Sir Stewart 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. Please. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Sorry, only by nearly every account. It is my mistake if there were a couple guys out there who thought he was a great dude. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Jim Rice's assholedom is a disqualifier for the HoF -- no doubt that he isn't a top 5 HoF asshole, and there will be bigger assholes inducted in the future too. My point was just that bringing up the non-numbers criteria for induction into the discussion does not work in Rice's favor. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 13, 2009 Author 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. 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.By all accounts? Total dickface? You're grasping at straws here. It isn't what I think the criteria should be, but what the criteria actually is. Calling anyone who disagrees with you (including 75% of the BBWA) "uninformed" smacks of delusion. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So Rice was a great guy? The non-numbers criteria work in his favor? You are the one who claimed that the "integrity" and "sportsmanship" aspects should be considered, so please, make your case. How did Rice display HoF worthy integrity and sportsmanship? And it's not delusional to call a great many of the BBWA members uninformed. A good number of pro-Rice articles I've read over the past few years have had demonstrably false factual claims in them. This isn't unique to Rice -- they screw things up all the time -- but it's relevant and not at all delusional to acknowledge it. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 So Rice was a great guy? The non-numbers criteria work in his favor?Total dickface is an inaccurate portrayal of him, imo. But my opinion means nothing in regard to his admittance to the HOF, which I agree was a borderline case but certainly understand him being let in. I don't consider this any less "informed" of an opinion than your opinion that he does not deserve to be in or the opinions of the 75% of the voters who's opinions actually matter. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I need some evidence of "dickface" Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Let's assume Rice was a jerk, as he has been called before by some writers. I don't see evidence of Rice being a jerk on the field where his integrity, sportsmanship, or character are concerned. If members of the BBWA didn't vote for him because he was arrogant or abrasive in interview situations I don't see how that matters to his on-field contributions and/or consideration/election to the HoF. "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." Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Dwight Evans was Rice's equal. Tim Raines was twice the player Rice was. This, from someone who was one year old when Rice played his last game. Sorry, don't mean to play the age card, but you never saw Rice play, and the numbers alone don't tell the story of his career. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Let's assume Rice was a jerk, as he has been called before by some writers. I don't see evidence of Rice being a jerk on the field where his integrity, sportsmanship, or character are concerned. If members of the BBWA didn't vote for him because he was arrogant or abrasive in interview situations I don't see how that matters to his on-field contributions and/or consideration/election to the HoF. "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." Okay, so let's hear some examples of him showing great, Hall of Fame caliber integrity, sportsmanship and character. This, from someone who was one year old when Rice played his last game. Sorry, don't mean to play the age card, but you never saw Rice play, and the numbers alone don't tell the story of his career. In that case writers should not be allowed to vote for players that they did not see play. What is a fair number of games that someone should personally see a guy play to be qualified to make a judgment? The numbers alone don't tell the whole story of any players career, but they give as good a picture as is possible so long as the statistical methods remain imperfect. It's certainly a much better way to judge a career than a couple anecdotal stories that are often not completely true. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Okay, so let's hear some examples of him showing great, Hall of Fame caliber integrity, sportsmanship and character.Don't you think you should try to back up "by all accounts he was a total dickface" at least a little bit? Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I made the claim mostly from memory of things I'd read in the past, and on a quick google search, the only specific example I could find is about an incident where he ripped a shirt off of a reporter, but pretty much every single article written about him on the internet describes him using at least one, but often more of the following adjectives: surly, curmudgeon, jerk, asshole, prickly, curt. I didn't find one single thing describing him as "sportsmanlike", "full of integrity", "nice guy" or anything like that. Even if he's not a dickface, the HoF criteria presented was not "not a total dickface", it was displaying exemplary "integrity, sportsmanship, character" and I haven't seen anyone even try to make a case for Rice in this regard yet. So what is the case for Rice based on this criteria? I'm not asking for evidence proving that he is not a dickface -- I know that proving a negative is impossible -- I just want to see the case for how he displayed "integrity, sportsmanship and character" in an exceptional way that makes him worthy of the Hall of Fame. I would assume that for these aspects of his candidacy to make up for his shortcomings as a player, there must be some really strong examples. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This, from someone who was one year old when Rice played his last game. Sorry, don't mean to play the age card, but you never saw Rice play, and the numbers alone don't tell the story of his career. This kind of stuff bothers me. You are able to completely write off my opinion because of my age. My favorite part is that you know it's a bullshit argument, but you made it anyways. Don't you think it's possible people who did see him overrate him because of their memories as well? Plus, I highly doubt you saw a significant enough portion of rice's individual games to actually be able to argue that it makes up for his numbers, which fall well below most other left fielders in the hall. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This kind of stuff bothers me. You are able to completely write off my opinion because of my age.Pretty much, yeah. My favorite part is that you know it's a bullshit argument, but you made it anyways.I'm merely countering your bullshit argument. You think you can judge a player solely because you saw some numbers on a page somewhere. I'm saying that's a crock of shit, and that you never saw him play (which inevitably becomes a point about your age), so you really aren't in a position to make assessments about the man. Your reverence for statistics makes you think you know something that you don't. Sorry, but you weren't there. Don't you think it's possible people who did see him overrate him because of their memories as well? Plus, I highly doubt you saw a significant enough portion of rice's individual games to actually be able to argue that it makes up for his numbers, which fall well below most other left fielders in the hall.Don't you think it's possible that people who place all their faith in statistics get mistaken impressions of players all the time? I watched Rice many times. Saw him play in person a handful of times, during the peak of his career. I didn't have the chance to follow him over entire seasons (MLB Extra Innings didn't exist back then), but I watched probably a hundred more of his games than you ever will, so yeah, I think that gives me some standing to talk about his career -- relative to yours, at least. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So what is the minimum number of times to see a player to allow someone to judge them? Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So what is the minimum number of times to see a player to allow someone to judge them? Eleventeen. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So what is the minimum number of times to see a player to allow someone to judge them?More than zero, which is the number I'm up against here. Twobobs says he's bothered by my argument. I'm bothered by people who think they can look at a bunch of numbers and feel qualified to pronounce judgment on a player's career. With the sabermetrics craze, such people practically grow on trees these days. I have no problem with sabermetrics -- in the front office. If you're a GM, a manager, or someone else involved in scouting talent or assessing the players on your roster, have at it -- it's a useful tool. But it's not the only tool. In the hands of fans, it's misapplied more often than it isn't. As for the Hall of Fame argument, let's say that a few years down the road there's a center fielder who's nearing the end of his rope with the Hall voters. He's a borderline candidate as far as the numbers show, and there are plenty of people on both sides of the argument as to whether he should make the Hall. Those who are against his enshrinement are the sabermetrics statheads -- they look at the numbers and they see borderline or worse -- they're not convinced. But few of them ever saw him play. Let's say that the other side looks at his numbers, realizes he's borderline, but also remembers his career. Let's say that this was a guy who possessed unbelievable speed and uncanny instincts in the outfield. He got terrific breaks off the bat, and sure, he made some circus catches, but he also made hundreds of plays look routine that an average fielder never would have made at all. For each one of those plays, how does the stathead see it quantified? He doesn't, really. He sees an "8" in the scorebook or +1 under the PO column. He doesn't see how the fielder making the catch kept the runner from scoring, how the budding rally was choked off, how it affected the game, how it affected his team in the standings. He doesn't see any of that. Even if there is a statistic (and who knows, maybe there is) that tries to take into account the game-changing nature of that play, how can you trust it? The guy made what looked like a routine catch in the outfield. It looked routine because of his amazing abilities -- his recognition, his speed, his skill. Will someone making arbitrary decisions about what constitutes a great fielding play be able to recognize that? Will he find a way to quantify it? Can such a statistic ever be anything but some dude's best guess? No, it can't. Statistics can't tell you everything. They never will, no matter how much they're "improved" or "refined." It's an imperfect field by its very nature. They're useful, but they will never provide a complete picture. All I'm saying in all of this is that I place no value on the opinion of someone who never saw a player play, and I don't think such a person is qualified to pass judgment on that player's career. I believe that's a fair argument. Feel free to dispute it all you want, but that's my opinion and I seriously doubt I will ever change it. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 you guys are funny Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Not sure I completely agree with cryptique, but I do agree that stats can't possibly communicate the feeling that fans of opposing teams had in their gut when Jim Rice (or insert example) came up to bat in the 9th with runners on base. And while that feeling in the gut is not quantifiable, it IS relevant to a HOF discussion. 382 can be a very bland number when it sits on a page surrounded by other numbers. And if you had that feeling in your gut vs. didn't have that feeling in your gut, my guess is you'd feel very differently about what that 382 meant. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Harold Reynolds made a comment yesterday on MLB Network (in a discussion with Verducci, Heyman, etc. whom, fwiw, all agreed on the merits of Rice as a HoF-er) that basically spoke to the reason why it may have taken Rice until this last chance to get in and it may be (in part, at least) because a good size of the BBWA are new guard and may not have ever seen him play. I think it's a valid point. Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think one of the great things about the Hall of Fame is that you can debate the worthiness of players like Jim Rice forever. But what continues to baffle me is this principle that must be held by some writers/voters that they won't vote anyone in on the first ballot - or maybe their feeling is that no one should be unanimous. But c'mon, 28 voters thought Ricky Henderson was not a first ballot hall of famer. Historically there are plenty of even more ridiculous examples. Nine people didn't vote for Hank Aaron his first year of eligibility. Hank freakin' Aaron ... Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Derek Lowe to Atlanta. Thank god. Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I always thought you were a Rays fan. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It's official. I get more baseball breaking news from mfwahl than from ESPN or CNN. Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I always thought you were a Rays fan.Braves fan since I knew what baseball was. I grew up in South Carolina. When I moved to St Petersburg it was easy to root for the Rays because they're AL, sucked at the time, and tickets were/are cheap. I will betray them in an instant if there is some Braves/Rays interleague action down here ever. EDIT: To make this clear I will betray the Rays and look forward to it. If I had moved to New York instead of St Pete I would've bought Mets season tickets just to heckle them. Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Braves fan since I knew what baseball was. I grew up in South Carolina. When I moved to St Petersburg it was easy to root for the Rays because they're AL, sucked at the time, and tickets were/are cheap. I will betray them in an instant if there is some Braves/Rays interleague action down here ever. I had a Dale Murphy poster. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts