Why no Hawk but lots of Rice?

With the 2008 class about to be announced I was really wondering what everyone thought about the love for Jim Rice (atleast in talks) and not so much for Andre Dawson? Am I missing something? Looking at the career stats and the time frame Dawson was well above Rice and most others. Why no love?
mathew
mathew
baseball & hockey junkie
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
0
Comments
Unique Chicago Cards
Wrestling Cards
To small market players credit...usually there is only enough money for one maybe two star players on the team where we all know that Boston and New York can afford to field an All-Star team.
The main numbers that stick out to me is career 400 HRs and 300 Stolen Bases. Only Bonds and Mays have more.
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
Rice was also considered to be very fan friendly, Dawson on the other hand had his moments.
I agree that if Raines played on a marquee team he would be getting lots of votes.
If I had it my way, Dawson would be going in this year with Goose and Rice. But a jump from 56.7% of the votes to 75% would pretty much be unprecedented, so I'm trying to be realistic.
Rockdjrw that would be tuff since this is Rock's first yr. of elgibility.
As for Hawk, his stats look so much better now when compared to the roid users. I think he may very well get in.
Steve
<< <i>As for Hawk, his stats look so much better now when compared to the roid users. I think he may very well get in. >>
Steve...I hope you are right. I was just looking at some stats again and he is looking better and better with each big name of the 80/90s that comes out as being juiced.
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
I would vote for Raines.
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
The writers are certainly free to vote for them, but it would most certainly be lowering the Hall-of-Fame standards
Steve
sorry.
back to Rice, he did have a 16 yr career in which 14 of those years were productive.
Steve
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>The standards are already low, the inclusion of Dawson and Rice would elevate them IMO.
Steve >>
There are leftfielders better than Rice and centerfielders better than Dawson not in the Hall-of-Fame
How many from those positions worse than either of them have the writers voted in? Only ones with any case would be Brock, Kiner, Medwick in LF and perhaps Puckett in CF, but I would still argue strongly that all of them were better than Rice and Dawson
So bottom line is that there are better players not in the Hall-of-Fame and no players better than them at their position have been voted in by the writers so both are certainly bad choices and undeserving
A low batting average is not a problem, since the OBP would offer a broader perspective of a player's true value. Many big boppers have low BAs, but they do draw a lot of walks, so their OBP is high, which does make them truely valuable.
The growing list of Roid users do make Dawson, Rice and Mattingly look better. However, Dawson's low OBP makes him look insubstantial--a lot of fluffy stats, but nothing that says he was a great player.
Jim Rice was a Red Sox great, but his reliance on Fenway is something that's a turn off. Its not his fault he was playing in Fenway, but it calls into question how good he really was. At least Wade Boggs proved that he can still bat high even if Fenway was no longer his home field. When Yankee stadium became his home in his later years, he studied the field and became a better hitter at Yankee stadium as a Yankee than when he was a Red Sox player. I don't know if Rice could have done the same. That is my issue.
Don Mattingly was one of only a handful of players that led MLB in OPS+ at least twice. That is the single most telling stat in all of baseball because it really does take into account any ball park advantage/disadvantage and measures multiple dimensions of a player's true value. Sandy Koufax had the benefit of Dodgers Stadium to help his stats, otherwise, he led MLB in ERA+ only once. Not taking anything away from Koufax, just presenting something in a new perspective. Many try and argue away the MVP for Dawson in 1987, so why not argue one for Mattingly in 1986. Clemens edged out Mattingly. If the allegations against Clemens holds true, then we can at least say there was a character issue with Clemens--something no one would say against Mattingly. We are allowed to consider character for HOF voting.
It seems that every year, one has to vote someone in. I think Goose or Raines are worthy enough. No need to talk about Dawson, Rice or Blyleven yet.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>Both are below already established Hall-of-Fame standards
The writers are certainly free to vote for them, but it would most certainly be lowering the Hall-of-Fame standards >>
Below already established standards? Sure they are below Aaron, Ruth, Mays, etc., but they are above many currently in the HOF. Look how they compare with these HOF outfielders.
HOF’er..................OPS+
+-+------------+----+---+
Andre Dawson......119
Jim Rice.................128
Lloyd Waner...........99
Tommy McCarthy...102
Max Carey.............107
Freddie Lindstrom.109
Lou Brock..............109
Richie Ashburn......111
Sam Crawford.......112
Harry Hooper........114
Robin Yount..........115
Heinie Manush......121
Kirby Puckett.........124
Dave Winfield........130
Billy Williams..........133
Duke Snider...........140
Now obviosly there are other numbers and factors that come into play but OPS+ is a pretty good guage. I have heard there are better players not in the HOF at their respective postitions and the only one that I can come up with that is currently eligible is Albert Belle (who should be in as well). Who is a better OF that isn't in? Also, in response to the first post of the thread, I am a huge Dawson fan but Jim Rice was a better hitter than Andre Dawson was. Andre may get the edge as an overall player but Rice was better offensively.
I think stat geeks are overrating OBP somewhat in this case. Andre didn't take many walks, but he didn't strike out at a bad clip either.
In my mind the guy was heads and shoulders above Rice, who really didn't do much after 83 or so.
If I had a vote this year, I'd go with Dawson and Gossage.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I concur.
He should go in before, Raines, Rice or Dawson, in a heartbeat.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
WTH!?!? Rice was an A-hole which is part of the reason he is not in and I personally hope he never gets in. Remember as a young teen seeing him play and never in batting practice or the game toss an extra ball in teh stands. This was back in the days when everyone signed autos and yet never saw him sign a single one. Plus, sportwriters hated him like they have Bonds for most of his career.
Were you talking about Nolan Ryan? No cy Youngs, 2, 20 win seasons, 292 LOSSES 3rd all time baby. I guess im on the fence about HIM being in the hall too. LOL. Nolan played on some truly sucky teams as did Bert. If Bert had 10 less wins on his total but three 20 win seasons would that make him more appealing?
Im looking at his total numbers; 26th ALL time in wins, top 5? all time in K's. that my friend is HOF material.
<< <i>"I'm on the fence about him...no CY awards, 1 20 game win season and a as many losses as wins. "
Were you talking about Nolan Ryan? No cy Youngs, 2, 20 win seasons, 292 LOSSES 3rd all time baby. I guess im on the fence about HIM being in the hall too. LOL. Nolan played on some truly sucky teams as did Bert. If Bert had 10 less wins on his total but three 20 win seasons would that make him more appealing?
Im looking at his total numbers; 26th ALL time in wins, top 5? all time in K's. that my friend is HOF material. >>
Alright...fair call on Blyleven...but I will say this...Nolan Ryan vs Blyleven? not close in my book and a lot of others too.
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
Rice and Dawson are both excellent players, and unfortunately for them they played in the most competitive era in the history of baseball...an era that saw the highest combination of the number of available men to compete against, and the highest level of baseball ability among those men(based on advancing baseball science and the number of participants in the sport, as opposed to the thinly spread era of now).
Had they been lucky enough to play in environements that mirrored that of 2001, or of the 1930's, their abilities would have shown much brighter when compared to their peers...as opposed to how it shines now. Unfortunatley for them, they simply had more elite players to contend against in their era, making them look inferior for historical purposes.
The baseball world is not ready for this aspect though, so I will leave it at that.
In common terms, Dawson's OB% is the real drag on his true baseball value. Even in his 1987 MVP season, IN THE BEST HITTERS PARK IN THE LEAGUE, his OB% was below average(not counting hitting pitchers)! He isn't quite as good as some of his counting totals suggest...thoguh he was excellent!
I like Rice. While he had other OFers who actually had more value to their careers...TWO OF THEM FROM HIS OWN TEAM...I like his short peak, and his ability to play everyday.
The problem still rings that he had two OF teammtes that were better than he, and neither one of them are in the Hall. One of which actually had a better peak, and more 'fame'...Fred Lynn.
There lies the rub. Unless the writers can understand the dynamics of why players from the Pre War era, and players from the thinned down double expansionwatered down era of now, shine unproportionately higher than their peers....then guys like Rice or Dawson won't garner merit to election.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
Below already established standards? Sure they are below Aaron, Ruth, Mays, etc., but they are above many currently in the HOF. Look how they compare with these HOF outfielders. >>
More than half of your list were from Veterans Committee, not the writers. Those two groups have huge differences in standards. To use foolish decisions by one group to justify how the other group should vote is absolutely, without question the definition of lowered standards
Of the others, one was a shortstop (Yount), one was perhaps the worst corner outfielder voted in by the writers (Brock), the others OPS+ are all higher that Dawson and Rice. Also, Puckett's OPS+ is barely above Rice, but did some great things in the Word Series, and was a great defensive player. Williams, Winfield, and Snider and far enough ahead (and for Williams and Winfield with very long careers) to belong in the Hall-of-Fame
<< <i>
HOF’er..................OPS+
+-+------------+----+---+
Andre Dawson......119
Jim Rice.................128
Lloyd Waner...........99
Tommy McCarthy...102
Max Carey.............107
Freddie Lindstrom.109
Lou Brock..............109
Richie Ashburn......111
Sam Crawford.......112
Harry Hooper........114
Robin Yount..........115
Heinie Manush......121
Kirby Puckett.........124
Dave Winfield........130
Billy Williams..........133
Duke Snider...........140
Now obviosly there are other numbers and factors that come into play but OPS+ is a pretty good guage. I have heard there are better players not in the HOF at their respective postitions and the only one that I can come up with that is currently eligible is Albert Belle (who should be in as well). Who is a better OF that isn't in? Also, in response to the first post of the thread, I am a huge Dawson fan but Jim Rice was a better hitter than Andre Dawson was. Andre may get the edge as an overall player but Rice was better offensively. >>
ummmm I'm not so sure about that, I think it is more like 8 were voted in by the writers and 6 via the vets.
Steve
Edited to add: actually it is 7 to 7 in regards to the list. However, with that said,
in the early years of voting by the VC guys like waner and crawford got in that way and most certaintly deserved it.
To say 'more then half' is just not correct. Granted the VC in later yr.s dropped it down a notch but guys like Cap Anson were inducted via the VC.
(More than half, eight out of 14 of those players listed were from the Veteran's Committee: Waner in 67, McCarthy in 46, Carey in 61, Lindstrom in 76, Ashburn in 95, Crawford 57, Hooper in 71, Manush 64. That is according to both baseballreference.com and baseballhalloffame.org What sources were you using?)
Who are the LF better than Rice and CF/RF better than Dawson that are eligible and not in the HOF other than Belle?