Is it a "travesty" that Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame?
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
Quoting @dallasactuary in another forum "Rice is still a travesty, and very possibly the least deserving hitter in the HOF elected on the regular ballot."
I have a few points to make about this, but let me lead with my conclusion so there is no confusion. Rice is a lot better than @dallasactuary thinks he is, and if he were somehow not in the Hall of Fame he wouldn't likely be in the first 75 players I'd put in.
First, claiming that Pie Traynor and Rabbit Maranville were worse than Rice rather emphasizes the point than refutes it. If you'd like to argue that Maranville was in as a fielder, I won't argue with that, just say that he was remarkably similar to Vizquel defensively, and thus extremely overrated. Looking at the numbers, it appears that Rice was also considerably better than Brock, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that Brock was not only a mistake but one of the worst mistakes the BBWAA ever made. According to JAWS, he was he 37th best left fielder of all time, among his approximate contemporaries significantly behind Brian Downing and George Foster, and let's not even compare him to Jose Cruz. I find it very hard to believe that I've judged Brock so badly, and that, if the above is true, that I've never heard anyone say Brock's induction was a mistake.
Unfortunately, that argument covers less than 30% of the Hall, and I think everyone will agree that the worst abuses have been made by the various Veterans Committees. From about 1964-80 the HoF was watered down so badly that it almost can't be believed. Players were inducted (by the Veterans Committee) that make Harold Baines look like a mortal lock, not to mention almost anyone ever discussed for the HoF and many, many not. Dave Parker, Gil Hodges, Steve Garvey, and Don Mattingly far exceed whatever "standard" was set by the VC, but so do Mark Belanger, Rusty Staub, Amos Otis, and Steve Sax.
Next, let's look at the Red Sox from 1975-79. It is not at all a reach to say that Rice was the third best outfielder on those teams, taken over their whole career, I mean, not just those years. Lynn was better than Rice. Evans was a whole lot better than Rice. Plus, there were two other players on those teams. No doubt Yastrzemski was past his prime by that point, but he was definitely still a solid contributor. He was an All-Star every year, for whatever that's worth. Fisk was even better. So here is my question: over the span of five years, how could a team with five HoF-quality players, plus a very, very good Dennis Eckersley for 1978 and 79, only make one playoff appearance?
Not sure how to conclude here, but it's clear to me that Rice is nowhere near what the standards of the HoF ought to be, by which I mean he was never even among the best or "most deserving" not enshrined, and wouldn't be today. He's certainly very near the bottom of that select group known as "hitters elected by the BBWAA", but that isn't and never has ben the standard of a HoFer. It boggles my mind that he is in while players like Andruw Jones and Scott Rolen are out. While Lance Berkman and Bobby Grich will never see a second ballot. Still, Rice is not the travesty.
Comments
Nah, it's hardly a travesty that Rice is in the Hall. I don't think I'd put him in but he's hardly a travesty when compared to a number of other selections - Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski to name two others.
It's also a little silly to slam Jim Rice for being a product of Fenway while touting Dwight Evans - a guy who hit .261 on the road - as I've seen some do.
Rice is similar to Sandy Koufax, except with less extreme home/road splits and more good seasons.
Jim Rice is my favorite player. I will try to stay out of this thread, lol.
everything ok, tabe? because there we go agreeing again. sure do miss the good ol days. 😉
Come to think of it, I HAVE been feeling like not quite myself
No but it is a travesty that Rose isn't.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
i feel theres a “rice-a-roni” joke in here somewhere…
rice or rosei, maybe?
Comparing Rabbit Maranville and Pie Traynor to Jim Rice makes little if any sense. There are others that in my view should have arrived at and in the HOF before Rice. And that has not happened yet and sadly it may never happen (see my other posts on HOF candidates...). Having written that does not mean Rice does not belong there.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Why would it matter what anyone thinks? He's there, and they ain't gonna remove him.
And to add to your thought, if Jim Rice being in the hall is one's opinion of a travesty I'd say they must have a real good life. Life is full of real travesty and Mr Rice in the hall isn't remotely close to travesty. Just sayin.
Robert
i can hardly wait for dallas to opine
Like I said, he is my favorite player. I have read through many articles, discussions on the topic. I know the talking points for both sides. I don't think it's a travesty. I thought the wait was. Happy when he finally got in.
The first think I notice is that you didn't really even attempt to refute my point. Is Jim Rice the least deserving hitter in the HOF elected on the regular ballot? I think he is, and you didn't offer any alternative, so I think you agree.
That's a bold statement to make - informing people of what I think - without first stating what it is that you think I think. Jim Rice was almost as good as Roy White, and a virtual doppelganger of Chili Davis. That's what I think, in the same way that I think grass is green. Now, Roy White was a very good player and there is no shame at all in being almost as good a baseball player as he was. No shame at all. Chili Davis was on the line between good and very good, and there's certainly a whole lot more players worse than Chili than there are better than Chili. Again, no shame in being the equal of Chili Davis.
Your contention, then, is that Jim Rice was not just better than these guys but "a whole lot" better. At least, that's what you stated here. But then .... nothing. Like the Underpants Gnomes of South Park fame, you have a thesis and a conclusion, but nothing - literally nothing - to tie them together.
This one threw me since, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever made a claim regarding Jim Rice, Pie Traynor, and Rabbit Maranville; I certainly never have. As to which point it emphasizes rather than refutes, you completely lost me. To what point are you referring?
Maranville is in as a fielder, so I guess that closes that conversation.
Lou Brock makes an appearance now, apparently as a last minute replacement for Traynor who you never mention again despite introducing him as proof of some unknown point. And Brock was a far cry from HOF-level as a hitter. But he's not in the HOF as a hitter, he's in because he was an excellent baseball player, a World Series hero, he got 3,000 hits, and he set records that people cared a great deal about.
Rice, because he couldn't do anything else as well as major league players generally should, got in the HOF solely as a hitter. And as such, he wasn't even close to any reasonable HOF standard. His career OPS+ of 128, despite retiring young and skipping the old man years that other HOFers have, is pathetic by HOF standards for players whose only skill is hitting. Even then, his OPS+ vastly overstates his offensive contributions since he was a negative on the basepaths, and an historic negative grounding into double plays. And why, in a post that I thought was trying to defend Rice, you brought up very much better players like George Foster and Jose Cruz is a mystery to me. Perhaps you'll explain why you did that?
Since you do appear to be conceding my point that Rice is the least deserving hitter in the HOF elected on the regular ballot, we have more common ground on the separate point you make here about the VC. Jim Rice was a better hitter, and player, than Highpockets Kelly and a handful of other VC picks. Not a lot better, but better. And here again, why are you bringing up so many players who were better than Rice who aren't in the HOF? Other than Steve Sax, I'd vote for everyone you mentioned here for the HOF before I'd vote for Rice.
Now you're making my argument for me, so I'll get out of your way.
Your conclusion - Rice is not the travesty - doesn't follow from anything else you've written. In fact, you've made a pretty strong case that Rice being in the HOF is a travesty. In any event, you appear to have confirmed the point I made that birthed this thread: Jim Rice is the worst hitter in the HOF elected by the BBWAA. Thank you for that.
NO
But its a travesty that he's in, and Dave Parker is not.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I'm sorry. I guess I was unclear. First, Maranville wasn't any better a fielder than Omar Vizquel. I really want to use Belanger for my argument, but since Maranville was enshrined when Belanger was 10, I can't. But putting Maranville into the Hall for his defense when Bill Dahlen was available is like enshrining Julian Javier for his defense when Mazaroski is available.
Let me restate my thesis above: Rice was better than you think he was. It's hard to make a case, and you haven't attempted it, that Rice wasn't better than Hodges, Parker, Mattingly, or Garvey. The other portion of my main point was that should lightning strike Cooperstown and wipe out Rice's plaque, there are at least 75 players who should go in before Rice went back in. Your opinion of Rice is so low that both parts are easily possible. I mean there must be very few people who can't find 75, or 200, players who should go in before Chili Davis.
Again, Traynor and Maranville were worse than Rice. The real travesties in Cooperstown are found among the pitchers and the VCs selections. I have a much harder time justifying Early Wynn and Don Sutton than Rice, and neither Wynn nor Sutton is close to the bottom of the barrel.
I do remember getting into it with Dallas quite a few years ago and I put it on him about his “Jim Rice Sucks” in his Sig line. He did say “Jim Rice doesn’t really suck” so at least Rice has that going for him lol. Rice son Chauncey was in and out of the jail I worked at. Rice used to come in and visit him, I bumped into him at a local Dunks and he was very polite
Chauncy has had a lot of legal issues. Sadly drugs are involved, based on what I have read. And we all know that addiction destroys lives. His son ( Jim's grandson) is a 6'6" lineman and is starting prep school this fall. He hopes to get a D1 scholarship. I read that Jim has played a big role in his grandson's life.
Waste of effort here, especially the litany by Dallas. Dallas obviously has some bias against Rice, which is a total waste of time. His comments mean NADA.
Rice is in, PERIOD
most members here seem to agree the the MLB HOF is really, really screwed up, allowing marginal players to be elected on some kind of arbitrary basis by a rotating set of electors who bring with them a bias and eternal voter status as long as they can pick up a pen or type on a keypad. that is what's broken and needs to be fixed.
if MLB were smart they'd establish some type of statistical baseline per position, add intangible things across all players and then pick the in/out point, something such as the top 10%(pick a number) are in. they'd have to conclude things by deciding whether to keep all the marginal choices thus far made in the HOF or summarily kicking them out because they don't belong.
I think the HOF needs to be cleansed, guys like Jim Rice can be in a specific Ballclub's HOF, but certainly not all of MLB, he's undeserving of that.
If Rice had a better relationship with the writers, he would have been in much, much sooner.
Edited to add: I realize that this part of it is not about stats. But it played a role in my opinion.
Healthy debate is what this forum is all about, but it is not worthwhile to argue with someone who doesn’t distinguish between facts and opinion.
There should only be 9 players in the HOF. Then it wouldn't be watered down.
I added a DH for reasons that will become clear.
This group would make some of you happy;
OF Barry Bonds
OF Ty Cobb
OF Mickey Mantle
1B Mark McGwire
2B Rogers Hornsby
SS Alex Rodriguez
3B Pete Rose
C Mike Piazza
DH Rafael Palmeiro
P Roger Clemens
Every one a proven cheater, accused cheater, drunken fool, complete jerk, gambling addict and even a possible child molester.
Here's my HOF;
OF Stan Musial
OF Roberto Clemente
OF Mel Ott
1B Jim Thome
2B Ryne Sandberg
SS Ernie Banks
3B Brooks Robinson
C Yogi Berra
DH Harmon Killebrew
P Bob Feller
I'll take my chances with my guys. None will be suspended all are in HOF.
For good reason.
Have a nice day!
I always scoff at the idea that Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the league. He clearly was not. American League pitchers actually voted on that in 1985 and Eddie Murray was the landslide winner.
Rice has less intentional walks than Bill Buckner...so clearly not most feared.
Rice is in the HOF because of that false reputation above and because of his RBI totals that were beefed up by having a ton of baserunners, especially from 1982 and on...and Wade Boggs got him into the HOF by getting on base so much
Then of course Fenway aided him a lot.
Davis had a 121 OPS+ in 9,997 plate appearances. Run expectancy of 277
Rice had a 128 OPS+ in 9,058 plate appearances. Run expectancy of 277
Foster had a 127 OPS+ in 7,812 plate appearances. Run expectancy of 279
The run expectancy takes into account all the double plays and every other hitting event possible(baserunners etc). I want to add that guys in potent lineups get an artificial bump in the Run expectancy as well.
Chili did play CF for about 4,000 innings. He also DHed a ton at the end of his career.
Foster wasn't exactly Willie Mays in the field. In reality, you can probably throw a blank over Foster and Rice defensively and just pick one.
Overall, you really could throw a blanket over those guys and just pick one and be no worse or better off.
Foster's biggest mistake was leaving the Reds(and the Reds losing their potent lineup), because if he would have stayed he would have fooled the writers too with insane RBI totals had he stayed in a great lineup his whole career like Rice did.
Foster also left a good hitters park and went to a bad hitters park. The writers were easy to fool.
Its obviously not a travesty in societal importance that Rice is in the Hall, but it is a slap in the face to all the players who were as good or better than Rice who are outside looking in....and those include players from Rice's era and TEAM.
I'm not going to take roll call, but there are a lot of fans on the board who place so much emphasis on the random post season hitting stats in baseball. If you are one of those fans, then Rice's .225/.313/.366 post season slash line with zero titles eliminates him from the Hall on your own criteria. Can't have it both ways.
You can also say Fenway hurt him a lot. Would-be home runs off the Green Monster. He could have had 500 HRs and that would have changed the narrative completely.
You can say that, but wouldn't be very accurate.
Home runs at home 208. Home runs on the road 174.
Doubles at home 207. Doubles on the road 166.
He hit .320 at home and .277 on the road.
What Fenway did was turn would be fly outs into doubles and some home runs.
He hit 174 home runs on the road. You are saying the Green Monster cost him 500 home runs?? So he would have hit 326 home runs without the green monster?? Yet only 174 everywhere else? Yeah, that makes sense.
The reality is that his HOF status is from the fallacies I posted above and there are several players as good or better than him from his own era. And Fenway helped him tremendously.
I am saying that it has been estimated that the Green Monster cost him atleast 120 HRs, which would have put him over 500 for a career. That is all.
By who, Santa Claus?
So he would have hit 326 home runs at home and only 174 on the road....and then you still say Fenway hurt him?? Ok.
If that were remotely true then all it would make him is even MORE of a product of Fenway than he already is. Yes, I agree, it may have fooled the writers though. They already promoted some fallacies that weren't true and their ignorance on the game is astounding.
I'm not even going to bother arguing that any further as that is some incredible Kool Aide. You are welcome to believe that if you will.
Like I said, I should've stayed out of this one. 😂
No.
Maybe.
If it took away ten homers per year away, then it gave back 11. Turned 10 home runs into 10 doubles. Turned 11 fly outs into 11 home runs.
Along those lines.
I forgive you.
Maranville was, by every account statistical or otherwise, a much better fielder than Vizquel. I don't know why Vizquel is getting drawn into a greatest fielders conversation where he doesn't belong.
I'm still unclear what your argument is, but yes, obviously, enshrining Maranville was unrelated to the future exploits of little Marky Belanger. At the time he was enshrined, he was widely, though not universally, considered the greatest fielding shortstop in history.
No, it is nothing like that. Javier was, while he was playing, considered a great fielder. He wasn't though, and years after he retired and his name appeared on a HOF ballot, voters knew that and enshrinement for Javier was never considered and nobody noticed or cared when he dropped off the ballot the next year. Dahlen and Maranville were both outstanding fielders, and if the HOF had elected Dahlen instead of Maranville it wouldn't bother me one bit. I'm fine with one of them being in the Hall, and I'm fine with the choice of Maranville just as I'd be fine with Dahlen. I'd also be fine with neither of them since Honus Wagner has as strong a claim to greatest SS as either of them.
I know your thesis. What I don't know, because you haven't attempted to explain it, is why you think so.
On the contrary, it's not hard, and I have done so with dozens of players including the four you listed here. Where it gets hard is with Roy White and Gene Tenace and players like that, but I've made their cases, too. The "haven't attempted it" crown rests securely on your head. How good do you think I think Rice was, and WHY and do you think I'm wrong? Attempt an argument or not, that's up to you, but kindly refrain from pinning the "haven't attempted" label on me; I've made a CU career out of comparing Jim Rice to pretty much every player you can think of. Ask anyone here.
The only thing I'll quibble with here is that the number is about 200 for both Rice and Davis. If you'll list your 75 for Rice first, I will gladly expand it to 200. Hell, I think I can get to double digits just with Rice's teammates.
Traynor makes his delayed reappearance! Traynor, like Maranville, was widely (though less so than Maranville) considered the greatest overall third baseman in history when he was elected. It was either Traynor or Collins or Baker, in any event. I think he got in mostly because of his high batting average, which voters at the time considered meaningful. They were wrong, of course, as were the people who considered him better than HR Baker. So no argument from me with respect to Traynor; he wasn't HOF material. But Maranville was elected solely for his fielding, and his fielding was outstanding. Jim Rice was "better" than Maranville as an overall player, but Jim Rice didn't do anything in his entire career worth honoring. Maranville did. I would kick out Rice before Maranville.
Wynn probably was the bottom of the barrel until Hunter took his spot, and he's still close enough to touch it. Sutton is my Orlando Cepeda for pitchers: he defines more or less where I think the bottom of the HOF should be. I'm indifferent whether he should be the worst pitcher in the HOF or the best pitcher not in the HOF, but he should be one of these two. He is also head and shoulders above Jim Rice on the HOF worthiness scale.
Let's take an unbiased look at Rice and perhaps dispel some of the generally accepted "facts".
Fact #1 He only hit well at Fenway park.
He actually hit better at Yankee Stadium, and it wasn't by a small margin. OPS of 1.047 at New York beating his Fenway number of 920. During the time that Rice played Yankee Stadium had an average Park Factor of 97, so it was a "pitchers" park.
Let's look at the ballpark criticism a little closer;
Going year by year for the 1975-1988 seasons, he averaged hitting better at 4 opposing parks each year and in fact NEVER hit best at Fenway during any single season.
He was second in 1978 and 1979 at home. Most years his OPS was 5th or 6th at Fenway. He finished #1 in Oakland twice (1978 and 1980) the toughest park to hit in during that time. He also had four bad years hitting in Oakland.
For some reason he couldn't hit in Kansas City (except for one year), a neutral park for hitters.
Instead of saying he only hit well at Fenway, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he never hit poorly at home? Just like all great hitters, he hit great no matter where he played when he was going good.
Fact #2, he wasn't a "feared" hitter because he wasn't intentionally walked a lot.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements ever. The guy was practically impossible to walk. Why would you give him first base when he would swing at pitches out of the strike zone?
(Killebrew led the league in HR from 1962-64 and was intentionally walked 5 times a year. I would say he was a "feared" hitter then. It had to do more with his strikeouts, when he stopped swinging at bad pitches he started getting IBB's.)
Fact #3 Too low OPS. Low walk totals kept this number down. Low walk totals aren't a big deal for sluggers, they are trying to drive in runs and Jim did that very well.
George Brett, Al Kaline and Billy Williams all had similar OPS numbers, Jim's number is only higher than about 6 HOFers.
Fact #4 Too low OPS+ probably the best argument against Rice. I don't care for the + as a number. Rice goes from the 174th best (?) hitter to the 215th because of Fenway? Not to me. His road OPS was over .800 8 times.
Fact #5 Too short of career. 16 years (actually 14) is pretty short even though it's certainly enough to qualify. Jim hardly ever missed any games though, ending up with over 9,000 PA, 128th all time. Kind of a wash here for me.
Fact #6 Grounded into too many double plays. He hit the ball hard wasn't very fast and there were a lot of guys on base for him...................DUH! Not a valid argument imo. Every guy with more GIDP is, or will be, in the HOF.
Here's a few facts that support him, keeping in mind there are 180 (I think) position players in the HOF;
Total Bases, 80th all time, averaging 320 per 162 games. Better than Frank Robinson's 310 and worse than Stan Musials 328. Killebrew, Kaline and McCovey were all in the 270 per 162 game range.
Runs Batted In, 63rd all time. Obviously team mates help with this, but almost everyone with more is in the HOF (or will be or isn't in because of steroids) and quite a few with less made it in.
Extra Base Hits, 101st all time. At least 30 HOFers with less, many who played more games.
Home Runs, 69th all time, excellent for a .300 (.298) hitter. Only 14 players with both a higher BA and more HR than Jim all time.
Slugging Percentage 105th all time. To me a .500 lifetime SLG merits the Hall, as long as the BA isn't too low.
Don't laugh, Sac Flies 51st all time. Watched any baseball lately? Guys can't do this any more.
My unbiased opinion is he deserves to be in. He certainly doesn't "suck" and there's no "travesty" here either.
Is he a lower tier HOFer, yes.
Tell me you aren't serious. I have no doubt, although I never wasted my time actually checking it, that with the small number of games Rice played in each of the other parks that random variation would result in one of them ending up higher than Fenway. The way to look at it - obviously the only reasonable way to look at it - is by comparing his Fenway total to his "everywhere else" totals, so we're comparing two statistically meaningful and comparable numbers. And Rice had an OPS of .920 at Fenway and .789 everywhere else. Back out the very real and very significant Fenway effect from Rice's numbers and you know what you get? Chili Davis's numbers. As they say, you can look it up.
Um, this is awkward. Guys who are "impossible to walk" are not "feared". Why "fear" a batter you can pitch to a foot outside and eliminate his HR chances? Rice was not particularly feared, and you've provided the reason why.
Yes, making outs instead of accepting walks does lower a hitter's OPS. But no, Rice did not drive in runs particularly well. What Rice did well was choose teammates who were constantly on base for him to drive in. Well, OK, he didn't actually choose his teammates, so he didn't actually do anything at all particularly well. You know who drove in runners just as well as Rice, although he had far fewer chances. Yep, Chili Davis.
Which just goes to show you that about 200 other guys had an .800 road OPS 8 times.
I have no problem with the length of his career; in fact the length of it just highlights even more how empty it was.
Oh, this one's cute. Every guy with more GIDP than Rice either played 50% longer than he did and/or was a 50%+ better hitter. Per run created, nobody above Rice will ever be in the HOF because there is nobody above him. Rice was historically terrible at GIDP; don't deprive of him the one thing where he separated himself from the pack.
Meainingless; you're ignoring the Fenway factor.
Meaningless; it's nothing but teammates and the Fenway factor.
At this point, I'm closer to crying than laughing. The length of the list of stats you post means nothing when none of them account for his teammates and Fenway.
Unbiased? I do not think the word means what you think it means. Ignoring park factors is more or less the definition of "bias". And your bias is preventing you from seeing the travesty.
You misspelled "lowest".
Why not? He was a good ballplayer.
That would be what someone I knew would say if I said someone should or should not be in the say, Country Music Hall of Fame...or at the very least got in too early or had to wait too long...with IMO Vince Gill and Ronnie Milsap being among the best examples, respectively. I'm not not NOT saying Vince Gill isn't HOF worthy...but he was inducted way too early (2007) when there were far more qualified candidates still waiting in the wings at the time. Right now I definitely think Tanya Tucker is WAY overdue for induction...though I don't think the 2021 inductees have been announced yet.
As for the baseball HOF, I think it is beyond stupid that the Mr. October of pitchers Curt Schilling is STILL not in just because his personal/political views are a little different from that of the BBWAA.
But seriously, when I mention whether or not someone should be in any sort of HOF and the reply is, "Why not? He/she was a good so-and-so" is obviously missing the the point of a HOF entirely.
PS: Wow, Jim got in on his 15th and final try...that was close!
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
And on a related note, how in the world did Harold Baines get his number retired so quickly? That by far was the most surprising as far as jersey retirements go (I don't know of any player in any sport who got their jersey retired so soon and while they still had years left as a player). I'm not not NOT questioning whether or not he was worthy of the honor in of itself but that they did it so soon after he left the White Sox for the first time. I mean he ended up playing 11 more years, including not one but TWO more stints with the Good Guys.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
>
Yastrzemski had a .779 on the road and .904 at Fenway. He must suck too.
Chili Davis was a very good hitter, but not as good as Jim Rice.
I really don't care. Obviously you have a low opinion of Rice, I don't think he was that great, but it doesn't bother me that he's in the HOF.
It sure seems to bother you.
You may want to revise or back to the drawing board. There are a lot of contradictions in there, tons of missing pertinent information, and it is ALL poorly supported premises you make, some of which are outright fairy tales. You actually make comments that support Rice being a travesty and you don't even realize it.
Sliver truths and bias are the basis of your arguments, and if that is what you want to hang your hat on so be it. People are going to believe what their bias drives them to and will cling to the one needle in the haystack that supports that bias, and then ignore everything else that doesn't. Have at it though...because if it can't be seen already, no need to go further on it.
My post is completely factual. If you want to add some pertinent information I missed, post some.
Contradictions? Of course. Rice did a lot of things well and some not so well.
Unlike some people, I can take an unbiased look at Rice, because I don't care enough about him, although I'll say he sure didn't "suck".
Rice is in the HOF. It's not a travesty, and it wouldn't be a travesty if he wasn't in.
May want to check again. There is a ton of bias in your posts. Contradictions, bias, very poorly supported premises, missing key information, and using sliver truths. It really isn't constructed well enough, and is so far off the rails on some of the premises, that time will be better spent elsewhere.
That's funny, biased and contradictory at the same time!
Your posts offer nothing.
Bottom line, the OP asks a simple question, the answer is no.
Check your delusional post again if you think it offers nothing but facts. Yes, my posts are for the non bias and logical thinking folk, so if it offers nothing, then that explains a lot about you.
I am fairly sure that if the VC decided to enshrine Bobby Murcer, or Amos Otis, or Roy White that calling that a travesty would not have raised an eyebrow. But all three of them were better (in Murcer's case much better) than Jim Rice. I am also fairly sure that you would consider Chili Davis being selected for the HOF to be a travesty, and the only differences between Chili and Rice are the parks they played in and the quality of their teammates. So yes, on many levels, it bothers me. It ought to bother everyone who understands how baseball works. Maybe it does.
Then why is Rice's WAR 50% higher than Murcer's?
Because WAR is unadulterated crap.
Win Probability
Rice 25
Murcer 32
Run Expectancy (including how they hit with baserunners on base, etc....so better than RBI).
Rice 277
Murcer 282
Murcer played half his innings in centerfield and missed two years due to military obligation...and still edged Rice in those two key areas.
Murcer stacks up well. Neither had old man years so it is an easier comparison.
The pleasant surprise with Murcer is that he played more than 145 games in a season for TEN straight years. That is extremely rare for a left handed batter. So there is no platoon advantage that Murcer took.
The kicker is how some of these same posters arguing for Rice are the same people that put so much emphasis on striking out and how striking out is so detrimental.
Rice 1,423 strikeouts
Murcer 841 strikeouts
Some even said that striking out is worse than hitting into a double play. Yeah, as crazy as that sounds, that was said. Luckily Rice has both those areas covered as he is both a prolific strikeout hitter and the all-time prolific GIDP hitter. Rice does hold the ALL TIME top spot for the most GIDP in a single season. Holds the second spot too, lolololol.
Also the 8th and 19th spots. Rice got busy holding FOUR top twenty spots all time in GIDP while only playing 13 seasons where he played enough to quality for a batting title.