucking speed?
This is just another case of "I have a vote, so all eyes on my as I roll with my thesis on what it takes to get in because I'm a baseball stat nerd."
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jul 31, 2007 10:54:38 GMT -5
I didn't read the article, but it said Evans was better than Rice? No disrespect to Evans, who was a hell of a player with a rifle for an arm, but give me a fucking break!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 11:06:45 GMT -5
I'm not saying Rice was nothing special on offense. I'm saying over the course of his career, he's not a HOFer. I'm not saying he needs just 2 points to be a HOFer. I'm saying looking at ALL his career numbers as a whole, he has ZERO major milestones that makes him comparable to other HOFers.
You don't have to break down Rice's at bats to what he did with six clouds in the sky. It's much simpler than that. He doesn't have any milestones.
And that article did have a hell of a good point about Rice's finish. He was out of baseball at 36 years old because he couldn't hack it in the majors. He didn't just walk away with dignity. He didn't pad his stats because he simply couldn't.
In his prime, he was a hell of a player, but just having a good prime isn't enough. He never did anything to make him HOF worthy.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jul 31, 2007 11:17:57 GMT -5
Anyone who grew up watching him play in that era and is old enough to remember..there is no question he is an HOFer......he was the best all around hitter to me for a decade....A decade is enough for me..mattingly and his 5 or 6 years is not enough but a decade is...It was a different era and it is like arguing Gossage should not be in because he only has X saves and Lee Smith has like 5000....Different time, different game, different parks..heck didn't Nettles lead the league one year with like 32 homers and high saves was in the 20s (and multiple innings)?
Guess what....the 300 wins standard will have to be lowered also since there is a great chance that after Glavine no one will do it the way the game is now......Things change....
Next you'll say Dante Bichette was better than Rice cause his numbers were better in Coors......I saw the man with my own eyes he was Da Man 1975-1985....
And Rice was alot like Sonny LoSpecchio cause he felt it was better to be feared than loved.......
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 11:45:05 GMT -5
Actually, anyone who can look at his career as a whole and can see that the man has no milestones will tell you that he's not a HOFer. He may have been the best all around hitter for a decade to you, but the reality is, he wasn't. He had a good run from 77-79, but that's just 3 seasons.
Even comparing him to OFers in the HOF from his era, he doesn't stack up. That's why he isn't there.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jul 31, 2007 11:50:22 GMT -5
Once again Metssuckballs all alone on one side of a baseball argument.
Its getting really boring.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 11:55:29 GMT -5
It's never boring making you look ridiculous. Easy, but never boring.
And Rice still has no milestones and was out of baseball at 36 years old.
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jul 31, 2007 12:01:00 GMT -5
He's not alone, and he's actually right in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jul 31, 2007 12:13:15 GMT -5
And since Rob Neyer's name has been brought up already (and trashed), I'll post his comments on this issue:
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jul 31, 2007 12:27:58 GMT -5
Reggie Jackson and Schmidt should leave the Hall, they had BA under .300
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jul 31, 2007 12:30:45 GMT -5
No, that argument in the article is fucking ridiculous. When you make the claim that Rice is not a HOFer because he didn't reach the automatic milestones, and compare him to a player who's stats are worse, yet making the claim that that player is better (even though they didn't reach any fucking milestone either) then the guy making that argument in the article is retarded.
That article is retarded. they are punishing him for not playing until he was 42. 16 seasons is considered a short career?
The funny thing is almost every player from that era considers him one of the best, and that alone should tell the tale. You don't gain that level of respect by bring marginal. Oh, but that doesn't meet the Rob Neyer stat quota. Rice didn't catch the ball as well when someone was watching the Banana Splits, so his BSFP sucks ass! OH POO!!
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jul 31, 2007 12:45:26 GMT -5
Isn't Sandy Koufax in the hall with 165 wins???/
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 31, 2007 14:17:52 GMT -5
Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt have more than 500 HRs. So enough of that stupidity.
Jim Rice did not dominate the game like Koufax did.
Rice didn't play until he was 42 because he wasn't good enough. He may have been one of the best, but not for a full career. Not long enough. There are people in his era that are clearly better, like Schmidt and Jackson, and Rice doesn't measure up.
Stats matter.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jul 31, 2007 15:42:48 GMT -5
Jackson and Schmidt are no brainers, sure. Give me 10 more who were clearly better. Stargell? Sure. Anyone else?
|
|