Jim Rice denied: a HOF disgrace

[PonyExpress]

Once again, the American League's dominant offensive player for a decade was kept out of the HOF. The inflated numbers of the steroid era have diminished Rice's career, when 30/100 actually meant something. Baseball continues to forget its heroes and exalts its villains. A true disgrace.

 

[Foley]

The major knock against him is his career .277/.330/.459 line away from Fenway. He was a fantastic hitter in Boston, but on the road he was mearly good. If he wasn't such a product of playing half his games in a park that inflated his stats so much I think he would have been elected a while ago, but his home/road spilts are staggering and hard for a lot of voters to ignore. I'd probably give him a vote if I had the chance, but thats mostly because of bias.

Although the ballot for next years class is headed by Tim Raines... a ballot even worse than last years should bode well for Rice.

 

[PonyExpress]

Stats mean nothing in a vacuum. A player must be judged in context with his era. Rice in his prime was better than everyone else who played during his career. The steroid era, the juiced ball destroyed everything. Pundits who try to judge players like they're all contemporaries are foolishly living in never-never land.

 

[Foley]

What about Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker? All hitters with very good numbers at the same time as Rice (and played more years), none of which are in the hall either. Do you think its a disgrace that they aren't voted in?

As for being better than anyone else in his era... George Brett, Reggie Jackson, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Eddie Murray, etc, etc. Its not as though Rice was a revolutionary player who was lightyears away from everyone else. He had years were he was the best in baseball, but so did all of the others I listed, some of whom are also not in the hall. Rice was a very good player who I believe should be in the hall, but there is a very strong argument against him so I don't think its a monumental tragedy that hes not in.

 

[sdaniels7114]

I'm disgusted with this whole situation. Making him twist in the wind like this is inexcusable. There's nothing wrong with wanting a little privacy.

 

[PonyExpress]

What about Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker? All hitters with very good numbers at the same time as Rice (and played more years), none of which are in the hall either. Do you think its a disgrace that they aren't voted in?

As for being better than anyone else in his era... George Brett, Reggie Jackson, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Eddie Murray, etc, etc. Its not as though Rice was a revolutionary player who was lightyears away from everyone else. He had years were he was the best in baseball, but so did all of the others I listed, some of whom are also not in the hall. Rice was a very good player who I believe should be in the hall, but there is a very strong argument against him so I don't think its a monumental tragedy that hes not in.

Rice was not a very good player. He was a great player. He was much more dominant than the players you list other than Brett.

 

[Foley]

Rice was not a very good player. He was a great player. He was much more dominant than the players you list other than Brett.

That really all depends on how you define great verses very good. For power hitters I believe that OPS and HR are the best judges of greatness. In Rice’s best years (1977-1979) he had OPSs of .969, .970 and .977 respectively. The .969OPS in 1977 was good for second in the AL and good for fifth in all of baseball. The .970OPS in 1978 was good for first in the American League, and good for second in all of baseball. The .977OPS in 1979 was good for third in the American League and baseball.

As far as homeruns… in 1977 Rice finished first in the AL with 39HR, and was tied for third in baseball. In 1978 he was first in all of baseball with 46HR. In 1979 he was tied for second in the AL was tied for fourth in all of baseball.

He was consistently in the top 5 in both OPS and HR and was the best hitter in baseball during that span. But after that he was only very good. He wasn’t in the top 10 in baseball for either OPS or HR in 1975, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988. The only other time he was in the top for OPS and HR was in 1983, when his .911OPS was good for 4th best in the AL and 6th best in baseball and his 39HR lead the AL and was second in baseball. In 1976 his OPS wasn’t in the top 10 in baseball, but his 25HR was tied for 4th best in the AL and 9th best in baseball.

That’s why I believe he qualifies as very good and not great, thus him not making the hall of fame is not a huge oversight in my eyes. A 3 year stretch where he was the best in baseball, and 9 years where he was very good (tied in the fact that even in his best years he was only a good hitter on the road), he shouldn’t be considered a lock. I think he should be in the hall, but I’m no going to be pissed off about some voters thinking otherwise because they have a perfectly valid argument.

 

[PonyExpress]

That really all depends on how you define great verses very good. For power hitters I believe that OPS and HR are the best judges of greatness. In Rice’s best years (1977-1979) he had OPSs of .969, .970 and .977 respectively. The .969OPS in 1977 was good for second in the AL and good for fifth in all of baseball. The .970OPS in 1978 was good for first in the American League, and good for second in all of baseball. The .977OPS in 1979 was good for third in the American League and baseball.

As far as homeruns… in 1977 Rice finished first in the AL with 39HR, and was tied for third in baseball. In 1978 he was first in all of baseball with 46HR. In 1979 he was tied for second in the AL was tied for fourth in all of baseball.

He was consistently in the top 5 in both OPS and HR and was the best hitter in baseball during that span. But after that he was only very good. He wasn’t in the top 10 in baseball for either OPS or HR in 1975, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988. The only other time he was in the top for OPS and HR was in 1983, when his .911OPS was good for 4th best in the AL and 6th best in baseball and his 39HR lead the AL and was second in baseball. In 1976 his OPS wasn’t in the top 10 in baseball, but his 25HR was tied for 4th best in the AL and 9th best in baseball.

That’s why I believe he qualifies as very good and not great, thus him not making the hall of fame is not a huge oversight in my eyes. A 3 year stretch where he was the best in baseball, and 9 years where he was very good (tied in the fact that even in his best years he was only a good hitter on the road), he shouldn’t be considered a lock. I think he should be in the hall, but I’m no going to be pissed off about some voters thinking otherwise because they have a perfectly valid argument.

Rice finished 6 times in the top 5 in MVP voting, 6 times in the top 7 in batting average, 8 times in the top 10 in slugging, 5 times in the top 2 in slugging, 6 times in the top 10 in Ops, 8 times in the top 10 in hits, 5 times in the top 5 in hits, 9 times in the top 7 in total bases, 4 times #1 in total bases, 7 times in the top 10 in home runs, 3 times #1 in home runs, 9 times in the top 10 in rbi, 7 times in the top 5 in rbi, 5 times in the top 3 in Xtra base hits. Rice was the most dominant offensive player in the American league for 10 years. Of his contemporaries, I believe only George Brett and Schmidt were better players. The baseball generation from 1975-1991 is egregiously overlooked because it followed the Mantle/Mays era and preceded the steroid era. His raw numbers pale in comparison, but that does not change the fact that for a decade Rice was among the top 5 hitters on the planet. The fact he didn;t reach artificial and juvenile milestones like 400 home runs, or 3,000 hits, does not change his place in history. Dominant players are more important than compilers. That's why the football hall of fame does it right, and the baeball HOF is becoming an embarrassment. Dominance is more important that cumulative stats.

 

[Foley]

Unfortunately for Rice it’s the Baseball HOF not the AL HOF. Comparing him to all of baseball makes those numbers a tad less gaudy. 2 times in the top 7 for BA, 5 times in the top 10 for SLG, 2 times in the top 2 for SLG, 5 times in the top 10 for OPS, 6 times in the top 10 for hits, 3 times in the top 5 for hits, 4 times in the top 7 for total bases, 3 times #1 for total bases, 5 times in the top 10 for HR, 1 time #1 for HR, 7 times in the top 10 for RBI, 4 times in the top 5 for RBI, 4 times in the top 3 for XBH.

And in the 10 years outside of the ones I consider great (’77-79, ’83) how does he rank? 0 times in the top 7 for BA, 1 time in the top 10 for SLG, 0 times in the top 2 for SLG, 1 time in the top 10 for OPS, 2 times in the top 10 for hits, 0 times in the top 5 for hits, 0 times in the top 7 for total bases, 0 times #1 for total bases, 1 time in the top 10 for HR, 0 times #1 for HR, 2 times in the top 10 for RBI, 1 time in the top 5 for RBI, 0 times in the top 3 for XBH.

Rice had 4 years of dominance, and 10 years of being very good (And in 7 of those 10 years he didn't qualify for anything better than 10th place in any of those stats). I still believe that makes him a hall of famer, just not a shoe-in.

 

[PonyExpress]

Unfortunately for Rice it’s the Baseball HOF not the AL HOF. Comparing him to all of baseball makes those numbers a tad less gaudy. 2 times in the top 7 for BA, 5 times in the top 10 for SLG, 2 times in the top 2 for SLG, 5 times in the top 10 for OPS, 6 times in the top 10 for hits, 3 times in the top 5 for hits, 4 times in the top 7 for total bases, 3 times #1 for total bases, 5 times in the top 10 for HR, 1 time #1 for HR, 7 times in the top 10 for RBI, 4 times in the top 5 for RBI, 4 times in the top 3 for XBH.

And in the 10 years outside of the ones I consider great (’77-79, ’83) how does he rank? 0 times in the top 7 for BA, 1 time in the top 10 for SLG, 0 times in the top 2 for SLG, 1 time in the top 10 for OPS, 2 times in the top 10 for hits, 0 times in the top 5 for hits, 0 times in the top 7 for total bases, 0 times #1 for total bases, 1 time in the top 10 for HR, 0 times #1 for HR, 2 times in the top 10 for RBI, 1 time in the top 5 for RBI, 0 times in the top 3 for XBH.

Rice had 4 years of dominance, and 10 years of being very good (And in 7 of those 10 years he didn't qualify for anything better than 10th place in any of those stats). I still believe that makes him a hall of famer, just not a shoe-in.

The stats I cited show that Rice was the dominant statistical player in the AL for a decade. With every post, you reveal how disingenuous you are. You began pretending to be disappointed by his exclusion, and now have begun deliberately skewing his career to argue against him. I imagine it is people like you, playing a convenient shell-game with statistics, who are the reason for the humiliation of this great Red Sox player. Congratulations.

 

[Foley]

The stats I cited show that Rice was the dominant statistical player in the AL for a decade. With every post, you reveal how disingenuous you are. You began pretending to be disappointed by his exclusion, and now have begun deliberately skewing his career to argue against him. I imagine it is people like you, playing a convenient shell-game with statistics, who are the reason for the humiliation of this great Red Sox player. Congratulations.

My stance on Rice has been the same for years and hasn't changed in this thread. I think he should be in the hall, I think he was a very good player, and I think that his detractors have a very good argument. If you cannot see that argument than you are just being a foolish fanboy. The fact is that the 10 years of his career other than '77-'79 and '83 he ranged from very good to above average. 7 out of 14 years he didn't rank higher than 10th in any statistic that you listed. He was not the dominant statistical player for a decade, he was a dominant statistical player for 4 years, and a very good one the other 10.

You clearly have a lower standard for what great is than I do and so be it.