MR

My all-time favorite player is going to Cooperstown!

conversationpc wrote:My all-time favorite player is going to Cooperstown!

CONGRATS.....wooooooo, the strike-out king of Boston, and the hitting into double-plays master finally made it to the hall.....WOOOOOO!

It's about time.....dang!!! :wink:

Completely undeserving. The HOF is supposed to be for the true greats. Rice was good, but never was he great.

This selection sucks.

Rockindeano wrote:Completely undeserving. The HOF is supposed to be for the true greats. Rice was good, but never was he great.

This selection sucks.

Same people picking National Champions, evidently.....

Well deserved, outsice of YAZ , and Schilling Rice is my favorite red sox.

Rockindeano wrote:Completely undeserving. The HOF is supposed to be for the true greats. Rice was good, but never was he great.

This selection sucks.

Enjoy that avatar while you can, buddy boy.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

conversationpc wrote:My all-time favorite player is going to Cooperstown!

CONGRATS.....wooooooo, the strike-out king of Boston, and the hitting into double-plays master finally made it to the hall.....WOOOOOO!

He definitely hit into a lot of double-plays but he didn't strike out all that much for a power hitter.

Rockindeano wrote:Completely undeserving. The HOF is supposed to be for the true greats. Rice was good, but never was he great.

This selection sucks.

Completely deserving...He was the best all-around hitter in the game from the mid 70s through the mid 80s.

Also, consider the following quote from a boston.com article...

I remember the stories of his run-ins with Washington Post columnist Thomas Boswell, Rice once threatening to throw him into a trash barrel because he didn't like his questioning.

But while Boswell and Rice had their issues, the writer also thought the player was exceptional.

"In the 'Hank Greenberg Story,' Hank talks intelligently (as always) about the supremacy of driving in runs as the competitive core of the game," Boswell wrote in an e-mail. "He said that key RBI hits (not just home runs) were what changed games, decided games, defined players."

If that is indeed the key measure, from 1975-1986 Rice knocked in more runs than anyone - 1,276 to 1,221 for Mike Schmidt and 1,147 for Dave Winfield.

Also, consider the following from the same article...

If you only consider some of the most traditional statistics, batting average, homers, RBIs, slugging, and total bases, Boswell points out that Rice had 11 titles in those five categories, one more than Hall of Fame ex-teammate Carl Yastrzemski.

Rice obviously is not in the top echelon there: Babe Ruth had 38 wins in those categories, Ted Williams 29, Hank Aaron 22, and Stan Musial 20.

But among the other names in Rice's vicinity are Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays with 13, Ralph Kiner with 12, and Harmon Killebrew with 10.

And Rice has more wins in those categories than Reggie Jackson, Frank Robinson, and Willie McCovey (eight), George Brett and Duke Snider (7), Ernie Banks (6), Billy Williams (5), Roberto Clemente, Kirby Puckett, and Willie Stargell (4), Orlando Cepeda and Al Kaline (3), Eddie Murray and Dave Winfield (2), Cal Ripken (1), and Tony Perez (0).

He was also runner-up in rookie of the year to his own teammate, Fred Lynn, and won the MVP once and finished near the top of the voting 4 or 5 other times. The guy deserves to be in, considering some of the others mentioned above that are already in.

Rockindeano wrote:Completely undeserving. The HOF is supposed to be for the true greats. Rice was good, but never was he great.

This selection sucks.

If Jim Rice is undeserving, then you better get Tony Perez's ass out of the HOF, because he's been in forever and Rice has better numbers! Another point that baseball HOF writers always point out as their litmus test is "Was this guy a dominant player of his era". From 1975 to 1986 Rice had more HR's, RBI's, and hits than ANY player in the American League. If that's not dominating an era, I'm not sure what is. While I actually think Rice is a borderline HOF candidate, as long as guys with lesser numbers than Rice are elected into the HOF, then Rice belongs alongside them!

Rice is borderline...you could make a case for either way.

I think they need to have tiers in the Hall of Fame. Perhaps a wing devoted to all-time legends to separate the Ruths from the Jim Rices. Guys like Don Sutton should be in the Hall, but he has no business carrying the same distinction as Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton. The upper echelon should be judged incredibly critically. Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, and Mays are a few that should be in the upper truly coveted circle. Then it still leaves room to honor the borderline cases without diminishing the reverence given to the absolutely great and complete gods of baseball. Then I'd vote for dudes like Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris and some others who are indeed deserving to be remembered in Cooperstown.

Look, here's my whole problem with the Hall of Fame.

This was Jim Rice's 15th and final year of eligibility. And he gets in. What has he done in the last 14 years to merit his induction, when he didn't get in the first time eligible? He hasn't improved his stats any.

And I'm not just saying that because it's Jim Rice, and I personally don't think he's deserving to get in. I feel that if you don't get in on your first try, that's it. No entry. If you're not a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, why is up to 15 years of trying again going to help you at all?

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Look, here's my whole problem with the Hall of Fame.

This was Jim Rice's 15th and final year of eligibility. And he gets in. What has he done in the last 14 years to merit his induction, when he didn't get in the first time eligible? He hasn't improved his stats any.

And I'm not just saying that because it's Jim Rice, and I personally don't think he's deserving to get in. I feel that if you don't get in on your first try, that's it. No entry. If you're not a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, why is up to 15 years of trying again going to help you at all?

What's happened? For one thing, people have started realizing the depth of the steroid scandals and that maybe Rice's numbers, in the era he achieved them in, were the best of his time. As I've said, for a lengthy period of about 10 years, the guy was the best overall hitter in the big leagues.

conversationpc wrote:

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Look, here's my whole problem with the Hall of Fame.

This was Jim Rice's 15th and final year of eligibility. And he gets in. What has he done in the last 14 years to merit his induction, when he didn't get in the first time eligible? He hasn't improved his stats any.

And I'm not just saying that because it's Jim Rice, and I personally don't think he's deserving to get in. I feel that if you don't get in on your first try, that's it. No entry. If you're not a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, why is up to 15 years of trying again going to help you at all?

What's happened? For one thing, people have started realizing the depth of the steroid scandals and that maybe Rice's numbers, in the era he achieved them in, were the best of his time. As I've said, for a lengthy period of about 10 years, the guy was the best overall hitter in the big leagues.

It took 15 years to figure that out? I could have sat down and examined his stats after his retirement and realized that they were the best in his era. Why didn't they induct him early on? I don't want to see the Hall being diluted with people from an era where performance-enhancing drugs weren't as prevalent, just because players today are under a cloud of speculation. I'm sorry, I know he's your favorite player - but he's finally Hall of Fame worthy after 15 tries?

Plus...you have some idiots voting for players, like this fossil Corky Simpson who should have his voting privledges revoked:

"Old man admits to mistake in not voting for fellow old man
By 'Duk

As I initially suspected he might, 70-year-old Hall of Fame vote holder Corky Simpson has publicly chalked up not voting for Rickey Henderson to a few convenient — if not understandable — excuses.

To wit, the former Tucscon Citizen writer is old, he didn't give due diligence and he's also just a bit batty.

Let's go to his MLB-a-Culpa, shall we?

From the Oakland Tribune:

"If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head.

"He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more — and I wish to heck I had."

The best part, of course, is the "if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," a line that should have Mike Morgan dusting off his resume. (He played for 12 different teams!)

Also, it should be noted that when a co-worker pointed out that he had left Rickey off the ballot, Simpson said he "wasn't a Rickey guy and that he would vote for him next time."

He did though vote for Matt Williams, after saying he couldn't vote for McGwire because of PEDs (Matt Williams was named in the Mitchell Report).

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:It took 15 years to figure that out? I could have sat down and examined his stats after his retirement and realized that they were the best in his era. Why didn't they induct him early on? I don't want to see the Hall being diluted with people from an era where performance-enhancing drugs weren't as prevalent, just because players today are under a cloud of speculation. I'm sorry, I know he's your favorite player - but he's finally Hall of Fame worthy after 15 tries?

Yes...If you look at the other players mentioned earlier, he definitely should be in.

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Look, here's my whole problem with the Hall of Fame.

This was Jim Rice's 15th and final year of eligibility. And he gets in. What has he done in the last 14 years to merit his induction, when he didn't get in the first time eligible? He hasn't improved his stats any.

And I'm not just saying that because it's Jim Rice, and I personally don't think he's deserving to get in. I feel that if you don't get in on your first try, that's it. No entry. If you're not a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, why is up to 15 years of trying again going to help you at all?

Really not a good argument if you understand baseball HOF voting. I can assure you that Rice isn't the first guy to get in during his 15th year of eligibility. There are far more guys who have gotten in after their 15 years of eligibility were up through the "Veteran's Committee". Rice absolutely would have gotten in through the Veteran's Committee had the baseball writers not voted him in this year. As Dave said, Rice's numbers have far more weight given he put them up, au natural, unlike many of the steroid popping freaks over the past 20 years. As I said previously, from 1975 to 1986, not one single player in the American League had more hits, HR's or RBI's than Rice had. That's a pretty tough thing to ignore. While I don't even have a problem with those who argue against Rice's candicacy, there has to be consistency to the argument. If Rice doesn't belong in the HOF, there are many others who don't either. Rice has better numbers than many inductees who actually played during his era. Until the HOF removes the subjectivity and says that to be eligible, you must have minimum numbers (i.e. career average, hits, HR's, RBI's, etc.), this argument will simply never go away. I didn't hear a lot of opposition to Tony Perez being elected to the HOF (and nobody in Cincinatti thinks he doesn't belong). Rice was a better and FAR more dominant player than Perez ever was and has better career stats in almost every category.

A couple of more points on Rice...He finished in the top 5 for the MVP award 6 times. Only 9 other players can say that and 8 of them are in the HOF. The only other guy who can claim that who isn't in the HOF (yet) is Alex Rodriguez and he's a first ballot guy, unless he gets accused of juicing. Rice also ranks 22nd in the history of baseball for the most MVP votes ever. I still thing he's a borderline guy, but he was certainly a better player than some believe!

conversationpc wrote:

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:It took 15 years to figure that out? I could have sat down and examined his stats after his retirement and realized that they were the best in his era. Why didn't they induct him early on? I don't want to see the Hall being diluted with people from an era where performance-enhancing drugs weren't as prevalent, just because players today are under a cloud of speculation. I'm sorry, I know he's your favorite player - but he's finally Hall of Fame worthy after 15 tries?

Yes...If you look at the other players mentioned earlier, he definitely should be in.

I certainly respect your thoughts on this. I'm definitely not berating you on the fact that Jim Rice's stats are up there with baseball's greats. My biggest issue - and this goes for any player - is the fact that he somehow miraculously is deemed worthy for enshrinement in his 15th year of eligibility.

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:I certainly respect your thoughts on this. I'm definitely not berating you on the fact that Jim Rice's stats are up there with baseball's greats. My biggest issue - and this goes for any player - is the fact that he somehow miraculously is deemed worthy for enshrinement in his 15th year of eligibility.

Like was said previously...It's arbitrary. Perez is in the Hall and Rice has a far higher batting average AND slugging percentage than does Perez.

Enigma869 wrote:Really not a good argument if you understand baseball HOF voting. I can assure you that Rice isn't the first guy to get in during his 15th year of eligibility. There are far more guys who have gotten in after their 15 years of eligibility were up through the "Veteran's Committee". Rice absolutely would have gotten in through the Veteran's Committee had the baseball writers not voted him in this year.

I certainly understanding HOF voting, and I certainly have a problem with the Veteran's Committee. Again - if Rice's case had gone to the Veteran's Committee, what did he do in the previous 16+ years to make him more worthy for the Hall?

Enigma869 wrote:A couple of more points on Rice...He finished in the top 5 for the MVP award 6 times. Only 9 other players can say that and 8 of them are in the HOF. The only other guy who can claim that who isn't in the HOF (yet) is Alex Rodriguez and he's a first ballot guy, unless he gets accused of juicing. Rice also ranks 22nd in the history of baseball for the most MVP votes ever. I still thing he's a borderline guy, but he was certainly a better player than some believe!

He's got the stats for consideration, there's no question about that. But if it wasn't deemed good enough the first time around, I don't see why it's good enough today.

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:I certainly understanding HOF voting, and I certainly have a problem with the Veteran's Committee. Again - if Rice's case had gone to the Veteran's Committee, what did he do in the previous 16+ years to make him more worthy for the Hall? He's got the stats for consideration, there's no question about that. But if it wasn't deemed good enough the first time around, I don't see why it's good enough today.

You clearly don't really understand the voting process if you keep asking why he's more worthy today than he was 15 years ago. While it's not an unfair question to ask, if you truly understood the process (and I don't agree with the process AT ALL), you would understand that most writers refuse to vote in more than 2 or 3 guys per year (and are fairly open about this). If they think there are more worthy candidates, borderline guys like Rice get pushed to the back of the line. Rice isn't the first guy to get in during his final year of eligibility and he won't be the last. In my opinion, there are many guys in the HOF with less of a claim than Rice had, given his numbers. Also, let's not forget one VERY important point here. The baseball HOF is voted on by baseball writers (i.e. the media). It is no secret that the media couldn't stand Rice throughout his entire career, so that certainly didn't get him many votes. The reality is that Rice despised the media and they despised him. He was fairly certain that he would never get in for that very reason.

Enigma869 wrote:While it's not an unfair question to ask, if you truly understood the process (and I don't agree with the process AT ALL), you would understand that most writers refuse to vote in more than 2 or 3 guys per year (and are fairly open about this). If they think there are more worthy candidates, borderline guys like Rice get pushed to the back of the line.

And therein lies the problem. If the BBWAA doesn't vote in more than 2-3 players per year is a fact (I tend to agree with it, actually), then are we saying that Rice is in this year because Henderson was the only sure-fire Hall of Famer? Goose Gossage was the only player voted in by the BBWAA last year - why didn't Rice go in with him? That would have made two in that class, which the BBWAA has certainly done before. But again, he was "pushed to the back of the line." Why was his number called this year, instead of last year? Or in 2006 along with Bruce Sutter? Or in 1998 with Don Sutton?

I think we are in agreement that the process needs reform, because of its reliance on sportswriters who may harbor grudges. And again, this argument comes to the forefront in 2009.

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:And therein lies the problem. If the BBWAA doesn't vote in more than 2-3 players per year is a fact (I tend to agree with it, actually), then are we saying that Rice is in this year because Henderson was the only sure-fire Hall of Famer? Goose Gossage was the only player voted in by the BBWAA last year - why didn't Rice go in with him? That would have made two in that class, which the BBWAA has certainly done before. But again, he was "pushed to the back of the line." Why was his number called this year, instead of last year? Or in 2006 along with Bruce Sutter? Or in 1998 with Don Sutton?

I think we are in agreement that the process needs reform, because of its reliance on sportswriters who may harbor grudges. And again, this argument comes to the forefront in 2009.

The argument is moot...Everyone considered Rice to be a marginal Hall-of-Famer anyway, which means if he doesn't get in, then no biggie. If he does, also no biggie. So it shouldn't be any big deal that they voted the guy in. Other guys with lesser numbers were already there.

AND [lest we forget] the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time is being inducted as well.

career records
STOLEN BASES...1406
RUNS SCORED...2295
GAMES LED OFF WITH A HR...81

Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

Rickey's HOF speech will go something like this:

"When Rickey Hendison take a look at Rickey Hendison, he see the greatest ballplaya eva put on a unee. Rickey very happy all his fans got to see him play da game at a unreal type level. When people think of Rickey Hendison, people think about greatness and speed, but they forget about Rickey's powa. I hit a long ball when the sit-chee-a-tion call for a long ball. Whatever needed, Rickey goin' bring it to da table. Rickey happy seein' all 'dese adorin' eyes here as he join his rightful place as the greatest playa inna histry o' baseball. Tank ya'll. oooooooohweee! Who dat white tail down there in da front row? Baby you fine! Rickey gonna sign his name on yo sweet ass girl! What? What you talkin' bout, muthafucka??!! Rickey not done talkin'! Rickey need mo time at da mike...the people need mo Rickey! "

Uno_up wrote:AND [lest we forget] the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time is being inducted as well.

career records
STOLEN BASES...1406
RUNS SCORED...2295
GAMES LED OFF WITH A HR...81

Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

Isn't he the career runs leader as well?

Saint John wrote:

Uno_up wrote:AND [lest we forget] the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time is being inducted as well.

career records
STOLEN BASES...1406
RUNS SCORED...2295
GAMES LED OFF WITH A HR...81

Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

Isn't he the career runs leader as well?

I highlighted that part for you, Mr. Selective reader (assuming you mean the number of times one crosses the plate and not the synonym for diarrhea)

Uno_up wrote:

Saint John wrote:

Uno_up wrote:AND [lest we forget] the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time is being inducted as well.

career records
STOLEN BASES...1406
RUNS SCORED...2295
GAMES LED OFF WITH A HR...81

Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

Isn't he the career runs leader as well?

I highlighted that part for you, Mr. Selective reader (assuming you mean the number of times one crosses the plate and not the synonym for diarrhea)

Oops...totally missed it.

Uno_up wrote:

Saint John wrote:

Uno_up wrote:AND [lest we forget] the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time is being inducted as well.

career records
STOLEN BASES...1406
RUNS SCORED...2295
GAMES LED OFF WITH A HR...81

Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

Isn't he the career runs leader as well?

I highlighted that part for you, Mr. Selective reader (assuming you mean the number of times one crosses the plate and not the synonym for diarrhea)

lol..........

Uno_up wrote:Rickey says, "Today, I am the greatest of all-time!"

I can't wait for his acceptance speech. This guy makes me piss myself sometimes.

The greatest Ricky story ever is the one about John Olerud. He played with Olerud on two teams (I think it was Toronto and the Mets). Upon joining Olerud on the second team, he was having a conversation with Olerud about how he had played with another guy who wore a helmet while playing 1st base, and had no clue it was even the same guy. Truly unbelievable!