Hall of Fame trial.............Jim Rice

[plowjockey]

Quote:

---

HOF standards are just a tad bit too high.

---

That's why it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Players.

I loved Jim Rice, one of my favorite players to watch. I saw him play every time Boston came to town. He could take over a stretch of games and carry a team like no one else of his time. But Hall of Fame Career? No, he falls a bit short. I don't like it a bit, nor think it's fair. But that's too bad for me. The standards for HOF were set very high and for good reason. You start expanding the list and where do you stop? Cases of comparable players who fall just a bit short will always be there, no matter where the line is drawn. Keep the standards high and leave them there.

[gregmag]

It's one thing to put up good stats. It's another thing to be the most feared hitter of his time.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the most feared hitter of the time would put up stats that no one could question. Rice did that for a few years. So did Don Mattingly, and a lot of other terrific players. The HoF is about career value to a significant extent, which is why guys like Roger Maris aren't there.

 

The extreme debate between peak and career value is an interesting one. Take Rice/Maris/Will Clark vs. Murray/Palmeiro/McGriff. If I could have any of those guys for a year, it would be Rice or Maris. If I could have any of them for 15 years, it would be one of the latter group. I think the HoF is more about the 15 years; if you're going to get in based on five or six good seasons, you have to be Ralph Kiner good. Albert Belle good? Definitely, although by a close margin, better than Jim Rice good, IMHO.

 

Greg.

 

P.S. -- Yes, I just said I'd put Fred McGriff in the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice.

[DuWayne Steurer]

That's why it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Players.

 

See, but when you quoted me, you didn't quote the entire sentence, where I said "I think, the HOF standards are a tad too high", which would qualify it as nothing more than my opinion.

 

When a guy like Jim Rice, who was clearly a top 5 player of his generation is nothing more than a borderline "maybe" type guy, it's my thinking that the standards are too high.

[gregmag]

Top 5?

 

I'm working from memory here . . . Jackson, Winfield, Schmidt, Murphy, Carlton, Seaver, Dawson, Brett, Fisk, Yount, Molitor, Murray, Raines, Carter, Ryan, Perez -- all of those guys began and/or ended their careers within a few years of Rice, except Ryan, who overlapped him by miles at both ends.

 

Stargell, Bench, Morgan, Carew, Henderson, and I'm sure a bunch of guys I'm forgetting had substantial overlap, but I'm willing to disqualify them on generational grounds.

 

Then there are guys like Whitaker, Trammell, Jack Clark, Eckersley, Grich, Dwight Evans, and Darrell Evans, who clearly qualify generationally and whom I would take over Rice, but you might not.

 

There may even be a guy or two on the first list to whom you would prefer Rice. But 12? That's how many you would need to knock off that list to make him top 5. I don't think he has a good case for top 20.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Hey Greg.......

 

Rice's prime was pretty much '75-'85, leaving pitchers out, there are very few players I would say were clearly better during those seasons.

 

I would say the most feared hitters in those years were Mike Schmidt in the NL and George Brett in the AL.

 

Guys to compare Rice to........Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Dave Parker, Cecil Cooper, Dale Murphy, Brett and Schmidt, Steve Garvey, Dave Winfield, George Foster, Andre Dawson, Eddie Murray.

[danzig6767]

He had to many Carlos Lee type of seasons IMO to get in the Hall.If he had a few more Albert Bell/Manny type of years,then i'd say yes.

[joepepsi]

Murray played better longer than Rice. Can anybody find the home/road splits for Rice? I can't. As I recall, they are pretty dramatic. He was sorta average away, and awesome in Fenway.

 

Actually, his career is not much different from fellow '75 rookie Red Sox, Fred Lynn. Rice's *OPS+-128, Lynn, 130.

 

Lynn was injured a lot, but he played CF, and for his career actually only had 1300 fewer at bats than Rice.

[splitterpfj]

I found this site, supporting Rice's case.

 

members.shaw.ca/Rice4HOF?stats.html

[DuWayne Steurer]

Jackson, Winfield, Schmidt, Murphy, Carlton, Seaver, Dawson, Brett, Fisk, Yount, Molitor, Murray, Raines, Carter, Ryan, Perez

 

I'll give you Jackson, Winfield, Brett, Schmidt, and maybe Murray. (I wasn't really considering pitchers when I said top 5)

 

But Yount? Fisk? Carter? I know those guys played premium defensive positions, but they weren't near as "feared" as Rice in the batters box. Molitor played as a DH for over half his career, and had a lower OPS. The only thing he has on Rice is longevity. Same with Raines (who incidentally, I would vote "yes" on)

[NYBrewer]

Jim Rice does not belong in the Hall. He didn't handle himself well around the media. The Hall is a joke anyway until they let Pete Rose and Don Mattingly in.

[splitterpfj]

I see a NY guy used his first post to rip a guy from Boston, and place a write in vote for Mattingly.

 

Imagine that.

 

My initial vote on Rice was no, but I may change that. He compares well to guys like Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider and Billy Williams, who are already in.

[pogokat]

Same with Raines (who incidentally, I would vote "yes" on)

 

stolen bases aren't popular here, but tim raines has over 800...which is very impressive

[plowjockey]

Sorry, RoCoBrewfan, it was not my intention to misquote your intended message, rather I wanted to bring to the front that this is really the basis for all of these discussions. When we talk about these guys on the verge of this special award, where is the line drawn? You can always compare awards career achievements etc. and find 2 players with the similar stats and one makes it and another doesn't. It's great discussion, and I hope we talk about a lot more players.

[gregmag]

I agree that if the standard for the Hall of Fame is "fearsome mystique developed by a hitter, without regard to his defensive position (let alone defensive ability), over a five-year period, without regard to the rest of his career, in the best hitter's park of the era, without regard to how he hit on the road," then Rice should be in. But I don't think that's the standard.

 

Greg.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Sorry, RoCoBrewfan, it was not my intention to misquote your intended message, rather I wanted to bring to the front that this is really the basis for all of these discussions

 

No offense taken, I just wanted to make sure the point of what I was trying to say was clear, because I can see how it might have been a little "fuzzy"

 

Even if I use "their" standards, instead of "my" standards, I still think Rice should be in. I've already explained why, so I won't go into it, just to say that I think he's "in".

[splitterpfj]

Greg, that was funny.

 

Take a look at Rice's page on baseballreference.com, it lists ten similar batters, and the list sort of makes both cases here. On the list are several Hall of Famers, but also Ellis Burks and Chili Davis.

 

Rice

 

I think there's still plenty of room for either side to persuade the masses.

 

If I'm reading this right, we're at 5 yes votes and 10 no votes right now.

[gregmag]

Sorry to come back to this two days later, but RoCo, you said one thing that I can't let go. Molitor-Rice. Paul Molitor, IMHO, clearly had a better career than Jim Rice.

 

Here's how I get there. Molitor, depsite having a longer career, which usually means a longer mediocre "tail" at the beginning or end of the career, had a lifetime OPS+ of 122. Rice's was better -- 128. So Rice starts out with that small but meaningful advantage.

 

Everything else cuts Molitor's way. Rice played in a great hitter's park, which dramatically inflated his stats. County Stadium, IIRC, was rated as neutral to a slight pitcher's park (I don't have a source for splits -- anyone?). Molitor stole 30 bases per 162 games at a 79% clip; Rice stole four at 63%.

 

Then there's defense. You pointed out, not quite accurately, that Molitor played half his career as a DH. Molitor played 1495 games in the field (against 1174 as a DH), over 1200 of them at 3B (791), 2B (400), and SS (57). Rice played 1543 games in the field -- only 48 more than Molitor -- all of them in the outfield, almost all, I presume, in LF. I have no deep insights into evaluating fielding performance, and I know Rice was considered an excellent LF. But in terms of overall defensive value, it isn't close.

 

Jim Rice did one thing better than Paul Molitor -- hit home runs. Molitor did everything else better. He hit for a higher average, walked more, hit more doubles and triples, stole more bases, played tougher defensive positions. I know we aren't going to agree on this, but I humbly submit that Paul Molitor was clearly a more valuable player for his career than Jim Rice.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Great post Greg. It's really tough to compare the two guys, one was pure power, the other a great leadoff hitter, but to me the key difference is what happened at age 35 and beyond. Molitor put together several outstanding seasons, whereas Rice was finished. To me that's the difference........2-3 more good years would have made Rice an easy choice, if Molitor's injuries had stopped him at 36 he may not have made it.

[clancyphile]

Rice is on the bubble. I'm inclined to vote yes, given the comparable numbers of Willie Stargell and Orlando Cepeda, who are in the Hall.

[splitterpfj]

As I did with Ted Simmons, I decided to compare Rice to a control group of HOF outfielders on a per season basis. Control group consists of Aaron, Jackson, Kaline, Mays, Puckett, F Robinson, Snider, Williams, Winfield and Yastrzemski 162 games played = 1 season. S = seasons played

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

12.8 97 190 29 6 30 113 4 .298 .854 Rice

 

16.9 97 172 29 4 29 99 10 .292 .877 Group

 

 

Per season, Rice compares well and looks like a Hall of Famer, the only thing he appears to lack is steals, the rest compares well to the group. In my opinion, the one unforgiveable shortfall is the first stat, 12.8 seasons played, vs 16.9 for the group. Jim, you were great, you just didn't do it long enough for me.

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

Rice is on the bubble. I'm inclined to vote yes, given the comparable numbers of Willie Stargell and Orlando Cepeda, who are in the Hall.

---

I understand the temptation to look at those things when asking about Hall worthiness, but that can be a slippery slope. You can just as easily argue that Stargell and Cepeda shouldn't be in the Hall because they weren't better than Rice, as you could the reverse.

 

I'm really torn on Rice. He had a few outstanding seasons in there, but I'm not sure he was elite for a long enough period of time, or had the overall effective longevity to warrant the invite. Like so many of the others we've discussed, he's really close. I think he was helped by being in a pretty darn good lineup throughout his career. But, at the same time, that might be clouding my mind some because I never viewed him as the most feared hitter in that lineup. I admit, that's a personal bias, not based on anything but my impressions of the Red Sox. Probably fostered by the fact that my dad -- who was/is a huge Sox fan, used to swear up and down about Rice... claiming that if the Green Monster was more than 200 ft away he'd never get his pop ups out of the park -- in between some profane outburst. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif Understandably so, considering the Sox record for frustrating their fans up until last season.

 

He was a big Yaz and Lynn fan. So, it's probably no coincidence that Lynn was the guy that I feared the most. I was too young to appreciate Yaz's career.

[splitterpfj]

Buster Olney says he voted for five players this year, Rice was first on his list.

[splitterpfj]

Sean McAdam's take on Mr Rice....

 

link

[splitterpfj]

MLB.com article on Rice's candidacy

 

mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051220&content_id=1284602&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb