$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jul 31, 2007 18:40:31 GMT -5
I'm starting to get aggravated. While I am in a bitching mood, what about this guy? Gil Hodges was the fucking man.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 6:57:13 GMT -5
Jackson and Schmidt are no brainers, sure. Give me 10 more who were clearly better. Stargell? Sure. Anyone else? ==========================
I don't think I need to give 10 more that were better. Obviously, in any ten year stretch, you'll have players from different eras colliding. You named some 70s guys. Toward the second half of Rice's prime, you had the Mattinglys, Boggs', & Bretts, all striking fear into the hearts of pitchers.
It's not about naming 10 people. It's about whether or not Rice himself belongs. He just doesn't.
Gil Hodges isn't close. He doesn't even have 2000 hits, let alone 3000. He's another all star player that falls well short of the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Aug 1, 2007 7:30:48 GMT -5
so then if Jackson and Schmidt get in with their 500 HR's are you going to be writing a letter saying McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero should be in based on theirs?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 7:32:38 GMT -5
No. Because those guys used steroids. Do you not see the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Aug 1, 2007 7:55:44 GMT -5
No, I see your bar set at 500 Home Runs.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 8:09:50 GMT -5
500 HR should be an automatic category--but not if you took steroids. The cheaters need to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Aug 1, 2007 10:08:09 GMT -5
I guess a decent comparison is Griffey. I used to say that Griffey was a HOFer even before he got to 500 HR. The guy was DOMINANT for almost a decade & if he finished his career 3-4 years ago - he was a HOFer anyway.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 10:15:52 GMT -5
I think Griffey's domination in Seattle surpasses Rice's by a long shot. More important, Griffey maintained productiveness when he was in the lineup. He's older now than Rice was when Rice retired. But he's still productive.
Griffey was simply better than Rice--not just at the plate, but in the field. With the exception of 2005, he hasn't been a superstar since 2001, but he can still play when he doesn't get hurt.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Aug 1, 2007 10:36:45 GMT -5
I gotta go with Balls on that one. Griffey was insane.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 11:06:54 GMT -5
Now we're stretching it. Now were comparing a guy who was on his was to becoming one of the best ever to a guy who was one of the best in his era. It's obvious Rice is a decent choice since he's getting a decent amount of votes, but, it's the statisticians who make up categories and the nerds who get all pissy since he wasn't on the media nutsack.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 11:15:26 GMT -5
You really don't need to go nuts with the stats on Rice. He has no major milestones on his resume and was out of baseball at 36 years old. Hell, he couldn't even FINISH that season, playing his last game in August. He was a VERY good ballplayer, but not quite HOF good.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 11:25:41 GMT -5
Since when is 36 years old retiring early? Since when is a 16 year career short? Balls don't you see the people railing Rice for not sticking around longer are the same people who rail people for being compilers? Their arguments are inconsistent.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 12:03:54 GMT -5
36 years old is early for a HOFer barring some sort of career ending injury.
Again, the article Domi posted made a great point. Rice didn't compile, because he COULDN'T. He was done. His decline hit really early for him. He would have needed several more years of prime to make the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 12:47:33 GMT -5
Who says he couldn't go? Why should someone be punished for not wanting to stick around and put up shit stats? You see how stupid that is?
Think about it: They are shitting on him for not wanting to stick around and be a shell of his former self. All because they want him to get to a few round numbers. His lifetime average would have went down, but he would have gotten to the pretty numbers off 2500/400/1500. He's not even off by much. TWO seasons worth would have gotten the 'magic numbers', but he decided to hang it up, and that makes stat nerds angry. It's horseshit.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Aug 1, 2007 12:52:16 GMT -5
I'm not saying Rice was a Griffey. I was simply stating that Griffey could have retired in 2001 & still been a HOF without any "milestones".
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 13:23:29 GMT -5
And then there would have been some asshole complaining that he didn't get 800 HRs and saying he's borderline. The MLB HOF process is thee most idiotic process most of the times.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 14:16:57 GMT -5
Rice couldn't play anymore. He didn't have it. He ended his career because he had to--in mid season.
He wasn't good enough to crack the lineup--at 36. He didn't HAVE those 2 seasons. He's not Williams or Cobb, who walked away when they were still productive.
He's just not that good.
The MLB HOF process is bad, but Jim Rice still shouldn't be in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 17:20:21 GMT -5
Balls, you're missing the point, AS USUAL.
Many of the arguments I've read from people like in Domi's article, Stark and Neyer are just flat out wrong, and it's obvious that they are not voting on him because he is an asshole. Balls you are thee only person here who thinks Rice is not in because of his stats. He's not in because the BBWAA are filled with pretentious cunts.
I mean, seriously, did you ever hear the Fenway argument given for Yaz or Boggs? No, but way do they roll it out for Rice? Because they thought he was an asshole.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 1, 2007 22:12:14 GMT -5
Grover, YOU may think that, but the fact remains, his stats are not there.
He doesn't belong in the HOF.
He wasn't good enough under any objective standard.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 1, 2007 22:40:07 GMT -5
Balls, the guy got 60% of the vote, and all anyone ever talks about is that he had terrible relations with the media, most of which happen to be BBWAA members.
Balls, you're the only one here who is denying that.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 2, 2007 5:58:07 GMT -5
I've never denied that he had a lousy relationship with the writers. But I'm saying that with or without that, his stats are simply not HOF worthy. No milestones. Being good for a short period of time does not make you a HOFer--unless of course you lower the standard.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Aug 2, 2007 10:32:26 GMT -5
Offensive milestones are warped now anyway..in his ERA he was top 10 in just about everything and that is long enough fo me...
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 2, 2007 11:30:15 GMT -5
Actually, statistically, all the stuff Domi's articles showed he really wasn't all that in his era. He was an excellent player, but not a HOFer.
The milestones I'm talking about were achieved by people in his era and before.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 2, 2007 11:44:26 GMT -5
That article is shit.
Dick Allen better? Didn't he spend more time in the infield? Dawson's better? Not really. Jimmy Wynn? How can you bash Rice for not having 'milestones' yet pose the question that Jimmy Wynn was better?
Balls you didn't have a clue about Rice until Domi posted that article and now you're parroting everything in it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 2, 2007 11:57:47 GMT -5
The article shows that Rice wasn't as intimidating as you think he was. And again, he didn't accomplish any major milestones. He wasn't on top long enough, and was out of baseball at 36 years old--not because of any desire to have dignity, but because he couldn't hack it.
I never said Dick Allen was better. Over a career, Rice had more HRs, a higher average, and more RBIs. Allen is not in the HOF, and rightfully so.
Dawson is argubly better. He lasted longer, also won an MVP, managed to be productive into his 40s, and outperformed Rice over a career. Dawson is more worthy than Rice, but he is also not in the HOF.
Jimmy Wynn? Not in Rice's league, but not in the HOF either.
And of course, you are wrong as always about Rice. You act like I didn't watch him play while you were glued to Red Sox games in your diapers. I never once said the guy wasn't good. And if you read the early parts of this thread instead of posting your standard, "you lost another argument" quote without reading, you would see that I was making similar arguments about Rice's stats all along.
You don't need the articles Domi posted to conclude Rice doesn't belong. You just need to see his numbers. They aren't there. So he was good for a few years? Big deal. He was not the top player in the game with the exception of his MVP year. And at best, he had a 3 year run of brilliant stats. Over a career, he was not HOF worthy.
Your argument is weak.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 2, 2007 12:09:10 GMT -5
You're quoting the article as scripture and then agreeing with my disagreements with it in the same breath.
You're view on what is a HOFer is weak. You say Derek Jeter is a 1st ballot HOFer if he retires today, yet you do not count postseason accomplishments as criteria for HO consideration, and Jeter does not have the round numbers you say Rice needs. Does Jeter have 2500 hits? No. 200 HRs? No. 1000 RBIs? No. Batting titles? No. MVPs? No.
So tell me, Balls, if Jeter wasn't good enough to play anymore, what puts him in? Average alone?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
"Rice isn't good enough" = "Red Sox suck and should not be in the Hall!"
ROFLPUCKETT!!
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 2, 2007 12:09:57 GMT -5
ROFLMATTINGLYNEVERGETTINGIN!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 2, 2007 12:20:33 GMT -5
If Jeter doesn't play anymore, he's in based on his career hits total, his lifetime average, and his time at the top of the game--something that far surpasses anything Rice ever did. Right now, only 59 people have a higher lifetime average than Jeter.
He absolutely belongs with the best shortstops whoever played. Right now. And he's not even close to being done.
Keep writing LOL. That still doesn't counter your weak argument about Rice.
Mattingly has nothing to do with this conversation either. But the fact you bring him up shows the weakness of your argument.
I've said all along that if you lower the bar to the standard for Puckett, Rice would get in. But he doesn't belong with the all time greats, just like Puckett doesn't belong with the all time greats.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Aug 2, 2007 12:41:33 GMT -5
Wait a minute. MSB doesn't count postseason events as part of the HOF discussion, but Jeter is 1st ballot & Rice isn't in?
I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Aug 2, 2007 12:43:26 GMT -5
Bert Blyleven is the toughest HOF case for me. The guy has 290 wins & what - 4th most K's all time? Yet he had a ton of losses & no CY's. He's as borderline as you can get. Do you punish him for being on bad teams? Do you assume he'd have been great if he was on Playoff teams his entire career?
THere could be a 100 page thread on that topic in my opinion.
|
|