I don't know if Rice ever gets in, but I remember him being one of the best during his era. Again, I think that MLB needs to have a veterans vote along with the writers, plus they should actually rate and vote for the players based on their era. Either way, he was one of my favs growing up.
Also, I don't recall why he retired early? Did he retire based on his production falling off or an injury?
Santo has way more walks and a 10 point lead on OBP but is that enough to say that Santo was that much better? >>
Seriously, how can everybody complain about the things I say, while simultaneously not listening to a thing I say? Or did you spend the time to post this just to irritate me? If so, touche.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Didn't Rice get like 80%+ of the votes needed last time and if I also remember right, there are basically no options this year outside of the steroid period people and Rice. Meaning, they will either cancel their parade and week long celebration, likely the biggest money week for the area of the year, or elect Rice. I am thinking Rice gets elected.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>Didn't Rice get like 80%+ of the votes needed last time and if I also remember right, there are basically no options this year outside of the steroid period people and Rice. Meaning, they will either cancel their parade and week long celebration, likely the biggest money week for the area of the year, or elect Rice. I am thinking Rice gets elected. >>
if it's Rice or roid-boys like you said, I think you are on to something there.
This thread begs the question: which man is a better TV analyst, Rice or Morgan? I vote for Rice.
One other thing: Although I think it's crazy to favorably compare Rice's numbers to Morgan's, I think it's equally crazy to put him in the same douchebag category as Barry Bonds. Rice wasn't well liked by the media when he was a player but so what? Don't we all come on here and talk about how the media doesn't know what they're talking about half the time anyway? Just check out his Wikipedia page and you'll see that he at least cared about the community and using his high profile to do good things like working with children, The Jimmy Fund, the Neurofibromatosis Foundation in New England, the RBI program, and there's even a story about how he Rice attended to a boy that had been struck in the head by a line drive off the bat of Dave Stapleton. Rice entered the stands, carried the boy onto the field, took him through the dugout and into the clubhouse where he was treated by the team's medical staff. Doctors later said that his actions may have saved the boy's life.
What has Barry Bonds done except promote himself and bring shame to baseball?
1st, im stunned that someone isnt rushing to Joe Morgans defense as the greatest 2nd baseman since Jesus lol oh wait, i just saw someones head explode.
2nd. Rice was kinda douchebaggy, but Bonds is the ultimate douche.
Depends on the HOF you want. Do you want "great" ballplayers or do you also want to include "excellent" ballplayers. My HOF only includes the greats and the real HOF should only include the greats, but unfortunately excellent type ballplayers have gotten in for years, and even just some very good type players.
Jim Rice was an excellent ballplayer but he wasn't great, and therefore should not get in, but he will likely get in - Might as well water it down some more...it's all about the money anyway and the more players that are in, the more people go to see it...in theory.
Maybe one day Eddie Gaedel will be voted in and with his perfect OBP, I could see why the stat worshippers would vote him in.
The stat worshipers would not like Gaedel's OBP due to it being only one plate appearance...much like I don't like Ken Phelp's percentages due to him only playing against RH pitchers.
Compared to some era's like the 20's/30's, I don't mind seeing Rice or any good player from his era get into the Hall of Fame.
The biggest problem I have with Rice being a legit candidate is that he was not the best outfielder on his own team, and that guy isn't in either. Actually, he was the third best outfielder on his own team(career wise). Is that a knock against Rice? Lynn and Evans were super ball players, both can catch 'em and hit 'em. Not a knock, just a little realism.
The thing is the "Fame" part, and that is the part where Rice has his case...though that isn't exactly a fair thing. But then Lynn also had a good fame part too, and has those other things like the MVP/ROY in the same season that people get excited about(and was worth getting excited about)...but the uniqueness is what I mean.
The other knock I have is, isn't Jim Rice really the George Foster of the AL? I have a hard time seperating them two performance wise and lore wise. Basically, everything Rice has done, so has Foster, but then Foster has the thing that voters typically value...the two WS rings. I honestly can't see why Rice gets this much support as compared to George Foster.
The Red Sox fans love Rice, and that team was one fun team! I could see why they do like him so much. I was always fond of Lynn the most from those teams.
Between the Rice/Lynn/Evans comparison, and the Rice/Foster, I guess I see it as a little unfair to just pick Rice from those guys, while the others got almost no support at all. I don't think I would be upset about him getting in(which I think he might), but if he does it cements the notion that sportswriters really are flying by the seat of their pants, with many not really thinking things through or digging a little deeper(that is their job after all).
" I don't mind seeing Rice or any good player from his era get into the Hall of Fame."
A truly reasonable opinion, not completely agreed with with by all, I am sure, but neverthess, fairly open-minded.
I was going to stay out of this particular discusssion, as I have posted many statistical, anecdotal, comparative, and other type, items relating to the popular Jim Rice, in the past. The stats are there for all to see and make their own evaluations. First hand accounts or views from from many peers and sportswriters, are also available to digest.
In a somewhat lukewarm response, may I offer that, one often overlooked aspect, is in regard to total bases, one of a multitude of stats, which are contributory to a teams' success, and one fairly removed from teammate influence. Jim Rice has lead the league in total bases four different times, more than Foster (1), Lynn (0), and Evans(1), combined. In 1978 he topped the remarkable "400" number, with 406, the last hitter to do so, pre-roid times. He also has a much higher career BA and Slg % than the 3 aforementioned players.
Fenway Park is often said, to be a big part of Rice's hitting skill, altough he did hit HRs at a higher rate in four other parks, and in Yankee Stadium hit all around better. Jim probably had enough natural talent and could likely adjust well enough, to hit fine in any park, including Yellowstone National.
I would rather talk about Dick ( Dont call me Richie) Allen, I player I truly liked to watch.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Because a player is the "best player" from his era, does not "automatically" make him a HOF member in my viewpoint. For example, just to generalize, if say all the pitchers from an "era" stunk - then the one who stunk the least should not be even a candidate for the HOF, let alone a member.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years.
I sorry to hear that your head exploded Here's some detailed information to CLEARLY illustrate my point.
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits Morgan .271 268 1133 2517 Santo .271 342 1331 2254 Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369 Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts.
Rice's OPS+ is 128, but I need to remind you again to keep in mind that it stayed high because he didn't play through the down phase of a career like most HOF sluggers. If you look at the career %'s of sluggers up to age 34 only, then their career percentages will be higher as well(and higher than RIce's). And then they went on to add continued value to a team for another five or six full seasons.
Fenway certainly aided Rice, just like it aided almost all hitters then. If you look at RIce adn see he hit better at four other parks(in small samples), and you conclude he would have hit like that full time at those parks, THEN YOU MUST also conclude that he would have hit horrible like he did at some of the other parks on the road that he did bad in. IN totality, Fenway aided him. One can ignore if they wish, but I can't see how it aided everybody else, but not him.
RIce OPS+ 128. He only played till age 35 full time, and one part time year at age 36. Then nothing. Lynn OPS+ 129. Played till age 38, but was a platoon guy his last few years, so he is similar to Rice. Evans OPS+ 127. Played full time till age 38. Half time at age 39.
They all had their best years at Fenway, so even if one ignored the overwhelming evidence on how much Fenway aided hitters in that era, Lynn and Evans were at least the equal of Rice as batters.
Lynn and Evans get a slight edge in base running.
Lynn and Evans get a big edge in fielding.
It all adds up to them being better than RIce.
I am very open minded. I encourage everyone to be open minded, and let the evidence speak a little stronger, rather relying on archaic methods that just don't work very well. I used to believe in the RBI and stuff that others do too, until I OPENED MY MIND, and took ALL the information. How many others can say they opened their mind to something different than what they at one time believed in? I see most sticking to what they always thought, rather than looking at very strong information that paints a clearer picture. I lived both minds, now I reside in a more clear one.
<< <i> Because a player is the "best player" from his era, does not "automatically" make him a HOF member in my viewpoint. For example, just to generalize, if say all the pitchers from an "era" stunk - then the one who stunk the least should not be even a candidate for the HOF, let alone a member.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years. >>
Baseball has changed since Ty Cobb played and it has changed since the Mick played. I don't think you can truly compare todays numbers to #'s from 30, 60 or even 90 years ago as the game has changed. I understand what you said Steve, but Rice played in a great era of baseball..certainly not a watered down ERA. Look at all of the HOF players that came from the 70's and 80's. Rice was certainly one of the tops during his ERA which tells me he is at the very least a great player, or at least a borderline HOF player. If he gets in he deserves it.
One concern I have is the fact we are getting into the Juiced years and I truly hope the writers just don't vote in players who are the best in their class since they won't vote in the Juiced guys. I hope they vote players in who had HOF careers or don't vote anyone in that year.
Total bases, and BA, and Slg %, are not the exact same thing as another contributory stat you mention, OPS+.
Also correct is the realization that the "would haves. could haves, IF he played here or there, IF he played longer, IF anything elses, are ALL speculations, not what really did actually happen, when you do compare the actual facts or stats.
Perhaps incorrect is the assumption per Rice as a defender and/or baserunner.
None was a big base stealer, all averaging about 5 thefts per season, however the percentage of sucess was; Evans .57, Lynn .57, and Rice .63. Edge to Rice. Triples may often be considered representative of a players run ability, seasonal bests, Evans 8, Lynn 8, Rice 15 ( twice) including one league leading season. Edge to Rice. For defense, all 3 were above average stat-wise; Career Fldg, Pct, above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .09, Lynn .03, Rice .03 Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34 The arm of Dewy was well known, and CF for Lynn was the more important position, however Rice was an above average LFer, contrary to a common misconception, that powerful hitters must be slow and/or ungraceful.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
THe fielding value comes from the positions they play. A player than can hit as well as Rice AND man centerfield has more value. That wins your team more games as you have a distinct advantage against all the other team's centerfielders...same for RF to a lesser extent.
I don't see a big difference in running. I haven't looked at their percentages on scoring from second, or going from first to third. Though I do know in Rice's last half of his career he was terribly slow. Those highs you showed in triples don't tell much about their speed, but regardless it is only indicitive of a few of Rice's seasons. Just looking at a few of the seasons doesn't tell enough.
You neglected to use grounded into double plays as part of your evidence
Jaxxr, the actual facts are that Rice was a far different hitter on the road. Almost all Fenway hitters were different on the road, and the visiting players(as a whole) that came into Fenway were better at Fenway. Those are the facts. The logical conclusion is that Fenway helped hitters.
P.S. You only used fielding percentage. That is only part of the fielding equation. Fielding measurements from past years are vague, of course. The one thing I like to point out in favor of Rice and Lynn is that Fenway cost them fielding opportunities in terms of putouts. When measured against their league peers, they are at a bit of a disadvantge, just like they are advantaged in hitting. But again, this affects Lynn too...but Rice more due to the lack of foul territory and the ease of hitting balls off the wall. Fenway turned a lot of fly ball outs into doubles.
PS. Total bases, batting avg, and Slg percentage are in OPS+. No need to count them twice. Only now, the other half of the hitting value is taken into account...geting on base.
<< <i>I sorry to hear that your head exploded Here's some detailed information to CLEARLY illustrate my point.
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits Morgan .271 268 1133 2517 Santo .271 342 1331 2254 Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369 Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts. >>
What is the context of those numbers? In what eras did they play? Joe Morgan was one of the top 5 2nd basemen in the history of the game, Jim Rice was no better than Roy White. According to win shares, Joe Morgan is the 12th best player in the history of the game, Rice is 185th. Defense matters.
<< <i> Because a player is the "best player" from his era, does not "automatically" make him a HOF member in my viewpoint. For example, just to generalize, if say all the pitchers from an "era" stunk - then the one who stunk the least should not be even a candidate for the HOF, let alone a member.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years. >>
Baseball has changed since Ty Cobb played and it has changed since the Mick played. I don't think you can truly compare todays numbers to #'s from 30, 60 or even 90 years ago as the game has changed. I understand what you said Steve, but Rice played in a great era of baseball..certainly not a watered down ERA. Look at all of the HOF players that came from the 70's and 80's. Rice was certainly one of the tops during his ERA which tells me he is at the very least a great player, or at least a borderline HOF player. If he gets in he deserves it.
One concern I have is the fact we are getting into the Juiced years and I truly hope the writers just don't vote in players who are the best in their class since they won't vote in the Juiced guys. I hope they vote players in who had HOF careers or don't vote anyone in that year. >>
I don't think Rice should be in, but it wouldn't "bother me" if he did get in, because certainly there's worse in there, and Rice is a "borderline" type HOF player, but again he's more excellent than great in my opinion.
My viewpoint is "great" needn't have to be thought about - you either are a great player or you aren't - a HOF vote selection should literally take one second to ponder and decide.
<< <i>I sorry to hear that your head exploded Here's some detailed information to CLEARLY illustrate my point.
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits Morgan .271 268 1133 2517 Santo .271 342 1331 2254 Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369 Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts. >>
Seriously, you are making an absolute fool of yourself. I know you don't think so - and that's sad - but you really need to trust me on this. With what little brain your posts have left me, I don't have the wherewithal to walk you through what makes a baseball player great from square one, but you have left out almost every single valuable piece of information in your "analysis" and included some really worthless stuff. Again, for the love of God, please stop.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Hoopster says, "P.S. You only used fielding percentage."
As from the post I made just prior;
Career Fldg, Pct, above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .09, Lynn .03, Rice .03,
and in additon to field percentage, I used Range factor which is another stat to measure defense.
Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34 The arm of Dewy was well known, and CF for Lynn was the more important position, however Rice was an above average LFer, contrary to a common misconception, that powerful hitters must be slow and/or ungraceful.
It appears you were not interested in the entire post , or more likely, other views.
Total bases, HR frequency, Batting average, Slugging percentage, OPS +, Hits, Triples, Stolen base percentage, Etc., are all contributory and/or intersting aspects of a player's contribution to a team's success, Rice was better than Lynn or Evans in those. And also as well, in Runs scored and/or Driven in, per 162 game average.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Note to self-do not spend any energy trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who thinks Joe Morgan is a marginal HOFer. It is most difficult to reason with a troglodyte.
"Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bulls**t; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bulls**t is something that you just 'know.' If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence."
Note to self-do not spend any energy trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who thinks Joe Morgan is a marginal HOFer. It is most difficult to reason with a troglodyte.
The question remains, if statistics aren't used as a factor to determine who is HOF worthy what is!!!? Please explain your insane reasoning.
Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34
Jaxxr,
What is your source re range factor? Baseball-reference has him considerably below average-2.15 plays per 9 innings, as compared to a league average of 2.45 per 9 ininngs.
<< <i>The question remains, if statistics aren't used as a factor to determine who is HOF worthy what is!!!? Please explain your insane reasoning. >>
There are literally hundreds of statistics that can be used to evaluate HOF worthiness; in order of importance, you have selected #32, #45, #82 and #178 (I made those up, but I assume that you get my point). Then you present those four random, relatively unimportant stats in a clean table-like format and assume that it means something of importance. It doesn't.
Consider their fielding, consider the parks they played in, consider the years in which they played, consider their spot in the batting order, consider their baserunning, consider their walks, consider their GIDP, consider the length of their careers - consider everything. If you don't think it matters, for example, when evaluating Morgan and Rice by their RBI totals that Morgan spent half his career batting first or second in the Astrodome and Rice spent his entire career hitting third or fourth in Fenway, then you have no business even trying to determine who was or was not HOF-worthy because all your conclusions will be nonsense. Morgan was a Gold Glove second baseman - you give that no weight. Morgan is 11th on the all-time stolen base list - you give that no weight. Morgan's OBP was 40 points higner than Rice's - more than the difference between Ty Cobb and John Kruk - and you give that no weight. Rice ground into 210 more double plays than Morgan - you give that no weight. And all this with Morgan playing most of his career in the hardest parks in baseball while Rice played in by far the easiest for his entire career; and also with Morgan playing through the deadest dead ball era since before WWI.
The two aren't close - not even remotely close - and until you can see that you are not seeing 99% of what you need to see to determine who the great players were.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+.
That is like saying I have a higher batting average than you, and then also proclaiming, I also have more singles than you.
All three of those guys were virtually identical hitting wise, and the OPS+ shows all those things you desire already.
You keep doing that with those things, and i thought you have learned by now.
You also keep doing the career percentages or 162 game average with Rice. HE WAS DONE AT 35! Comparing career percentages to a guy who was done at 35 to a guy at 39 is not a valid comparison. How many times do I have to pound that in? I went over that with the Murray comparison and broke it down in as simple language comparison as humanly possible. If you still cannot follow that line of reasong, it really is best to move on.
If you find me saying this offensive, then I apologize...and if Dallas thinks his head is exploding...come look at mine. My goodness. It is almsot as if you are doing this on purpose. Are you? At least that would make sense.
You aren't really providing a coherent or valid viewpoint to take into account. You just list things that Rice beat them in, ignore important factors, and COMPLETELY discount outs made, or GIDP.
Now you are making up fielding numbers too.
Rice career Range Factor per nine innings is 2.15. The League range factor per nine innings is 2.45 Fred Lynn is 2.71 compared to the league of 2.44 Evans is 2.68 to 2.85
So not only is Lynn EQUAL to Rice offensively(despire your lists you pick and choose), he is also above his position defensively while manning a harder position! While Rice is below.
P.S. Here is an example of your type of list that are irrelevant.
Lynn had seasons with doubles totals of 47 and 42. Rice never had 40 ever. Lynn had seasons with SB totals of 15 and 12. Rice never had 12 ever. Lynn's highest SLG% was .637. Rice's was .600.
Here are some that do matter. Rice made over 1,000 more outs than Lynn. Rice grounded in 164 more double plays than Lynn.
Again, Rice and Lynn were equal offensively. Lynn was vastly superior defensively. It makes no sense to sing the praises of Rice over that of Lynn. Case closed.
I gotta admit I am truly enjoying this thread! Skin' your rebuttles have me in stitches and dare I say even Dallas is making me chuckle as well.
The "Geek" stats that Skin' and Dallas come up with do make alot of sense, I admit Im very ignorant to those type of #'s as I consider myself a typical BB fan who drools over HR and RBI #'s as well as BA but I am starting to realize that these "Geek" stats do tell a much bigger story.
" LF*1503 3027 132 62 17 .981 .978 2.10 1.84 " F Pct. career for Rice was .981 to league ave of .978, and RF, or range factor, 2.10 to league average of 1.84
In no way is anyone claiming Rice was like Jimmy Sheckard, Fred Clark, Willie Wilson, or even Omar Moreno, while patroling LF. It is a common misconception among many fans, power hitting sluggers are poor defenders, while Rice was not elite, by any stretch, he was a bit above average as a LFer.
It is interesting Rice is being mentioned with so many different ballplayers, Joe Morgan, Ty Cobb, Fred Lynn, and even fat Johnny Kruck, among many others. According to the same aforementioned BBRef.com, the two, long retired players, Rice most similarly compares with, are Orlando Cepaeda and Duke Snider, HOFers both.
I would still much rather yack about Richie Allen !
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I like Jim Rice...always have. I gave him his props. HE just isn't any better than Lynn or Evans.
I have some ballpark factor information I may post. But that may be a different thread.
Jaxxr, I mentioned that Rice is actually better than what his range factors show, because Fenway hurts PUTOUT opportunities. He just isn't as good as Lynn defensively, and Lynn played a more demanding position.
All three of those guys were virtually identical hitting wise, and the OPS+ shows all those things you desire already.
That is simply WRONG, just like when you assumed only Fldg. Pct was mentioned by me.
By the way, Did Fred Lynn, or Dewey Evans, Or Eddie Murray, ever lead the Americn league in Triples ? Jimmy Rice did Did any one of them ever hit 40 or more HRs in a season ? James Rice did. Did steady Eddie, Freddie, or Dwight, ever get 200 hits in a season ? J. E. Rice did, four times in fact. Did any of the 3 ever get 400+ total bases in a season ? J. Edward Rice did, among his four league title years. Did any virtualy identical guys plus Murray, have a lifetime BA over .290 ? Jim Rice has a .298 career BA. Did any of the trio have as good a lifetime HRF as Mr. Rice ?
And speaking of HRF,as you stated Hoopster;
"For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+."
Of course you are WRONG, the ratio stat, HRF, is not directly related to OPS + calculation. HRF is separate and distinct, from the figures used therein.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
Comments
Also, I don't recall why he retired early? Did he retire based on his production falling off or an injury?
Brian
<< <i>It is almost that time. >>
Thank God. It's already been about a month since we've had a 300-post discussion on this topic.
BTW, I think he should get in based on his RBI total alone . . .
I'm kidding. But I would like to see him get in regardless.
Steve
<< <i>I'd like to see him get in just to see what Dallas says.
Steve >>
Im sure he would think it is ludicrus!
I know he is a big supporter of Santo so I checked the stats to compare..
RICE SANTO
Games 2089 2243
AB 8225 8143
Runs 1249 1138
Hits 2452 2254
HR 382 342
RBI 1451 1331
2B 373 365
3B 79 67
SO 1423 1343
SB 58 35
BB 670 1108
BA .298 .277
OBP .352 .362
SLG .502 .464
TB 4129 3779
Santo has way more walks and a 10 point lead on OBP but is that enough to say that Santo was that much better?
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd like to see him get in just to see what Dallas says.
Steve >>
Im sure he would think it is ludicrus!
I know he is a big supporter of Santo so I checked the stats to compare..
RICE SANTO
Games 2089 2243
AB 8225 8143
Runs 1249 1138
Hits 2452 2254
HR 382 342
RBI 1451 1331
2B 373 365
3B 79 67
SO 1423 1343
SB 58 35
BB 670 1108
BA .298 .277
OBP .352 .362
SLG .502 .464
TB 4129 3779
Santo has way more walks and a 10 point lead on OBP but is that enough to say that Santo was that much better? >>
Seriously, how can everybody complain about the things I say, while simultaneously not listening to a thing I say? Or did you spend the time to post this just to irritate me? If so, touche.
<< <i>
Without that year no way Rice gets into the HOF.
<< <i>
Without that year no way Rice gets into the HOF.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>Didn't Rice get like 80%+ of the votes needed last time and if I also remember right, there are basically no options this year outside of the steroid period people and Rice. Meaning, they will either cancel their parade and week long celebration, likely the biggest money week for the area of the year, or elect Rice. I am thinking Rice gets elected. >>
if it's Rice or roid-boys like you said, I think you are on to something there.
<< <i>I guess this thread is the beginning of the bi-monthly who desereves to get in? Dawson should go before Rice. At least he wasn't an a-hole. >>
Was he really that big a douchebag like Barry Bonds and Manny? I was not living in New England during the 70s, so I never really got exposed to that.
He seems like a pretty nice guy now.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess this thread is the beginning of the bi-monthly who desereves to get in? Dawson should go before Rice. At least he wasn't an a-hole. >>
Was he really that big a douchebag like Barry Bonds and Manny? I was not living in New England during the 70s, so I never really got exposed to that.
He seems like a pretty nice guy now. >>
yep, but I think he sucks as an analyst.
<< <i>Rice's numbers are better than I thought. Based on the fact that Joe Morgan is in the HOF with his mediocre numbers I think Rice belongs. >>
Do you have any idea what a mess it made when my brain exploded out of my ears when I read this? How painful it was or how long it took to clean up?
Even worse, now that my brain is gone the only one I'll have to talk to is Dr. J.
For the love of God people, go club a baby seal or something else less offensive than this. Show a little mercy.
<< <i>Rice's numbers are better than I thought. Based on the fact that Joe Morgan is in the HOF with his mediocre numbers I think Rice belongs. >>
Are you trolling or ignorant (perhaps both)?
One other thing: Although I think it's crazy to favorably compare Rice's numbers to Morgan's, I think it's equally crazy to put him in the same douchebag category as Barry Bonds. Rice wasn't well liked by the media when he was a player but so what? Don't we all come on here and talk about how the media doesn't know what they're talking about half the time anyway? Just check out his Wikipedia page and you'll see that he at least cared about the community and using his high profile to do good things like working with children, The Jimmy Fund, the Neurofibromatosis Foundation in New England, the RBI program, and there's even a story about how he Rice attended to a boy that had been struck in the head by a line drive off the bat of Dave Stapleton. Rice entered the stands, carried the boy onto the field, took him through the dugout and into the clubhouse where he was treated by the team's medical staff. Doctors later said that his actions may have saved the boy's life.
What has Barry Bonds done except promote himself and bring shame to baseball?
2nd. Rice was kinda douchebaggy, but Bonds is the ultimate douche.
3rd. both suck equally as ANAlysts.
Jim Rice was an excellent ballplayer but he wasn't great, and therefore should not get in, but he will likely get in - Might as well water it down some more...it's all about the money anyway and the more players that are in, the more people go to see it...in theory.
Maybe one day Eddie Gaedel will be voted in and with his perfect OBP, I could see why the stat worshippers would vote him in.
The biggest problem I have with Rice being a legit candidate is that he was not the best outfielder on his own team, and that guy isn't in either. Actually, he was the third best outfielder on his own team(career wise). Is that a knock against Rice? Lynn and Evans were super ball players, both can catch 'em and hit 'em. Not a knock, just a little realism.
The thing is the "Fame" part, and that is the part where Rice has his case...though that isn't exactly a fair thing. But then Lynn also had a good fame part too, and has those other things like the MVP/ROY in the same season that people get excited about(and was worth getting excited about)...but the uniqueness is what I mean.
The other knock I have is, isn't Jim Rice really the George Foster of the AL? I have a hard time seperating them two performance wise and lore wise. Basically, everything Rice has done, so has Foster, but then Foster has the thing that voters typically value...the two WS rings. I honestly can't see why Rice gets this much support as compared to George Foster.
The Red Sox fans love Rice, and that team was one fun team! I could see why they do like him so much. I was always fond of Lynn the most from those teams.
Between the Rice/Lynn/Evans comparison, and the Rice/Foster, I guess I see it as a little unfair to just pick Rice from those guys, while the others got almost no support at all. I don't think I would be upset about him getting in(which I think he might), but if he does it cements the notion that sportswriters really are flying by the seat of their pants, with many not really thinking things through or digging a little deeper(that is their job after all).
A truly reasonable opinion, not completely agreed with with by all, I am sure, but neverthess, fairly open-minded.
I was going to stay out of this particular discusssion, as I have posted many statistical, anecdotal, comparative, and other type, items relating to the popular Jim Rice, in the past. The stats are there for all to see and make their own evaluations. First hand accounts or views from from many peers and sportswriters, are also available to digest.
In a somewhat lukewarm response, may I offer that, one often overlooked aspect, is in regard to total bases, one of a multitude of stats, which are contributory to a teams' success, and one fairly removed from teammate influence.
Jim Rice has lead the league in total bases four different times, more than Foster (1), Lynn (0), and Evans(1), combined. In 1978 he topped the remarkable "400" number, with 406, the last hitter to do so, pre-roid times. He also has a much higher career BA and Slg % than the 3 aforementioned players.
Fenway Park is often said, to be a big part of Rice's hitting skill, altough he did hit HRs at a higher rate in four other parks, and in Yankee Stadium hit all around better. Jim probably had enough natural talent and could likely adjust well enough, to hit fine in any park, including Yellowstone National.
I would rather talk about Dick ( Dont call me Richie) Allen, I player I truly liked to watch.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years.
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits
Morgan .271 268 1133 2517
Santo .271 342 1331 2254
Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369
Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts.
Rice's OPS+ is 128, but I need to remind you again to keep in mind that it stayed high because he didn't play through the down phase of a career like most HOF sluggers. If you look at the career %'s of sluggers up to age 34 only, then their career percentages will be higher as well(and higher than RIce's). And then they went on to add continued value to a team for another five or six full seasons.
Fenway certainly aided Rice, just like it aided almost all hitters then. If you look at RIce adn see he hit better at four other parks(in small samples), and you conclude he would have hit like that full time at those parks, THEN YOU MUST also conclude that he would have hit horrible like he did at some of the other parks on the road that he did bad in. IN totality, Fenway aided him. One can ignore if they wish, but I can't see how it aided everybody else, but not him.
RIce OPS+ 128. He only played till age 35 full time, and one part time year at age 36. Then nothing.
Lynn OPS+ 129. Played till age 38, but was a platoon guy his last few years, so he is similar to Rice.
Evans OPS+ 127. Played full time till age 38. Half time at age 39.
They all had their best years at Fenway, so even if one ignored the overwhelming evidence on how much Fenway aided hitters in that era, Lynn and Evans were at least the equal of Rice as batters.
Lynn and Evans get a slight edge in base running.
Lynn and Evans get a big edge in fielding.
It all adds up to them being better than RIce.
I am very open minded. I encourage everyone to be open minded, and let the evidence speak a little stronger, rather relying on archaic methods that just don't work very well. I used to believe in the RBI and stuff that others do too, until I OPENED MY MIND, and took ALL the information. How many others can say they opened their mind to something different than what they at one time believed in? I see most sticking to what they always thought, rather than looking at very strong information that paints a clearer picture. I lived both minds, now I reside in a more clear one.
<< <i> Because a player is the "best player" from his era, does not "automatically" make him a HOF member in my viewpoint. For example, just to generalize, if say all the pitchers from an "era" stunk - then the one who stunk the least should not be even a candidate for the HOF, let alone a member.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years.
>>
Baseball has changed since Ty Cobb played and it has changed since the Mick played. I don't think you can truly compare todays numbers to #'s from 30, 60 or even 90 years ago as the game has changed. I understand what you said Steve, but Rice played in a great era of baseball..certainly not a watered down ERA. Look at all of the HOF players that came from the 70's and 80's. Rice was certainly one of the tops during his ERA which tells me he is at the very least a great player, or at least a borderline HOF player. If he gets in he deserves it.
One concern I have is the fact we are getting into the Juiced years and I truly hope the writers just don't vote in players who are the best in their class since they won't vote in the Juiced guys. I hope they vote players in who had HOF careers or don't vote anyone in that year.
Total bases, and BA, and Slg %, are not the exact same thing as another contributory stat you mention, OPS+.
Also correct is the realization that the "would haves. could haves, IF he played here or there, IF he played longer, IF anything elses, are ALL speculations, not what really did actually happen, when you do compare the actual facts or stats.
Perhaps incorrect is the assumption per Rice as a defender and/or baserunner.
None was a big base stealer, all averaging about 5 thefts per season, however the percentage of sucess was; Evans .57, Lynn .57, and Rice .63. Edge to Rice.
Triples may often be considered representative of a players run ability, seasonal bests, Evans 8, Lynn 8, Rice 15 ( twice) including one league leading season. Edge to Rice.
For defense, all 3 were above average stat-wise;
Career Fldg, Pct, above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .09, Lynn .03, Rice .03
Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34
The arm of Dewy was well known, and CF for Lynn was the more important position, however Rice was an above average LFer, contrary to a common misconception, that powerful hitters must be slow and/or ungraceful.
THe fielding value comes from the positions they play. A player than can hit as well as Rice AND man centerfield has more value. That wins your team more games as you have a distinct advantage against all the other team's centerfielders...same for RF to a lesser extent.
I don't see a big difference in running. I haven't looked at their percentages on scoring from second, or going from first to third. Though I do know in Rice's last half of his career he was terribly slow. Those highs you showed in triples don't tell much about their speed, but regardless it is only indicitive of a few of Rice's seasons. Just looking at a few of the seasons doesn't tell enough.
You neglected to use grounded into double plays as part of your evidence
Jaxxr, the actual facts are that Rice was a far different hitter on the road. Almost all Fenway hitters were different on the road, and the visiting players(as a whole) that came into Fenway were better at Fenway. Those are the facts. The logical conclusion is that Fenway helped hitters.
P.S. You only used fielding percentage. That is only part of the fielding equation. Fielding measurements from past years are vague, of course. The one thing I like to point out in favor of Rice and Lynn is that Fenway cost them fielding opportunities in terms of putouts. When measured against their league peers, they are at a bit of a disadvantge, just like they are advantaged in hitting. But again, this affects Lynn too...but Rice more due to the lack of foul territory and the ease of hitting balls off the wall. Fenway turned a lot of fly ball outs into doubles.
PS. Total bases, batting avg, and Slg percentage are in OPS+. No need to count them twice. Only now, the other half of the hitting value is taken into account...geting on base.
<< <i>I sorry to hear that your head exploded
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits
Morgan .271 268 1133 2517
Santo .271 342 1331 2254
Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369
Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts. >>
What is the context of those numbers? In what eras did they play? Joe Morgan was one of the top 5 2nd basemen in the history of the game, Jim Rice was no better than Roy White. According to win shares, Joe Morgan is the 12th best player in the history of the game, Rice is 185th. Defense matters.
<< <i>
<< <i> Because a player is the "best player" from his era, does not "automatically" make him a HOF member in my viewpoint. For example, just to generalize, if say all the pitchers from an "era" stunk - then the one who stunk the least should not be even a candidate for the HOF, let alone a member.
Again...the HOF should be reserved for great players, but sadly it has become watered down over the years.
>>
Baseball has changed since Ty Cobb played and it has changed since the Mick played. I don't think you can truly compare todays numbers to #'s from 30, 60 or even 90 years ago as the game has changed. I understand what you said Steve, but Rice played in a great era of baseball..certainly not a watered down ERA. Look at all of the HOF players that came from the 70's and 80's. Rice was certainly one of the tops during his ERA which tells me he is at the very least a great player, or at least a borderline HOF player. If he gets in he deserves it.
One concern I have is the fact we are getting into the Juiced years and I truly hope the writers just don't vote in players who are the best in their class since they won't vote in the Juiced guys. I hope they vote players in who had HOF careers or don't vote anyone in that year. >>
I don't think Rice should be in, but it wouldn't "bother me" if he did get in, because certainly there's worse in there, and Rice is a "borderline" type HOF player, but again he's more excellent than great in my opinion.
My viewpoint is "great" needn't have to be thought about - you either are a great player or you aren't - a HOF vote selection should literally take one second to ponder and decide.
<< <i>I sorry to hear that your head exploded
I listed each HOF and star player in order of name, average, hr, rbi, hits
Morgan .271 268 1133 2517
Santo .271 342 1331 2254
Whitaker .276 244 1084 2369
Rice .298 382 1451 2452
The way I see it Rice definitely belongs, and Joe Morgan is clearly a borderline selection. You can't possibly argue the actual facts. >>
Seriously, you are making an absolute fool of yourself. I know you don't think so - and that's sad - but you really need to trust me on this. With what little brain your posts have left me, I don't have the wherewithal to walk you through what makes a baseball player great from square one, but you have left out almost every single valuable piece of information in your "analysis" and included some really worthless stuff. Again, for the love of God, please stop.
"P.S. You only used fielding percentage."
As from the post I made just prior;
Career Fldg, Pct, above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .09, Lynn .03, Rice .03,
and in additon to field percentage, I used Range factor which is another stat to measure defense.
Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34
The arm of Dewy was well known, and CF for Lynn was the more important position, however Rice was an above average LFer, contrary to a common misconception, that powerful hitters must be slow and/or ungraceful.
It appears you were not interested in the entire post , or more likely, other views.
Total bases, HR frequency, Batting average, Slugging percentage, OPS +, Hits, Triples, Stolen base percentage, Etc., are all contributory and/or intersting aspects of a player's contribution to a team's success, Rice was better than Lynn or Evans in those.
And also as well, in Runs scored and/or Driven in, per 162 game average.
"Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bulls**t; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bulls**t is something that you just 'know.' If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence."
The question remains, if statistics aren't used as a factor to determine who is HOF worthy what is!!!? Please explain your insane reasoning.
Career RF above the league ave., at their respective positions, Evans .27, Lynn .09, Rice .34
Jaxxr,
What is your source re range factor? Baseball-reference has him considerably below average-2.15 plays per 9 innings, as compared to a league average of 2.45 per 9 ininngs.
<< <i>The question remains, if statistics aren't used as a factor to determine who is HOF worthy what is!!!? Please explain your insane reasoning. >>
There are literally hundreds of statistics that can be used to evaluate HOF worthiness; in order of importance, you have selected #32, #45, #82 and #178 (I made those up, but I assume that you get my point). Then you present those four random, relatively unimportant stats in a clean table-like format and assume that it means something of importance. It doesn't.
Consider their fielding, consider the parks they played in, consider the years in which they played, consider their spot in the batting order, consider their baserunning, consider their walks, consider their GIDP, consider the length of their careers - consider everything. If you don't think it matters, for example, when evaluating Morgan and Rice by their RBI totals that Morgan spent half his career batting first or second in the Astrodome and Rice spent his entire career hitting third or fourth in Fenway, then you have no business even trying to determine who was or was not HOF-worthy because all your conclusions will be nonsense. Morgan was a Gold Glove second baseman - you give that no weight. Morgan is 11th on the all-time stolen base list - you give that no weight. Morgan's OBP was 40 points higner than Rice's - more than the difference between Ty Cobb and John Kruk - and you give that no weight. Rice ground into 210 more double plays than Morgan - you give that no weight. And all this with Morgan playing most of his career in the hardest parks in baseball while Rice played in by far the easiest for his entire career; and also with Morgan playing through the deadest dead ball era since before WWI.
The two aren't close - not even remotely close - and until you can see that you are not seeing 99% of what you need to see to determine who the great players were.
For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+.
That is like saying I have a higher batting average than you, and then also proclaiming, I also have more singles than you.
All three of those guys were virtually identical hitting wise, and the OPS+ shows all those things you desire already.
You keep doing that with those things, and i thought you have learned by now.
You also keep doing the career percentages or 162 game average with Rice. HE WAS DONE AT 35! Comparing career percentages to a guy who was done at 35 to a guy at 39 is not a valid comparison. How many times do I have to pound that in? I went over that with the Murray comparison and broke it down in as simple language comparison as humanly possible. If you still cannot follow that line of reasong, it really is best to move on.
If you find me saying this offensive, then I apologize...and if Dallas thinks his head is exploding...come look at mine. My goodness. It is almsot as if you are doing this on purpose. Are you? At least that would make sense.
You aren't really providing a coherent or valid viewpoint to take into account. You just list things that Rice beat them in, ignore important factors, and COMPLETELY discount outs made, or GIDP.
Now you are making up fielding numbers too.
Rice career Range Factor per nine innings is 2.15. The League range factor per nine innings is 2.45
Fred Lynn is 2.71 compared to the league of 2.44
Evans is 2.68 to 2.85
So not only is Lynn EQUAL to Rice offensively(despire your lists you pick and choose), he is also above his position defensively while manning a harder position! While Rice is below.
P.S. Here is an example of your type of list that are irrelevant.
Lynn had seasons with doubles totals of 47 and 42. Rice never had 40 ever.
Lynn had seasons with SB totals of 15 and 12. Rice never had 12 ever.
Lynn's highest SLG% was .637. Rice's was .600.
Here are some that do matter. Rice made over 1,000 more outs than Lynn.
Rice grounded in 164 more double plays than Lynn.
Again, Rice and Lynn were equal offensively. Lynn was vastly superior defensively. It makes no sense to sing the praises of Rice over that of Lynn. Case closed.
The "Geek" stats that Skin' and Dallas come up with do make alot of sense, I admit Im very ignorant to those type of #'s as I consider myself a typical BB fan who drools over HR and RBI #'s as well as BA but I am starting to realize that these "Geek" stats do tell a much bigger story.
" LF*1503 3027 132 62 17 .981 .978 2.10 1.84 "
F Pct. career for Rice was .981 to league ave of .978, and RF, or range factor, 2.10 to league average of 1.84
In no way is anyone claiming Rice was like Jimmy Sheckard, Fred Clark, Willie Wilson, or even Omar Moreno, while patroling LF. It is a common misconception among many fans, power hitting sluggers are poor defenders, while Rice was not elite, by any stretch, he was a bit above average as a LFer.
It is interesting Rice is being mentioned with so many different ballplayers, Joe Morgan, Ty Cobb, Fred Lynn, and even fat Johnny Kruck, among many others.
According to the same aforementioned BBRef.com, the two, long retired players, Rice most similarly compares with, are Orlando Cepaeda and Duke Snider, HOFers both.
I would still much rather yack about Richie Allen !
I have some ballpark factor information I may post. But that may be a different thread.
Jaxxr, I mentioned that Rice is actually better than what his range factors show, because Fenway hurts PUTOUT opportunities. He just isn't as good as Lynn defensively, and Lynn played a more demanding position.
That is simply WRONG, just like when you assumed only Fldg. Pct was mentioned by me.
By the way,
Did Fred Lynn, or Dewey Evans, Or Eddie Murray, ever lead the Americn league in Triples ? Jimmy Rice did
Did any one of them ever hit 40 or more HRs in a season ? James Rice did.
Did steady Eddie, Freddie, or Dwight, ever get 200 hits in a season ? J. E. Rice did, four times in fact.
Did any of the 3 ever get 400+ total bases in a season ? J. Edward Rice did, among his four league title years.
Did any virtualy identical guys plus Murray, have a lifetime BA over .290 ? Jim Rice has a .298 career BA.
Did any of the trio have as good a lifetime HRF as Mr. Rice ?
And speaking of HRF,as you stated Hoopster;
"For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+."
Of course you are WRONG,
the ratio stat, HRF, is not directly related to OPS + calculation. HRF is separate and distinct, from the figures used therein.