Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 That's the opposite of your last post. I take "borderline" to be "his resume makes me question whether he deserves to be in", not "whether other people do". In my eyes, Blyleven isn't borderline (neither is Rickey or Raines or McGwire), but Rice, Dawson, and Smith are because they simply don't have the resume to get my vote for sure. It's Rickey (94.8%) and Rice (76.8%). Yay and yuck.This is/was my point. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'm sad that we can't debate Rice getting in anymore. There's always Dawson (who probably deserved it over Rice, all things considered.) Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Just to be clear, I'd vote for Brian Daubach to be in the HOF. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 HOF voting criteria:"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." If numbers are the only thing that matter to you then you miss the point of the voting process. Rice deserves to be in and it has nothing to do with whether Blyleven deserves to be in or not. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yay for Jim Rice. Helluva ballplayer. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 HOF voting criteria:"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." If numbers are the only thing that matter to you then you miss the point of the voting process. Rice deserves to be in and it has nothing to do with whether Blyleven deserves to be in or not. There is nothing to indicate that all that other shit is enough to make up for rice's subpar numbers. Numbers aren't the only thing, but with rice, the numbers aren't close enough, IMO to begin giving him credit for the other things, which should be secondary. Care to give me an actual reason for why rice belongs, rather than just copy and pasting the voting criteria? Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Just to be clear, I'd vote for Brian Daubach to be in the HOF.Because he's from Belleville or because he was a scab? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Interesting exchange between Jason Stark and Peter Gammons re: Tim Raines' HOF-worthiness. Rice comes up in comparison to Raines early in the exchange...:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3169953 Gammons: "My problem is that he (Raines) never finished higher than fifth in the MVP balloting. Bill Madden always used to say he'd check the boldface print in Baseball Encyclopedia as a player's criteria. Today, we check what Baseball Reference calls black lines -- league leaders -- and Raines had 20 black lines, as opposed to Jim Rice's 33. He led the league in batting average once, on-base percentage once, doubles once and steals four times. In his peak period of 14 years from 1982 to 1995, Raines was seventh in on-base percentage and second in runs, 11th in steals. Compare that to Jim Rice's best dozen seasons from 1975 through 1986, when he finished in the top five for MVP six times -- winning once -- while leading the majors in hits, RBI and total bases, finishing second in extra-base hits and slugging, third in runs created and homers and fourth in OPS; the only player who finished ahead of Rice in any of those categories not in Cooperstown was Dave Kingman, who was second in homers in those dozen years. Raines was a great player who, like Bert Blyleven, may convince me in time that he belongs. But right now, I am not convinced." Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 There is nothing to indicate that all that other shit is enough to make up for rice's subpar numbers. Numbers aren't the only thing, but with rice, the numbers aren't close enough, IMO to begin giving him credit for the other things, which should be secondary.Whether you think the "other things" should be secondary or not is irrelevant, though. I agree Rice was a borderline candidate for eligibility but the writers believe he is. That works for me and I have no legitimate gripe that he's anything but a HOF-er, now. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 so you think he deserves to be in the hall of fame because the voters do? So once the voters put pen to paper, the discussion should stop? 'He deserves to be in the hall of fame because he is now in the hall of fame'. That's boring. There are plenty of players in the hof who don't deserve to be there. Rice is another, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 This morning on my way to work (new job), I passed a Toyota with a red sox sticker and a pats sticker with a license plate that read LOWELL. I beeped and waved as I went by. On my way home from the new job, i was behind a Lincoln Aviator with a red sox sticker and a license plate that read 04CHAMPS. I see it as a sign. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 so you think he deserves to be in the hall of fame because the voters do? So once the voters put pen to paper, the discussion should stop? 'He deserves to be in the hall of fame because he is now in the hall of fame'. That's boring. There are plenty of players in the hof who don't deserve to be there. Rice is another, IMO.Debating whether or not he belongs to be in becomes somewhat insipid now that he's in, imo. It does not mean debate has to stop but it is a bit futile now that he's been elected in. There are people you think should be in (Mcgwire, for example) that those "other things" that are taken in to consideration will almost certainly dictate that he is not HOF-worthy. There certainly are players who are not in that probably should be and players that are in that probably should not be. Regardless, they are/are not in due to the voters and their own opinions which, in the end, are all that matter. I believe Rice is worthy (probably barely, too) not merely because of the voting process but because I've seen him play and realize the impact he had on the team and the game during his era. It's that simple for me. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Plus that one time when a little boy got hit with a ball Jim Ed Rice saved his life! Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Dwight Evans was Rice's equal. Tim Raines was twice the player Rice was. "Tim Raines and Randy Bass helped the 1980 Denver Bears win the regular season championship with ease. In doing so, the duo helped the team compile the American Association Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Plus that one time when a little boy got hit with a ball Jim Ed Rice saved his life!I had forgotten about that. It was at Fenway and Rice rushed the kid (it was a very small kid, too, from what I remember) into the trainer's room during the game. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Speaking of tarnished players, Clemens indictment pending:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?i...e=ESPNHeadlines Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Anybody else really looking forward to Rickey's HOF induction speech? That'll be a treat. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I heard he'll be introducing himself. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 I heard he'll be introducing himself.And he'll accept the honor on behalf of himself.... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 you guys can't honestly care this much about who gets into the hall of fame. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You're right, actually. At least for me. I will care when Frank Thomas is on the ballot, but that's the only time in my life that I will (most likely). Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If Jim Rice got in, Frank Thomas should be a no-brainer! Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I just like arguing. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 See that's what I've been trying to do more of with beisbol. It seemed like such fun (and it is!) Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Citing things other than numbers to make a case for Rice is pretty silly considering by all accounts he was a total dickface. If you want to consider sportsmanship and integrity, those should be knocks against him, not in his favor. Blyleven is a no-brainer in terms of how good a player he was. He should be in -- the debate over him is stupid, since the only real argument against him is based on one stat, which is very team dependent, and where he is just barely below the number that normally makes someone automatic anyway. I'm sort of glad Rice got in even though he isn't worthy, just because I don't think I could handle hearing uninformed people complain about him being left out from now until the end of time. When his time comes, Frank Thomas will be a no-brainer. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts