In other words, Cobb was back then what A-Rod is today?
To my knowledge, Arod has chased anyone into the stands and beaten them senseless because of their skin color or because he was having a bad day, or kicked a maid in the stomach when she disapproved of his use of the N word in public, so until then, no, LOL..
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.
Better yet, look at the current HOF ballot and make your case for the guys that should be going in, and should not.
If you feel Dahlen belongs, surely you must feel that other players from the 70's/80's belong that are not in yet either.
You never promote any of those guys.
The only time you are on these boards is to find some selective/ignoring aspect method of evaluation(like the kingman/wagner method) to defend your husband.
I am anxious to see your Dahlen thread...maybe I can learn something.
Cobb, in the context of HOF selections, brings out, a perhaps interesting aspect.
The astute voters, back in 1936, before elaborate statistical methods, before nation-wide TV, before the informative internet,
could not completely agree on any one of the true greats, Neither Cobb, nor Ruth, nor Wagner, nor Mathewson, nor Walter Johnson, were deemed worthy of the proper amount of "Fame", to be selected by ALL of the 225 voters.
There may possibly have been displeasure with Cobb's well known personality, Ruth was was maybe regarded as one dimensional, maybe Wagner's lack of single HR title soured someone, Mathewson's "college-boy" persona may have negatively influenced a voter or two, while all snubs were certainly outlandish, and unwarranted, an omission of Walter Johnson on a HOF ballot seems to have no plausible justification whatsoever.
When considering the players and the voting of 1936, it should be of no surprise, there may be a few differing opinions on this message board, about the HOF !
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
And who do you hang with that feels Ty Cobb is not an elite hitter? Is this the same place where Jack bought his bean stalk beans, or where people believe that Fenway hurt Jim Rice?
Jaxxr, I'm just teasing you buddy...you bring out that side in me.
But really, where are people saying Cobb is not an elite hitter?
Ruth was viewed by a lot of those old writers as an abomination to the game, and those kind of viewpoints and those significant snubbings, are the first instances of ignorance and bias for the HOF...and that has no place for anywhere. It is a darn shame that the writers don't educate themselves enough when making such important decisions for the people and families involved.
<< <i> Edit: I used the Jackson and Rose examples because those are the two players you mentioned before editing your post. To add another name to the mix: how about Barry Bonds? He most certainly cheated by using PEDs, yet he will be at least eligible for induction when his time comes barring any action by the commissioner to ban him in the interim. And by all accounts, if Rose had owned up to betting on baseball instead of denying it all those years, he'd most certainly be in the HOF today. So even the criteria by which a player is "banned" from the game or decreed ineligible for HOF induction is a very subjective one indeed, and as such should not to be taken at face value. >>
I think we'll find out a lot more about what the current voters use as their criteria in the coming years. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire et al, may not be officially banned by MLB but the voters may still exercise their discretion when it comes to casting their votes for induction. The only reason these guys wouldn't make it into the HOF would be because of their off-the-field choices. I'm not saying that "bad people" can't make it into the Hall of Fame, but it bemuses me that we can continue to discuss whether a player's sportsmanship, integrity, and character are taken into consideration in the voting process when it clearly is.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Bradshaw was injured in 1976. True. But he was not injured in 1974 when Joe Gilliam started 6 games and Terry Hanratty started one for the Steelers. Take a look at the boxscores of the games from that season. Bradshaw was HORRIBLE!!! Not mediocre. Not bad. Horrible!!! And this wasn't his rookie season. He was a five year veteran. In 1973, he only started 9 games. It wasn't until after he had his robust 382 yard output in the 1974 playoffs that he secured the job (that's for 3 games, not one game). Look at the numbers Bradshaw won games with in 1974. The Steelers didn't win because of him, they won despite him! >>
Most every qb has an off year. Bradshaw became a much better player after 74. Without him the steelers dont win 4 super bowls.
That blacklabelsociety is a complete zealot. He will never recognize the FACT of what Bradshaw's teammates did for him, or the fact that his replacement Qb's did just as well in the W/L department, and the individual statistical department.
He will never recognize what Bradshaw's receivers did for his yard per completion percentage either...and this wasn't an improvement from a second year QB. We saw a vast improvement from a five year veteran starting QB...and the improvement was because of his teammates, not him.
They always point to the Super Bowls. Funny, I remember the Super Bowls of receivers making acrobatic catches, or running out ahead of the defenders....and the offensive line holding long enough for all this to happen. Yet Bradshaw gets ALL the credit. LOL!
And they only get to the Super Bowls because of the most important facet of their team...their defense.
Take away bradshaw, we saw his replacements do just as good.
Take away the defense and o-line, and keep Bradshaw...they dont' even get to a single super bowl...and we wouldn't have to hear all this nonsense garbage about rings and all this credit going solely to Bradshaw. How do I know this?? We saw what Bradshaw did with his teams that didn't have all that...they NEVER got to the Super Bowl. >>
TERRY BRADSHAW....TOP 50 NFL PLAYER OF ALL-TIME...........NFL NETWORK
Bradshaw was made to look like a better QB after 1974 because of his air corps....
They win plenty of super bowls with a slightly better than AVG QB.
They don't win ANY super bowls without the defense, HOF receivers, and HOF running back while still having Bradshaw. How do I know? They had that in other years and never came close.
<< <i>Bradshaw was made to look like a better QB after 1974 because of his air corps....
They win plenty of super bowls with a slightly better than AVG QB.
They don't win ANY super bowls without the defense, HOF receivers, and HOF running back while still having Bradshaw. How do I know? They had that in other years and never came close. >>
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Fame in it of itself is not a criterion for the HOF. However, we can pick up someone like Jim Abbott who is famous and popular because of the gold medal in the Olympics, being a MLB pitcher despite his handicap, being an overall nice and pleasant person, very personable, etc. He got that fame from being the way he is. So, its not fame that one can use for HOF criteria, but what makes the person popular in the first place. A player may be popular due to notorious crimes. So, you can use that origin of the fame to perhaps make a case for the HOF or against, but its not a direct attribute that one could use. I have spoken to a lot of baseball fans about Jim Abbott and many stated that if he was just slightly above average of a pitcher for an entire career stretch, a strong case could have been made for his induction. Many felt his character and how he overcame adversity makes for an interesting baseball story and worthy of enshrinement. If he had Mike Mussina's career totals, Abbott would be a lock.
Don Mattingly receives the highest standing ovation during Old Timers games. As a batting instructor for the Yankees, he was probably still the most popular player on the Yankees with the exception of Jeter. He has a lot of fame, but that it got that way because of his character, the way he played the game and his MLB records.
If you had two players both with the OPS+ of 133 or within a point or two, same defensive position, played for a similar length of time and mostly in the same era and one was a nice guy and the other a jerk, you do not have to induct both. Stats play a big role, but character could also be used to tip the scales to one side or another.
While the stats of Jim Rice does not exactly dominate other good players of his era, one could perhaps argue that racism was prevalent in Boston and he had to toughen and thicken his skin a bit to hold himself above water. That gave way to a cold personality with the media and unfortunately to some fans. That was the trade off he suffered because of the era he played in. When push comes to shove, Jim Rice did save someone's life. So, he was not cold-hearted, he just needed to harden his exterior in order to get through life. Even Hank Aaron received death threats as he was approaching Ruth's record (its ridiculous to be insecure about that, but an element of racism is ignorance), so it is not surprising that perhaps what was preceived as a cold personality might have simply been a defense mechanism. Let us not underestimate the negative power that racism has on a person. My personal experiences of being an immigrant here and the anthropological interviews that I have conducted with several people indicate that racism takes on many forms and effects individuals differently, but the impact can be so strong and pervasive to an individual's self concept, confidence, sociality, etc.
Some may point to Lou Brock having a more approachable demeanor and that may be the case, but no two situations are exactly alike. Rice was not the most media or fan friendliest, but in his core, Rice might have been a nice guy. Talk to the family of the person whose life he saved. You might get a different insight from there.
In my opinion, I think Mattingly will eventually get inducted and once he does, I know there will be lots of people wondering why. They will point to his career being short and his last 6 years being only slightly above average at best. But when you consider his defensive ability, his MLB records, being the best at one point in time, his character, playing on the same team his entire career, No PEDs in the steroid era, fan friendly, etc. it is far from tragedy that we can actually have a player that also serves as a nice role model enshrined for future generations to also appreciate.
With the election of Rice, Saberman (I can think I can partially speak for him) and I are just wondering what was so special about him in particular that cannot be found in his statistical equals. What we fear is that Rice got in because of the traditional stats: batting average, RBI, home runs. The OPS+ takes all those stats into account plus adjusts for ball park factor. If the voters do not even look at OPS+, we have to question their ability in knowing how to review a player's record. Bringing up Rice's character and sportsmanship would be an interesting topic that I am willing to listen to if that really was what put him ahead of Singleton, Mattingly, etc for HOF consideration.
edit for grammar
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Honestly, I think a lot of what finally got Rice into the Hall of Fame was the resurgence of popularity of the Boston Red Sox outside of New England and all the nationally televised games not to mention the nightly highligts, interent blogs and articles, etc. I think it helped Rice that his HOF induction was a constant topic of discussion. In a sense, it seems like the voters were worn down by 14 years of arguments.
As a big Jim Rice fan I can say this: I know his stats aren't good enough. I know he wasn't the media's favorite player. But man, oh man, he was my favorite player and I thought he was a god and I was not alone.
I think a big part of the reason he got in has to do with the many things that sabermetrics tries to discount. The whole notion of being a feared player, for example. Sabermetrics can show you without a doubt that he wasn't. He certainly didn't get intentionally walked as if he was the most feared player. But other players (Gossage comes to mind) will tell you that he was feared. There was something there that the numbers don't support. A different kind of truth, perhaps, even if it wasn't entirely true.
Like it or not, and many don't like it, Rice got in because of the perception of him as a player. We can and will continue to pound away at how statistically he doesn't measure up, but in the end it's all just chest-thumping. He's in and he got in for reasons that aren't fully supported by stats.
TheVon brings up something interesting. No pitcher really knows all the stats of a ball player when they step into the batter's box. For some reason, many pitchers feared Rice. Had they looked at comparative stats, perhaps they would not feel that way. There was something about Rice that pitcher's feared. As a hitter, its good to be feared because the pitcher is less focused and poised, which translates into a lot pitching error or mistakes that favor the batter.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
This 'feared' thing is something players just say... they often say they hated to pitch to so and so....and often the guy they are referring to is just an average hitter.
BUt as I showed before, there are some strong indicators on who was feared, one is the intentional walks. That, above and beyond all else, tells you who is feared.
Career Intentional Walks:
Rice 77 Lynn 77 Luzinski 95 Foster 106 Garvey 114 Guerrero 115 Singleton 125 Clark 127 Hernandez 130 Mattingly 136 Raines 148...........AND HE WAS A LEADOFF HITTER! Dave Parker 170
Schmidt 201 Murray 222 Brett 229
Isn't this list eerily similar to the breakdown of Situational Batter Runs above???? Same pecking order that the advanced measurements are showing. What else shows the thoughts of the opposing team than an act of an intentional walk?
For kicks, I have to add this guy for Jaxxr...Dave Kingman had 72, LOL.
How about that Yaz had 40 IBB from 1975-1979....and RIce had 30. So an old man from the same team, was feared more than Rice in the absolute prime of his career. Lynn had 29 and was hurt some of those years!
So from '75-'79, Yaz and Lynn both were more feared than Rice...and they were on the same team!
Second was the pitcher poll in 1984, in which Murray was voted the most feared hitter by the pitchers in the league. Rice was down in the pack.
Rice was put in the Hall for two reasons, and two reasons only...
1) writers simply did NOT understand the Fenway factor. Much like the fans on this board, they foolishly thought that the Monster was actually hurting 'all those high line drives'. As we know, that is quite silly.
2) His yearly RBI total. This should be something that a first grader should recognize. It is the amount of baserunners ahead of him, AND the Fenway factor that produced these totals.
And because of those two factors, they retroactively figured he was the most feared hitter of his era....yet clearly he was not.
I will also add that the steroid era actually helped Rice, and made writers appreciate a 'clean' slugger...so they went and picked one...just that they left a dozen other superior players out!
In summation, everything that the Rice backers have thought about Rice....was wrong.
Just for "kicks", as any comment or opinion offered herein will never change the recorded fact of who is an actual real life official member of baseball's HOF,
Saber, is a word to describe a type of ancient sword, SABR, which stands for the Society for the Advancement of Baseball Research, of which I participated therein, might be more properly acknowledged, by a more correct use of its acronym, Sabrmetrics, Sabrman, Sabrenvy, Etc.,
The recorded official baseball statistics and events, including league leading seasons, AS game selections, quotes from MLB players, records set, HOF elections, and the like, will not be altered by any internet message board opinions, often with narrow-minded stereotyping views as to only backers or haters, regardless of the degree of unhealthy obsession with any particular ballplayer.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
How do you konw I don't collect old swords and militaria? LOL.
Dude, you are upset because EVERY notion that you have ever thrown up in defense of Rice, and every attempt at anlysis(like your silly Kingman/Wagner list method, or your ignorance of the ballpark factor), has been beat down to silliness.
You are back again because the intentional walks show that Rice isn't the feared hero you want him to be.
We already know the dude is in the Hall of Fame, so get it through your thick head that we are not debating that point.
GO post about some other player. You only post about Rice. He isn't as good as you think. He is NOT as good as Murray as you once tried to show...regardless if you say, "perhaps, somewhat, can appreciate different views," or whatever other double talk garbage you say.
You even admitted that you ONLY look at things that defends your bias...and ignore the ones that did not.
I am waiting for your Dahlen thread, or another lengthy talk about some other player besides Rice....
Or, to save everyone the headache, just go buy a magazine with nude males, paste a picture of Rice's head on one of the bodies, grab your lotion....and then have at it.
Your preceding thread clearly shows your maturity, poise, and self-control deficiency.
Everyone may not take your personal opinion as gospel, and that upsets you greatly as easily shown by your rants.
Try to calm down, try to realize this is just an internet message board, aimed primarily at sportcard collectors, your crude personal insults add nothing beneficial.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Posting it twice just makes people skim over what you've written. It doesn't drive home the point you are trying to make and probably does more harm than good for your argument.
Also, the situational batter runs peak and career totals have been updated. Foster is in there(I added him in there before, but I think was missed by some...and by George he deserves some acclaim.
Kingman was also added so a non legit HOF candidate could be used to see how the others stack up.
Kingman is also used to clear up any confusion on jaxxr's famous Kingman/Wagner method, as this will show where Kingman's true abilities are. Rather than picking certain aspects of the game that Kingman beat Wagner in, or ignoring context(which are both at the heart of the Kingman/Wagner method). His true abilities are shown in the updated list a few pages prior to this...page 4 of the thread.
"confusion on jaxxr's famous Kingman/Wagner method,"
Besides having an unnatural desire to dwell in the past, you are a LIAR.
You, and only you, under anyone of your many Sybil-like usernames, started that thread, You even admitted such in other past threads, and even in this this current one.
You apparently have a hurtful, yet vivid recollection of a comparison of two players from a similar time area and with relative similar difficult defensive positions. The two players had superiority in some aspects, but were not as good in other aspects, the concept of weighing the aspects was certainly not well understood.
You have sadly, a dire need for attention, and some unhealthy compulsion to "prove" your opinions are superior to former MLB players, professional sportswriters, HOF electors, and other CU message board posters.
Possibly the upcoming HOF elections might channel your childish insults in a different direction.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>This 'feared' thing is something players just say... they often say they hated to pitch to so and so....and often the guy they are referring to is just an average hitter.
BUt as I showed before, there are some strong indicators on who was feared, one is the intentional walks. That, above and beyond all else, tells you who is feared. >>
Actually, that's not the case since intentional walks are ordered by the manager. If a pitcher doesn't want to face the batter, he'll throw balls out of his range.
So that argument is more for who managers feared, not validation of who pitchers feared.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Saberman, on your IBB chart, did you do any research as to who was batting behind those players? I can't speak for all of them, but frequently, Tim Raines had some sluggers like Rodney Scott batting behind him. If I had two outs in an inning and a 3-4 run lead, I might walk Raines to pitch to a Rodney Scott as well. Admittedly, Jim Rice receiving only 7 IBB's in his legendary 1978 season seems very small. But that could be a factor of the lineup. In the case of Schmidt and Brett, they were clearly the best hitters on their teams, so it would make sense to walk them. I could be way off. Maybe you have the numbers that could show whether this could be a contributing factor.
I mean not to discourage nor disapprove of most posters' comments, opinions, and presentation of stats. Most posters are fairly respectful of other's views, and do not take matters personally enough to insult each other.
I perhaps feel HOF voting and its consistency over the past 75 + years,, is not only and exclusively subject to merely one "borderline" selection from the recent past, and had, incorrectly I assume, felt my prior comments about the shortcomings of the 1933 vote might emphasize that aspect.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Though those guys were all 3/4 hitters, and pretty much played on championship level teams.
But were talking about the MOST feared tag...and if a guy was in a lineup(at his prime) that had better hitters than him(of those were guys past their prime or NOT in the HOF), is there really a point to even make a case for his HOF candidacy.
These IBB totals are also posted for the people who continually ignore the lineup factor...for this puts them in a quandry. If indeed you want to look at Rice's RBI total and ignore the lineup factor, then you cannot all of a sudden cite a lineup factor as a reason for lower IBB total.
When getting to the heart of the matter, how many IBB he has is really meaningless. It is the recognition of the effect the lineup had on results, and the home park that really matters.
Stown, you are right in what you say in regard to managers making that IBB call. To me, that is even more telling though.
I often do cite other people's posts, when they make sense, are based in logic, and are not filled with bias and ignorance.
IN 1979 Rice had 4 IBB. This is coming off his best season ever, and MVP year where reputation and fear would be at an all time high. He batted fourth almost every at bat in 1979.
Just 4 IBB.
Yaz batted 5th for 114 games, and 477 plate appearances. Yaz was past his prime.
Bob Watson, George Scott, Fisk, and Hobson took the lion share of the other 5th spot position in the batting order.
If Rice, at the height of his so called most feared time, was only passed intentionally four times to get to an aging Yaz...how feared could he have been?
The fear has been applied retroactively due to the RBI totals, and lack of counting the Fenway factor, is the answer.
Then all these people who may cite the guys behind him as a reason for low IBB, I bet they they also believe in lineup protection. Then they must also enter that into their evaluations, yet ANOTHER factor against Rice!
<< <i>To my knowledge, Arod has chased anyone into the stands and beaten them senseless because of their skin color or because he was having a bad day, or kicked a maid in the stomach when she disapproved of his use of the N word in public, so until then, no, LOL.. >>
It's worth noting that a fair number of the "Cobb was a jackass" stories came from Al Stump - a man later proven to be a fraud and a liar. That doesn't change that Cobb was a jackass or whatever, just that he's not quite as bad a guy as has been told over the years.
It might seem that way, especially with all the ink he gets from some,
but he was elected almost two years ago, since then Andre Dawson from a comparable time era, was elected as well. Is Dawson so far superior to Rice, so far more popular, despite having far fewer league leading seasons, that he never can draw the vast volume of negative commentary? Perhaps some have an obsession/jealousy of Jim Rice.
While you may or may not be familiar with the entire posting history, may I remind anyone/all, that I posted Rice was a "Borderline" candidate while he was under serious consideration, way before he became an official HOFer. I will admit I was somewhat neutral about his viability, however thought some were far too overzealous, loud, and unfair in their negative only opinion of his achievements, and posted many positive things, to somewhat provide a little balance.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>That Rice has been talked about more is something, well, quite frankly, you and others who would support him spawn every bit as much as those who would disparage his selection. That, and of course it just happened. >>
I disagree with this statement to some degree. If you do a search of this forum using "Rice" and "HOF" as keywords you'll see that probably 60-70% of the results show threads that were started by either markj111 or one of Saberman's aliases.
The part about this discussion that bothers me most is that people keep trying to explain why Jim Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I think anyone that has been a member of this forum for any length of time has "been there, done that" already when it comes to reading the arguments against Rice. So how many times can people cite the same stats and try to prove the same point before they realize that all the arguments in the world can't change the ballots that were cast? It's fine if people want to complain that Rice's induction waters down what it means to make it into the Hall of Fame, but at a certain point (a point which we passed a long, long time ago) it starts to come across as little more than a narrow-minded witch hunt.
People should accept the fact that Rice is in the Hall of Fame. They can still acknowledge that he is on the lower end of deserving entrance. But then they should move on and hope for future results more in line with their own expectations and ideals.
I think Rob Neyer, who was the one that basically wrote the initial post on this thread, was asking the question "why aren't the better players in" but I think the thread left that topic immediately as the very next post (Saberman's post) started by talking about why Morris shouldn't be in and ended by pointing out, once again, that Jim Rice was elected thanks to Wade Boggs and Fenway Park. There has been very little discussion on why better players aren't also in the Hall of Fame and what discussion there was seems to have gotten lost in the back-and-forth arguments we've all read before. Oh sure, there are dozens of posts about who was better than Rice but no real, new exploration or discussion on why those players aren't in.
To be clear, what my impression has been of this thread and similar threads is that a disproportionate amount of the effort seems to be directed at why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame instead of talking about why Singleton or Raines or Morris aren't in the Hall of Fame too. Is it really just a failure to grasp Sabrmetrics or does it actually have something to do with "Fame" as you suggest? I think the Sabrmetrics shows that Rice is not the best candidate. So why can't we, as generally intelligent people, seem to grasp the concept that Rice was probably voted into the Hall of Fame for another reason?
<< <i>I think Rob Neyer, who was the one that basically wrote the initial post on this thread, was asking the question "why aren't the better players in" but I think the thread left that topic immediately as the very next post (Saberman's post) started by talking about why Morris shouldn't be in and ended by pointing out, once again, that Jim Rice was elected thanks to Wade Boggs and Fenway Park. There has been very little discussion on why better players aren't also in the Hall of Fame and what discussion there was seems to have gotten lost in the back-and-forth arguments we've all read before. Oh sure, there are dozens of posts about who was better than Rice but no real, new exploration or discussion on why those players aren't in.
To be clear, what my impression has been of this thread and similar threads is that a disproportionate amount of the effort seems to be directed at why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame instead of talking about why Singleton or Raines or Morris aren't in the Hall of Fame too. Is it really just a failure to grasp Sabrmetrics or does it actually have something to do with "Fame" as you suggest? I think the Sabrmetrics shows that Rice is not the best candidate. So why can't we, as generally intelligent people, seem to grasp the concept that Rice was probably voted into the Hall of Fame for another reason? >>
TheVon, fans and writers STILL do not understand the Fenway factor, nor the lineup factor, and that is THE biggest reason why he is in...not for some other reason.
Look at this board. You had guys saying that Fenway actually HURT Rice!
You have guys posting RBI numbers while totally ignoring the lineup he is in. How many times does one guy continue to post how many league leading RBI seasons? Yeah, add the lineup factor and the Fenway factor, and his true ability shows...hence the saying that Fenway was elected, and Boggs elected twice.
I could partially understand the fans doing this...but the writers have no excuse. Yet they have written the same garbage over the years...and they still put this most feared hitter in the league tag on him, which isn't remotely close to the truth.
I said it before, Rice had ONE season that matched the acclaim that he has received. THen he had one other that came close to that. The rest of it....NOT EVEN CLOSE. Unless of course you ignore the league leading number of base runners he had, or the Fenway factor.
Here is a quote from Jayson Stark on why he voted for Rice in the HOF
"But here's the reason I convinced myself he deserved this vote: The Fear Factor. In the 11 seasons from 1975 to 1985, American League pitchers would rather have seen Freddy Krueger stalking up their street than Jim Rice stalking toward the old batter's box.
In those 11 seasons, Rice finished in the top five in six MVP elections -- and led the American League in home runs, RBIs, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. Only George Brett was even in the same area code as him in many of those categories.
So he got this vote"
TheVone, you are an intelligent man. After reading all the points in this thread(and other threads), you know this is all bunk. Where on earth is this guy basing this fear from? Where is his accounting for the Fenway factor? Where is his accountig for the lineup factor?
What exactly is the basis for this "most feared" argument?
All we have are a bunch of 'selective' offensive events that do NOT take into account the obvioius benefits of the home park and the lineup. So any measurement he used is automatically majorly flawed due to ignoring this.
Not to mention that he didn't take into account other very important offensive criteria that puts the player into what his true ability/value was.
We know that the fear factor is bunk, and the IBB breakdown above sheds a LOT of light on this!! If his reason is, "well he had a good lineup." Then why on earth doesn't he recognize that when he recites his 'league leading' Runs scored and RBI totals!!!!
Either he was NOT the most feared because all those NON Hofers received MORE IBB, or his runs and RBI are a result of a lineup, and thus it isn't valid to use them to say he led the league. It can't be both!! See the contradictions??? Either way, one of his key criteria is shot to pieces!
Plus we also know by the words from these exact pitchers whom Stark cites, and whom people think feared Rice so much. After the 1984 season, ALL the regular pitchers in the league voted on who the most feared hitter was...and they picked Eddie Murray by a landslide. Rice wasn't even close. So Stark is just guessing on this, and assuming. And he is a reporter?? Must not be an 'investigative reporter'. Stark said the pitchers feared Rice most...but the pitchers said otherwise. What gives him the right to say that then?
Here are the results of AL pitcher's poll above...
Name...............# of votes as most feared Murray..............21 1/2 Brett.................7 1/2 Boggs...............6 Whitaker...........5 Carew...............5 Winfield............4 Simmons..........4 Ripken..............4 Trammell..........3 Lynn.................3 Evans...............3
SEven players tied with two votes(including jim rice) 16 players tied with one vote.
Also, he says that pitchers would rather have seen Freddie Krueger on their street than face Jim Rice. Oh yeah? Then why were teams CHOOSING to pitch to Rice instead of an over the hill Yaz in 1978 and 1979 at the height of Rice's prime???????????????????? Is an over the hill Yaz then more terrifying than Krueger then? If so, another contradiction.
And we have people who take the word of these writers as gospel? Are you kidding me? Those people should be ashamed of themselves. These same dopes vote for the MVP too...so to use that as any type of criteria for the Hall is fruitless as well.
Oh, here is a Dan Shaughnessey quote on why he voted for Rice....
People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded. He played hard and he played hurt. His managers loved him. Opponents feared him. Really? I guess managers didn't act on those thoughts too frequently on IBB walking him in any situation, let alone with the bases loaded, LOL!
Really, is there ANYONE that still cannot see all this??
...After the 1984 season, ALL the regular pitchers in the league voted on who the most feared hitter was...and they picked Eddie Murray by a landslide. Rice wasn't even close. So Stark is just guessing on this, and assuming. And he is a reporter?? Must not be an 'investigative reporter'. Stark said the pitchers feared Rice most...but the pitchers said otherwise. What gives him the right to say that then?
...Really, is there ANYONE that still cannot see all this?? >>
So to prove your point, you use a peer voting system from the twilight of Rice's career? You then use what people thought in 1984 as a reflection upon his entire career? Do you think the results would be any different had it been done in 77-79? If so, I have a strong suspicion you wouldn't use that as a basis of your argument.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Shaughnessey said he was the most feared hitter from 1975-1985.
1984 is in that peak time period. Most use the years up to 1986, as did Stark.
This is during the famous 1975-1986 period where everyone throws up all these numbers of Rice leading MLB...hardly the twilight...and actually the most opportune time where reputation and performance are at their combined highest levels!
The same figures that people like to use to proclaim Rice the best, he was exelling quite well. Here are the totals from 1983 and 1984 for Rice, and the leading vote getter Murray.
I believe Rice was the AL leader of those three categories for '83 and '84. Don't those measurements look familiar as someone's favorite measurements to use to make Rice look the best?
THe opposing teams know. We already know this with the intentional walks.
You would have a point if this were taken in 1988, as that was the twilight of his career, and he was no longer 'jim rice'.
Rod Carew was at the twilight of his career in this vote, and he still beat Rice!
Fred Lynn was at the same point in his career as Rice here, and he beat Rice.
Ted Simmons was at the end of his career for this vote, and he beat Rice.
Brett was at the same point in his career as Rice.
You had Whitaker and Trammell who didn't even have their best years yet, and they beat him.
I will have to find all the guys tied with him in votes.
Rice was still in his famous 'feared run', only he isn't close to "most feared".
If Rice were the most feared hitter in the game, he would not have less intentional walks(AT THE ABSOLUTE PEAK OF HIS CAREER) than all these non-Hofer's, and guys on his own team!
If your argument against that is, "well he had a better lineup than those guys," then you cannot cite his league leading runs scored, or RBI totals and proclaim him the most feared because of those leading totals, yet that is part of the criteria those guys are using to justify saying most feared. Because it is the lineup that created that, not him. Oh, and Fenway. 50 IBB at Fenway, 27 on the road. Opposing teams knew, and he was nothing more than a gnat away from Fenway in the opposing teams' eyes.
Sorry Stown, these premises of most feared, or best of his time, simply do NOT add up. Not even close. The advanced measurements show it, and the opposing teams thoughts show it.
Let's back up here a second. We keep talking about this poll as proof that Jim Rice wasn't the most feared hitter. But what real good is this poll? Isn't using the subjective opinions of a player the same as using the eye ball test when evaluating a player's performance? Who can verify that all the pitchers defined "feared" the same way? Were the pitchers all right-handed? How accurate are the memories of each pitcher?
How can someone make an argument that all the statistics you need are available and are the only truly objective means to measure a player's value and then turn around and use a subjective poll to try to bolster their argument? I don't see the difference between that and the people who support Rice by pointing to his RBI total and the examples of people calling him the most feared hitter.
Obviously, I do not see credence in any eye test for baseball, and the poll is really of no use to me.
However, all these writers and fans who say he is The Most feared, have what evidence to back it up??
THey say it all the time. Shaughnessey said it. Stark said it.
Yet all the evidence we have points to Rice clearly NOT being the most feared.
The IBB and pitchers poll are two things that show the thoughts of the opposing teams, and are exactly the things that could support their case, IF they were in favor of Rice.
The only evidence they use are those faulty totals from 1975-1986, and then they retroactively say he is the most feared because of that.
You truly want to know who the most feared hitter in baseball was in the 1978-79 time frame? It was Dave Parker, and then George Foster second. Thats it.
Parker too was coming off an MVP season(which was BETTER than RIce's of the same year), and he was also a champion. Parker also had an aging slugger that often batted behind him in Stargell.
Look at Parker's IBB from 1977-1979.
13 23 14
In typical fan speak, It wasn't just the stats, it was the size of the man too that added to the 'fear factor'. Parker had 'it'. All this stuff being said about Rice at this time really belongs to Parker(for the specific time period of '78-'79).
Foster was a champion too, and the 50 HR 152 RBI season are what put him at the top in terms of reputation.
We already know about the time period of 1975-1986 above.
In the AL, Carew was the cats meow for the late 70's. His 1977 season was vastly superior to Rice's '78 season. And look, in 1984 when Carew was over the hill, he still beat Rice in that poll.
People that say that stuff about Rice do not have any evidence to back it up. All the evidence says otherwise.
They shouldn't be saying it...it is irresponsible for the writers to do that and then vote him in because of it.
Do you like it at work when co-workers are given heaps of praise, and they don't do anything different than you do, and in some cases, do worse than you?
<< <i>Do you like it at work when co-workers are given heaps of praise, and they don't do anything different than you do, and in some cases, do worse than you? >>
That would never happen. My glowing personality, my charming with, and boyish good looks make it so that people heap undue praise on me at work.
As for Rice, my hypothesis for why he is in the HOF is that he got in based on a reputation that he doesn't entirely deserve. As fellow poster Baseball pointed out, there are a lot of Yankees and Red Sox in the HOF that wouldn't be if they played for the Mariners and Brewers, for example. Rice has some rabid fans (me included) and he played his entire career for a popular team. He also played prior to the steroid era which, as you noted, helps his case a little bit. Rice, in my opinion, is in because he was "famous". As far as consistency in HOF voting goes, I think Rice will probably end up being an anomaly as more of the writers with votes seem to be cluing into the world of sabrmetrics when casting votes as evidenced by the AL Cy Young voting this year.
I do NOT have a vendetta against Rice or people that like him...I am just trying to be fair and accurate for all the players.
I don't really have a problem when people say that Rice was ONE of the most feared hitters of his time. That can be supported. His two votes in that poll is one way. If they start a pecking order, and start putting him above more deserving order, then that is different.
There is a major problem when the term THE MOST feared hitter of his time is used. No need to expound why there is a major problem with this(it is talked about enough above).
We have two writers who voted for him with, "THE MOST", as a big part of their criteria. Shaughnessey flat out said it. Stark said it in a round about way, by saying Rice coming to the plate is more terrifying than having a child mass murderer stalking your street.
They also both gave a specific time frame for his 'most feared', 1975-1986 for Stark, and 1975-1985 for Shaughnessey(though I am wondering if that is a typo, as I have no idea why his good year in '86 would not be included).
My major problem is with the irresponsibility of these writers who are charged with this task. Stark and Shaughnessey obviously did little homework, and one does have bias working for him.
Heck, Shaughnessy flat out introduced IBB as one way of determining fear factor. Would it have been that hard for him to actually look at the IBB that he is talking about, and break it down for all parties to see what actually took place? It took me five minutes to do that. Could he, with a straight face, still talk about Rice and IBB if he saw the breakdown of all the players above? .
Guess it depends on the context of the 1984 poll, which isn't provided. Considering Rice's numbers were down across the board from the year prior, some significantly more than others, it's safe to assume he wasn't that feared in '84.
Having said that, if the poll was for the last 10 or so years, then your comments hold a lot more water.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Just a FYI - Did a google search for the 1984 poll and nothing came up, except for this thread (true story!).
I'm not doubting skin but it would be nice to have some data if he's using it as an example.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Comments
To my knowledge, Arod has chased anyone into the stands and beaten them senseless because of their skin color or because he was having a bad day, or kicked a maid in the stomach when she disapproved of his use of the N word in public, so until then, no, LOL..
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.
Better yet, look at the current HOF ballot and make your case for the guys that should be going in, and should not.
If you feel Dahlen belongs, surely you must feel that other players from the 70's/80's belong that are not in yet either.
You never promote any of those guys.
The only time you are on these boards is to find some selective/ignoring aspect method of evaluation(like the kingman/wagner method) to defend your husband.
I am anxious to see your Dahlen thread...maybe I can learn something.
The astute voters, back in 1936,
before elaborate statistical methods, before nation-wide TV, before the informative internet,
could not completely agree on any one of the true greats,
Neither Cobb, nor Ruth, nor Wagner, nor Mathewson, nor Walter Johnson,
were deemed worthy of the proper amount of "Fame", to be selected by ALL of the 225 voters.
There may possibly have been displeasure with Cobb's well known personality, Ruth was was maybe regarded as one dimensional, maybe Wagner's lack of single HR title soured someone, Mathewson's "college-boy" persona may have negatively influenced a voter or two,
while all snubs were certainly outlandish, and unwarranted, an omission of Walter Johnson on a HOF ballot seems to have no plausible justification whatsoever.
When considering the players and the voting of 1936, it should be of no surprise, there may be a few differing opinions on this message board, about the HOF !
Fenway park was elected to the Hall of Fame too.
Why is Wade Boggs elected twice?
And who do you hang with that feels Ty Cobb is not an elite hitter? Is this the same place where Jack bought his bean stalk beans, or where people believe that Fenway hurt Jim Rice?
But really, where are people saying Cobb is not an elite hitter?
Ruth was viewed by a lot of those old writers as an abomination to the game, and those kind of viewpoints and those significant snubbings, are the first instances of ignorance and bias for the HOF...and that has no place for anywhere. It is a darn shame that the writers don't educate themselves enough when making such important decisions for the people and families involved.
<< <i> Edit: I used the Jackson and Rose examples because those are the two players you mentioned before editing your post. To add another name to the mix: how about Barry Bonds? He most certainly cheated by using PEDs, yet he will be at least eligible for induction when his time comes barring any action by the commissioner to ban him in the interim. And by all accounts, if Rose had owned up to betting on baseball instead of denying it all those years, he'd most certainly be in the HOF today. So even the criteria by which a player is "banned" from the game or decreed ineligible for HOF induction is a very subjective one indeed, and as such should not to be taken at face value. >>
I think we'll find out a lot more about what the current voters use as their criteria in the coming years. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire et al, may not be officially banned by MLB but the voters may still exercise their discretion when it comes to casting their votes for induction. The only reason these guys wouldn't make it into the HOF would be because of their off-the-field choices. I'm not saying that "bad people" can't make it into the Hall of Fame, but it bemuses me that we can continue to discuss whether a player's sportsmanship, integrity, and character are taken into consideration in the voting process when it clearly is.
<< <i>Thats why Fame isn't a criteria. >>
<< <i>Bradshaw was injured in 1976. True. But he was not injured in 1974 when Joe Gilliam started 6 games and Terry Hanratty started one for the Steelers. Take a look at the boxscores of the games from that season. Bradshaw was HORRIBLE!!! Not mediocre. Not bad. Horrible!!! And this wasn't his rookie season. He was a five year veteran. In 1973, he only started 9 games. It wasn't until after he had his robust 382 yard output in the 1974 playoffs that he secured the job (that's for 3 games, not one game). Look at the numbers Bradshaw won games with in 1974. The Steelers didn't win because of him, they won despite him! >>
Most every qb has an off year. Bradshaw became a much better player after 74. Without him the steelers dont win 4 super bowls.
<< <i>Powdered H20
That blacklabelsociety is a complete zealot. He will never recognize the FACT of what Bradshaw's teammates did for him, or the fact that his replacement Qb's did just as well in the W/L department, and the individual statistical department.
He will never recognize what Bradshaw's receivers did for his yard per completion percentage either...and this wasn't an improvement from a second year QB. We saw a vast improvement from a five year veteran starting QB...and the improvement was because of his teammates, not him.
They always point to the Super Bowls. Funny, I remember the Super Bowls of receivers making acrobatic catches, or running out ahead of the defenders....and the offensive line holding long enough for all this to happen. Yet Bradshaw gets ALL the credit. LOL!
And they only get to the Super Bowls because of the most important facet of their team...their defense.
Take away bradshaw, we saw his replacements do just as good.
Take away the defense and o-line, and keep Bradshaw...they dont' even get to a single super bowl...and we wouldn't have to hear all this nonsense garbage about rings and all this credit going solely to Bradshaw. How do I know this?? We saw what Bradshaw did with his teams that didn't have all that...they NEVER got to the Super Bowl. >>
TERRY BRADSHAW....TOP 50 NFL PLAYER OF ALL-TIME...........NFL NETWORK
Now you know how I feel
They win plenty of super bowls with a slightly better than AVG QB.
They don't win ANY super bowls without the defense, HOF receivers, and HOF running back while still having Bradshaw. How do I know? They had that in other years and never came close.
<< <i>Bradshaw was made to look like a better QB after 1974 because of his air corps....
They win plenty of super bowls with a slightly better than AVG QB.
They don't win ANY super bowls without the defense, HOF receivers, and HOF running back while still having Bradshaw. How do I know? They had that in other years and never came close. >>
LOL silly boy.
<< <i>Stown,
Now you know how I feel
HA!
Don Mattingly receives the highest standing ovation during Old Timers games. As a batting instructor for the Yankees, he was probably still the most popular player on the Yankees with the exception of Jeter. He has a lot of fame, but that it got that way because of his character, the way he played the game and his MLB records.
If you had two players both with the OPS+ of 133 or within a point or two, same defensive position, played for a similar length of time and mostly in the same era and one was a nice guy and the other a jerk, you do not have to induct both. Stats play a big role, but character could also be used to tip the scales to one side or another.
While the stats of Jim Rice does not exactly dominate other good players of his era, one could perhaps argue that racism was prevalent in Boston and he had to toughen and thicken his skin a bit to hold himself above water. That gave way to a cold personality with the media and unfortunately to some fans. That was the trade off he suffered because of the era he played in. When push comes to shove, Jim Rice did save someone's life. So, he was not cold-hearted, he just needed to harden his exterior in order to get through life. Even Hank Aaron received death threats as he was approaching Ruth's record (its ridiculous to be insecure about that, but an element of racism is ignorance), so it is not surprising that perhaps what was preceived as a cold personality might have simply been a defense mechanism. Let us not underestimate the negative power that racism has on a person. My personal experiences of being an immigrant here and the anthropological interviews that I have conducted with several people indicate that racism takes on many forms and effects individuals differently, but the impact can be so strong and pervasive to an individual's self concept, confidence, sociality, etc.
Some may point to Lou Brock having a more approachable demeanor and that may be the case, but no two situations are exactly alike. Rice was not the most media or fan friendliest, but in his core, Rice might have been a nice guy. Talk to the family of the person whose life he saved. You might get a different insight from there.
In my opinion, I think Mattingly will eventually get inducted and once he does, I know there will be lots of people wondering why. They will point to his career being short and his last 6 years being only slightly above average at best. But when you consider his defensive ability, his MLB records, being the best at one point in time, his character, playing on the same team his entire career, No PEDs in the steroid era, fan friendly, etc. it is far from tragedy that we can actually have a player that also serves as a nice role model enshrined for future generations to also appreciate.
With the election of Rice, Saberman (I can think I can partially speak for him) and I are just wondering what was so special about him in particular that cannot be found in his statistical equals. What we fear is that Rice got in because of the traditional stats: batting average, RBI, home runs. The OPS+ takes all those stats into account plus adjusts for ball park factor. If the voters do not even look at OPS+, we have to question their ability in knowing how to review a player's record. Bringing up Rice's character and sportsmanship would be an interesting topic that I am willing to listen to if that really was what put him ahead of Singleton, Mattingly, etc for HOF consideration.
edit for grammar
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
As a big Jim Rice fan I can say this: I know his stats aren't good enough. I know he wasn't the media's favorite player. But man, oh man, he was my favorite player and I thought he was a god and I was not alone.
I think a big part of the reason he got in has to do with the many things that sabermetrics tries to discount. The whole notion of being a feared player, for example. Sabermetrics can show you without a doubt that he wasn't. He certainly didn't get intentionally walked as if he was the most feared player. But other players (Gossage comes to mind) will tell you that he was feared. There was something there that the numbers don't support. A different kind of truth, perhaps, even if it wasn't entirely true.
Like it or not, and many don't like it, Rice got in because of the perception of him as a player. We can and will continue to pound away at how statistically he doesn't measure up, but in the end it's all just chest-thumping. He's in and he got in for reasons that aren't fully supported by stats.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
BUt as I showed before, there are some strong indicators on who was feared, one is the intentional walks. That, above and beyond all else, tells you who is feared.
Career Intentional Walks:
Rice 77
Lynn 77
Luzinski 95
Foster 106
Garvey 114
Guerrero 115
Singleton 125
Clark 127
Hernandez 130
Mattingly 136
Raines 148...........AND HE WAS A LEADOFF HITTER!
Dave Parker 170
Schmidt 201
Murray 222
Brett 229
Isn't this list eerily similar to the breakdown of Situational Batter Runs above???? Same pecking order that the advanced measurements are showing. What else shows the thoughts of the opposing team than an act of an intentional walk?
For kicks, I have to add this guy for Jaxxr...Dave Kingman had 72, LOL.
How about that Yaz had 40 IBB from 1975-1979....and RIce had 30. So an old man from the same team, was feared more than Rice in the absolute prime of his career. Lynn had 29 and was hurt some of those years!
So from '75-'79, Yaz and Lynn both were more feared than Rice...and they were on the same team!
Second was the pitcher poll in 1984, in which Murray was voted the most feared hitter by the pitchers in the league. Rice was down in the pack.
Rice was put in the Hall for two reasons, and two reasons only...
1) writers simply did NOT understand the Fenway factor. Much like the fans on this board, they foolishly thought that the Monster was actually hurting 'all those high line drives'. As we know, that is quite silly.
2) His yearly RBI total. This should be something that a first grader should recognize. It is the amount of baserunners ahead of him, AND the Fenway factor that produced these totals.
And because of those two factors, they retroactively figured he was the most feared hitter of his era....yet clearly he was not.
I will also add that the steroid era actually helped Rice, and made writers appreciate a 'clean' slugger...so they went and picked one...just that they left a dozen other superior players out!
In summation, everything that the Rice backers have thought about Rice....was wrong.
We already know the pitchers feared other players more...now we know that they all recognized the Fenway factor too
as any comment or opinion offered herein will never change the recorded fact of who is an actual real life official member of baseball's HOF,
Saber, is a word to describe a type of ancient sword,
SABR, which stands for the Society for the Advancement of Baseball Research, of which I participated therein, might be more properly acknowledged, by a more correct use of its acronym,
Sabrmetrics, Sabrman, Sabrenvy, Etc.,
The recorded official baseball statistics and events, including league leading seasons, AS game selections, quotes from MLB players, records set, HOF elections, and the like, will not be altered by any internet message board opinions, often with narrow-minded stereotyping views as to only backers or haters, regardless of the degree of unhealthy obsession with any particular ballplayer.
Dude, you are upset because EVERY notion that you have ever thrown up in defense of Rice, and every attempt at anlysis(like your silly Kingman/Wagner list method, or your ignorance of the ballpark factor), has been beat down to silliness.
You are back again because the intentional walks show that Rice isn't the feared hero you want him to be.
We already know the dude is in the Hall of Fame, so get it through your thick head that we are not debating that point.
GO post about some other player. You only post about Rice. He isn't as good as you think. He is NOT as good as Murray as you once tried to show...regardless if you say, "perhaps, somewhat, can appreciate different views," or whatever other double talk garbage you say.
You even admitted that you ONLY look at things that defends your bias...and ignore the ones that did not.
I am waiting for your Dahlen thread, or another lengthy talk about some other player besides Rice....
Or, to save everyone the headache, just go buy a magazine with nude males, paste a picture of Rice's head on one of the bodies, grab your lotion....and then have at it.
Everyone may not take your personal opinion as gospel, and that upsets you greatly as easily shown by your rants.
Try to calm down, try to realize this is just an internet message board, aimed primarily at sportcard collectors,
your crude personal insults add nothing beneficial.
Some have a mental process which lets them feel that repetition and often volume or quantity, can make one's opinions more believable.
In respect to the thread title,
The forthcoming regular HOF election will have McGwire, Alomar, Blyleven, Bagwell, and Larkin, getting my votes.
THe information is telling enough...regardless how many times I posted it.
Posted twice as a symbol to get back on topic instead of debating a zealot.
Sounds fair...edited it.
Also, the situational batter runs peak and career totals have been updated. Foster is in there(I added him in there before, but I think was missed by some...and by George he deserves some acclaim.
Kingman was also added so a non legit HOF candidate could be used to see how the others stack up.
Kingman is also used to clear up any confusion on jaxxr's famous Kingman/Wagner method, as this will show where Kingman's true abilities are. Rather than picking certain aspects of the game that Kingman beat Wagner in, or ignoring context(which are both at the heart of the Kingman/Wagner method). His true abilities are shown in the updated list a few pages prior to this...page 4 of the thread.
Besides having an unnatural desire to dwell in the past, you are a LIAR.
You, and only you, under anyone of your many Sybil-like usernames, started that thread,
You even admitted such in other past threads, and even in this this current one.
You apparently have a hurtful, yet vivid recollection of a comparison of two players from a similar time area and with relative similar difficult defensive positions. The two players had superiority in some aspects, but were not as good in other aspects, the concept of weighing the aspects was certainly not well understood.
You have sadly, a dire need for attention, and some unhealthy compulsion to "prove" your opinions are superior to former MLB players, professional sportswriters, HOF electors, and other CU message board posters.
Possibly the upcoming HOF elections might channel your childish insults in a different direction.
<< <i>This 'feared' thing is something players just say... they often say they hated to pitch to so and so....and often the guy they are referring to is just an average hitter.
BUt as I showed before, there are some strong indicators on who was feared, one is the intentional walks. That, above and beyond all else, tells you who is feared. >>
Actually, that's not the case since intentional walks are ordered by the manager. If a pitcher doesn't want to face the batter, he'll throw balls out of his range.
So that argument is more for who managers feared, not validation of who pitchers feared.
I mean not to discourage nor disapprove of most posters' comments, opinions, and presentation of stats.
Most posters are fairly respectful of other's views, and do not take matters personally enough to insult each other.
I perhaps feel HOF voting and its consistency over the past 75 + years,, is not only and exclusively subject to merely one "borderline" selection from the recent past, and had, incorrectly I assume, felt my prior comments about the shortcomings of the 1933 vote might emphasize that aspect.
No, I didn't look at all that.
Though those guys were all 3/4 hitters, and pretty much played on championship level teams.
But were talking about the MOST feared tag...and if a guy was in a lineup(at his prime) that had better hitters than him(of those were guys past their prime or NOT in the HOF), is there really a point to even make a case for his HOF candidacy.
These IBB totals are also posted for the people who continually ignore the lineup factor...for this puts them in a quandry. If indeed you want to look at Rice's RBI total and ignore the lineup factor, then you cannot all of a sudden cite a lineup factor as a reason for lower IBB total.
When getting to the heart of the matter, how many IBB he has is really meaningless. It is the recognition of the effect the lineup had on results, and the home park that really matters.
Stown, you are right in what you say in regard to managers making that IBB call. To me, that is even more telling though.
I often do cite other people's posts, when they make sense, are based in logic, and are not filled with bias and ignorance.
Just 4 IBB.
Yaz batted 5th for 114 games, and 477 plate appearances. Yaz was past his prime.
Bob Watson, George Scott, Fisk, and Hobson took the lion share of the other 5th spot position in the batting order.
If Rice, at the height of his so called most feared time, was only passed intentionally four times to get to an aging Yaz...how feared could he have been?
The fear has been applied retroactively due to the RBI totals, and lack of counting the Fenway factor, is the answer.
Then all these people who may cite the guys behind him as a reason for low IBB, I bet they they also believe in lineup protection. Then they must also enter that into their evaluations, yet ANOTHER factor against Rice!
<< <i>To my knowledge, Arod has chased anyone into the stands and beaten them senseless because of their skin color or because he was having a bad day, or kicked a maid in the stomach when she disapproved of his use of the N word in public, so until then, no, LOL.. >>
It's worth noting that a fair number of the "Cobb was a jackass" stories came from Al Stump - a man later proven to be a fraud and a liar. That doesn't change that Cobb was a jackass or whatever, just that he's not quite as bad a guy as has been told over the years.
Tabe
It might seem that way, especially with all the ink he gets from some,
but he was elected almost two years ago,
since then Andre Dawson from a comparable time era, was elected as well.
Is Dawson so far superior to Rice, so far more popular, despite having far fewer league leading seasons, that he never can draw the vast volume of negative commentary? Perhaps some have an obsession/jealousy of Jim Rice.
While you may or may not be familiar with the entire posting history, may I remind anyone/all, that I posted Rice was a "Borderline" candidate while he was under serious consideration, way before he became an official HOFer.
I will admit I was somewhat neutral about his viability, however thought some were far too overzealous, loud, and unfair in their negative only opinion of his achievements, and posted many positive things, to somewhat provide a little balance.
<< <i>That Rice has been talked about more is something, well, quite frankly, you and others who would support him spawn every bit as much as those who would disparage his selection. That, and of course it just happened. >>
I disagree with this statement to some degree. If you do a search of this forum using "Rice" and "HOF" as keywords you'll see that probably 60-70% of the results show threads that were started by either markj111 or one of Saberman's aliases.
The part about this discussion that bothers me most is that people keep trying to explain why Jim Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I think anyone that has been a member of this forum for any length of time has "been there, done that" already when it comes to reading the arguments against Rice. So how many times can people cite the same stats and try to prove the same point before they realize that all the arguments in the world can't change the ballots that were cast? It's fine if people want to complain that Rice's induction waters down what it means to make it into the Hall of Fame, but at a certain point (a point which we passed a long, long time ago) it starts to come across as little more than a narrow-minded witch hunt.
People should accept the fact that Rice is in the Hall of Fame. They can still acknowledge that he is on the lower end of deserving entrance. But then they should move on and hope for future results more in line with their own expectations and ideals.
<< <i>Saberman, posting the same information 5 or 6 posts apart doesn't make that information more convincing. >>
But thats what knuckleheads do.
To be clear, what my impression has been of this thread and similar threads is that a disproportionate amount of the effort seems to be directed at why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame instead of talking about why Singleton or Raines or Morris aren't in the Hall of Fame too. Is it really just a failure to grasp Sabrmetrics or does it actually have something to do with "Fame" as you suggest? I think the Sabrmetrics shows that Rice is not the best candidate. So why can't we, as generally intelligent people, seem to grasp the concept that Rice was probably voted into the Hall of Fame for another reason?
<< <i>I think Rob Neyer, who was the one that basically wrote the initial post on this thread, was asking the question "why aren't the better players in" but I think the thread left that topic immediately as the very next post (Saberman's post) started by talking about why Morris shouldn't be in and ended by pointing out, once again, that Jim Rice was elected thanks to Wade Boggs and Fenway Park. There has been very little discussion on why better players aren't also in the Hall of Fame and what discussion there was seems to have gotten lost in the back-and-forth arguments we've all read before. Oh sure, there are dozens of posts about who was better than Rice but no real, new exploration or discussion on why those players aren't in.
To be clear, what my impression has been of this thread and similar threads is that a disproportionate amount of the effort seems to be directed at why Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame instead of talking about why Singleton or Raines or Morris aren't in the Hall of Fame too. Is it really just a failure to grasp Sabrmetrics or does it actually have something to do with "Fame" as you suggest? I think the Sabrmetrics shows that Rice is not the best candidate. So why can't we, as generally intelligent people, seem to grasp the concept that Rice was probably voted into the Hall of Fame for another reason? >>
TheVon, fans and writers STILL do not understand the Fenway factor, nor the lineup factor, and that is THE biggest reason why he is in...not for some other reason.
Look at this board. You had guys saying that Fenway actually HURT Rice!
You have guys posting RBI numbers while totally ignoring the lineup he is in. How many times does one guy continue to post how many league leading RBI seasons? Yeah, add the lineup factor and the Fenway factor, and his true ability shows...hence the saying that Fenway was elected, and Boggs elected twice.
I could partially understand the fans doing this...but the writers have no excuse. Yet they have written the same garbage over the years...and they still put this most feared hitter in the league tag on him, which isn't remotely close to the truth.
I said it before, Rice had ONE season that matched the acclaim that he has received. THen he had one other that came close to that. The rest of it....NOT EVEN CLOSE. Unless of course you ignore the league leading number of base runners he had, or the Fenway factor.
Here is a quote from Jayson Stark on why he voted for Rice in the HOF
"But here's the reason I convinced myself he deserved this vote: The Fear Factor. In the 11 seasons from 1975 to 1985, American League pitchers would rather have seen Freddy Krueger stalking up their street than Jim Rice stalking toward the old batter's box.
In those 11 seasons, Rice finished in the top five in six MVP elections -- and led the American League in home runs, RBIs, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. Only George Brett was even in the same area code as him in many of those categories.
So he got this vote"
TheVone, you are an intelligent man. After reading all the points in this thread(and other threads), you know this is all bunk. Where on earth is this guy basing this fear from? Where is his accounting for the Fenway factor? Where is his accountig for the lineup factor?
What exactly is the basis for this "most feared" argument?
All we have are a bunch of 'selective' offensive events that do NOT take into account the obvioius benefits of the home park and the lineup. So any measurement he used is automatically majorly flawed due to ignoring this.
Not to mention that he didn't take into account other very important offensive criteria that puts the player into what his true ability/value was.
We know that the fear factor is bunk, and the IBB breakdown above sheds a LOT of light on this!! If his reason is, "well he had a good lineup." Then why on earth doesn't he recognize that when he recites his 'league leading' Runs scored and RBI totals!!!!
Either he was NOT the most feared because all those NON Hofers received MORE IBB, or his runs and RBI are a result of a lineup, and thus it isn't valid to use them to say he led the league. It can't be both!! See the contradictions??? Either way, one of his key criteria is shot to pieces!
Plus we also know by the words from these exact pitchers whom Stark cites, and whom people think feared Rice so much. After the 1984 season, ALL the regular pitchers in the league voted on who the most feared hitter was...and they picked Eddie Murray by a landslide. Rice wasn't even close. So Stark is just guessing on this, and assuming. And he is a reporter?? Must not be an 'investigative reporter'. Stark said the pitchers feared Rice most...but the pitchers said otherwise. What gives him the right to say that then?
Here are the results of AL pitcher's poll above...
Name...............# of votes as most feared
Murray..............21 1/2
Brett.................7 1/2
Boggs...............6
Whitaker...........5
Carew...............5
Winfield............4
Simmons..........4
Ripken..............4
Trammell..........3
Lynn.................3
Evans...............3
SEven players tied with two votes(including jim rice)
16 players tied with one vote.
Also, he says that pitchers would rather have seen Freddie Krueger on their street than face Jim Rice. Oh yeah? Then why were teams CHOOSING to pitch to Rice instead of an over the hill Yaz in 1978 and 1979 at the height of Rice's prime???????????????????? Is an over the hill Yaz then more terrifying than Krueger then? If so, another contradiction.
And we have people who take the word of these writers as gospel? Are you kidding me? Those people should be ashamed of themselves. These same dopes vote for the MVP too...so to use that as any type of criteria for the Hall is fruitless as well.
Oh, here is a Dan Shaughnessey quote on why he voted for Rice....
People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded. He played hard and he played hurt. His managers loved him. Opponents feared him. Really? I guess managers didn't act on those thoughts too frequently on IBB walking him in any situation, let alone with the bases loaded, LOL!
Really, is there ANYONE that still cannot see all this??
<< <i>Case in point from my point above...
...After the 1984 season, ALL the regular pitchers in the league voted on who the most feared hitter was...and they picked Eddie Murray by a landslide. Rice wasn't even close. So Stark is just guessing on this, and assuming. And he is a reporter?? Must not be an 'investigative reporter'. Stark said the pitchers feared Rice most...but the pitchers said otherwise. What gives him the right to say that then?
...Really, is there ANYONE that still cannot see all this?? >>
So to prove your point, you use a peer voting system from the twilight of Rice's career? You then use what people thought in 1984 as a reflection upon his entire career? Do you think the results would be any different had it been done in 77-79? If so, I have a strong suspicion you wouldn't use that as a basis of your argument.
Shaughnessey said he was the most feared hitter from 1975-1985.
1984 is in that peak time period. Most use the years up to 1986, as did Stark.
This is during the famous 1975-1986 period where everyone throws up all these numbers of Rice leading MLB...hardly the twilight...and actually the most opportune time where reputation and performance are at their combined highest levels!
The same figures that people like to use to proclaim Rice the best, he was exelling quite well. Here are the totals from 1983 and 1984 for Rice, and the leading vote getter Murray.
Player...........HR..........RBI..........TB
Rice..............67...........248...........651
Murray.........62............221..........612
I believe Rice was the AL leader of those three categories for '83 and '84. Don't those measurements look familiar as someone's favorite measurements to use to make Rice look the best?
THe opposing teams know. We already know this with the intentional walks.
You would have a point if this were taken in 1988, as that was the twilight of his career, and he was no longer 'jim rice'.
Rod Carew was at the twilight of his career in this vote, and he still beat Rice!
Fred Lynn was at the same point in his career as Rice here, and he beat Rice.
Ted Simmons was at the end of his career for this vote, and he beat Rice.
Brett was at the same point in his career as Rice.
You had Whitaker and Trammell who didn't even have their best years yet, and they beat him.
I will have to find all the guys tied with him in votes.
Rice was still in his famous 'feared run', only he isn't close to "most feared".
If Rice were the most feared hitter in the game, he would not have less intentional walks(AT THE ABSOLUTE PEAK OF HIS CAREER) than all these non-Hofer's, and guys on his own team!
If your argument against that is, "well he had a better lineup than those guys," then you cannot cite his league leading runs scored, or RBI totals and proclaim him the most feared because of those leading totals, yet that is part of the criteria those guys are using to justify saying most feared. Because it is the lineup that created that, not him. Oh, and Fenway. 50 IBB at Fenway, 27 on the road. Opposing teams knew, and he was nothing more than a gnat away from Fenway in the opposing teams' eyes.
Sorry Stown, these premises of most feared, or best of his time, simply do NOT add up. Not even close. The advanced measurements show it, and the opposing teams thoughts show it.
How can someone make an argument that all the statistics you need are available and are the only truly objective means to measure a player's value and then turn around and use a subjective poll to try to bolster their argument? I don't see the difference between that and the people who support Rice by pointing to his RBI total and the examples of people calling him the most feared hitter.
Obviously, I do not see credence in any eye test for baseball, and the poll is really of no use to me.
However, all these writers and fans who say he is The Most feared, have what evidence to back it up??
THey say it all the time. Shaughnessey said it. Stark said it.
Yet all the evidence we have points to Rice clearly NOT being the most feared.
The IBB and pitchers poll are two things that show the thoughts of the opposing teams, and are exactly the things that could support their case, IF they were in favor of Rice.
The only evidence they use are those faulty totals from 1975-1986, and then they retroactively say he is the most feared because of that.
You truly want to know who the most feared hitter in baseball was in the 1978-79 time frame? It was Dave Parker, and then George Foster second. Thats it.
Parker too was coming off an MVP season(which was BETTER than RIce's of the same year), and he was also a champion. Parker also had an aging slugger that often batted behind him in Stargell.
Look at Parker's IBB from 1977-1979.
13
23
14
In typical fan speak, It wasn't just the stats, it was the size of the man too that added to the 'fear factor'. Parker had 'it'. All this stuff being said about Rice at this time really belongs to Parker(for the specific time period of '78-'79).
Foster was a champion too, and the 50 HR 152 RBI season are what put him at the top in terms of reputation.
We already know about the time period of 1975-1986 above.
In the AL, Carew was the cats meow for the late 70's. His 1977 season was vastly superior to Rice's '78 season. And look, in 1984 when Carew was over the hill, he still beat Rice in that poll.
People that say that stuff about Rice do not have any evidence to back it up. All the evidence says otherwise.
They shouldn't be saying it...it is irresponsible for the writers to do that and then vote him in because of it.
Do you like it at work when co-workers are given heaps of praise, and they don't do anything different than you do, and in some cases, do worse than you?
<< <i>Do you like it at work when co-workers are given heaps of praise, and they don't do anything different than you do, and in some cases, do worse than you? >>
That would never happen. My glowing personality, my charming with, and boyish good looks make it so that people heap undue praise on me at work.
As for Rice, my hypothesis for why he is in the HOF is that he got in based on a reputation that he doesn't entirely deserve. As fellow poster Baseball pointed out, there are a lot of Yankees and Red Sox in the HOF that wouldn't be if they played for the Mariners and Brewers, for example. Rice has some rabid fans (me included) and he played his entire career for a popular team. He also played prior to the steroid era which, as you noted, helps his case a little bit. Rice, in my opinion, is in because he was "famous". As far as consistency in HOF voting goes, I think Rice will probably end up being an anomaly as more of the writers with votes seem to be cluing into the world of sabrmetrics when casting votes as evidenced by the AL Cy Young voting this year.
I do NOT have a vendetta against Rice or people that like him...I am just trying to be fair and accurate for all the players.
I don't really have a problem when people say that Rice was ONE of the most feared hitters of his time. That can be supported. His two votes in that poll is one way. If they start a pecking order, and start putting him above more deserving order, then that is different.
There is a major problem when the term THE MOST feared hitter of his time is used. No need to expound why there is a major problem with this(it is talked about enough above).
We have two writers who voted for him with, "THE MOST", as a big part of their criteria. Shaughnessey flat out said it. Stark said it in a round about way, by saying Rice coming to the plate is more terrifying than having a child mass murderer stalking your street.
They also both gave a specific time frame for his 'most feared', 1975-1986 for Stark, and 1975-1985 for Shaughnessey(though I am wondering if that is a typo, as I have no idea why his good year in '86 would not be included).
My major problem is with the irresponsibility of these writers who are charged with this task. Stark and Shaughnessey obviously did little homework, and one does have bias working for him.
Heck, Shaughnessy flat out introduced IBB as one way of determining fear factor. Would it have been that hard for him to actually look at the IBB that he is talking about, and break it down for all parties to see what actually took place? It took me five minutes to do that.
Could he, with a straight face, still talk about Rice and IBB if he saw the breakdown of all the players above? .
Guess it depends on the context of the 1984 poll, which isn't provided. Considering Rice's numbers were down across the board from the year prior, some significantly more than others, it's safe to assume he wasn't that feared in '84.
Having said that, if the poll was for the last 10 or so years, then your comments hold a lot more water.
I'm not doubting skin but it would be nice to have some data if he's using it as an example.