Hey guys, if you go to www.mlb.com you can vote to put Jim Rice on the ballot for the HoF. Let's put Mr. RBI where he belongs!!
"In order for a player to get elected to the Hall of Fame, he must obtain votes on at least 75 percent of ballots cast from the BBWAA (Baseball Writers' Association of America). Candidates may remain on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years. A candidate must obtain votes on at least 5 percent of ballots cast to remain on the ballot.
Our voting will end Jan. 5, one day before the actual Hall of Fame ballot results are announced. At that time, we'll announce who our fans would have elected and compare it to the actual BBWAA vote."
This text from the website - Your vote does not put Rice into the Hall of Fame. It's a poll - nice try.
Good initiative, bad judgement.
dvldog - Sorry to hijack the thread, but can you give me the thread where you have the complete all-time teams as voted by the forum members? Couldn't find it and want to put it up on the website...
I'll use PMs in the future if you pay attention to them...
I think this is a dead thread anyway... (no offense to the thread's author)
http://forums.dee-nee.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1131;start=msg10802#msg10802 (http://forums.dee-nee.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1131;start=msg10802#msg10802)
First Team
C - Matt Nokes
1B - Darrell Evans
2B - Lou Whitaker
SS - Alan Trammell
3B - Gary Gaetti
LF - Kirk Gibson
CF - Chili Davis
RF - Reggie Jackson
PH 1 - Ruppert Jones
PH 2 - Ellis (Tim) Burks
PH 3 - Tony Armas
PH 4 - Pat Sheridan
SP 1 - Doc Gooden
SP 2 - Nolan Ryan
RP 1 - Jesse Orosco
RP 2 - Juan Berenguer
Second Team - Basically shit players, but some gems
C - Gary Carter
1B - Will Clark
2B - Tommy Herr
SS - Ozzie Smith
3B - Doug DeCinces
LF - Jim Rice
CF - Chet Lemon
RF - Darryl Strawberry
PH 1 - Harry Spilman
PH 2 - Lindeman
PH 3 - Danny Heep
PH 4 - Bill Madlock
SP 1 - Roger Clemens
SP 2 - Krukow
RP 1 - Hernandez
RP 2 - Scott Garrelts
Japetus, I don't think the Hall of Fame has become what it intended to be. In hindsight, the lives of Ty Cobb, Cap Anson, and Babe Ruth were not so virtuous. The issue about Pete Rose puts another blemish on the validity of a Hall of "Fame" - Jim Rice is one of the greatest Red Sox players in history, so I think the Hall of Fame is a bit of a wasteland.
If you want to represent baseball's true history, include Sockalexis and Fleetwood Walker. Their names are important to the history of the game... they don't have the statistics or success though - Jim Rice had success, as did Pete Rose. So what the hell does the Hall of Fame stand for, anyway? Shit, I think it's a place where people who know nothing about the game, may go to provide themselves with a superficial overview of the main characters of a story that is based on more than mere persons. It is a story than begins with people - So, the Royal Rooters should be in the Hall of Fame; the whole Negro League should be in the Hall of Fame; Eras should grace the sacred walls of Cooperstown rather than the faces of men. Men have not defined baseball, but their actions HAVE. Those actions are a collective will of a group in a period of time... So, I really don't give a shit if they put Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame.
If Jim Rice isn't in it, it doesn't mean shit to me anyway.
As far as what is was intended to be... well its intention was to make money.
It was one of the gimmicks baseball provided during the Great Depression... so was the All-Star game.
They did well, but they became more than what they were intended to be.
First team has been added to the rankings page:
http://dee-nee.com/rbi/rankings.shtml
J.Rice, looks like your right. Well, let's hope someday, J Rice makes it into the HoF.
Way to raise awareness though... props
Did I read correctly between the lines to see that you were implying that Jim Rice somehow is judged to have lived more virtously than Cobb, Ruth, or Rose. If this was your implication I must disagree citing my oft commentary on Rice's legendary collection of pornography.
nope, you mis-read; there is no trail of logic there, and you apparantly created one
the simple explanation:
the standards are so vague that it is a travesty to exclude Jim Rice, when he was obviously dominant
Cobb is more widely known for being a racist than his actual accomplishments - the hall is all screwed up, so none of it matters
If we voted everyone in that was a better human than Ty Cobb, then the HOF would takeover most of the state of NY.
Personally I'm not convinced either way that Rice belongs.
Mike
Cobb is kinda lacking in the "integrity, sportsmanship, character" requirements - which brings up the Rose issue again. The only difference is the technicality of a rule that evolved from an attempt to get players to play for free.
Cooperstown is the disneyworld of baseball - they still believe doubleday invented the game and that spalding should have won the Spalding Chadwick debate.
The bottom line is that Rice was a dominant player in his era - Hall of Fame.
Hey I love Jim Rice, but being a "dominant" player is s shit argument for being in the HOF. Hell, Rice is a pretty much Andres Galarraga. I mean There are plenty of guys who were by far the best at their position for years upon years, but arent HOF'ers. Same with Sandberg....and I think Sandberg deserves to be in. Everyone says he was the best 2nd baseman of his time...well Dave Concepcion went to 9 allstar games in a decade and compares numbers-wise with some of the best Shortstops to ever play the game...but he is not in the Hall of Fame...and he was a part of one of if not THE best team to ever step foot on a MLB field...
Again....Change your argument, because being the best at a position, or dominant, that doesnt cut the mustard...
i think dominance in relation to era and/or position is exactly one of the main criteria used in deciding who makes it to the hall...obviously, career numbers in relation to the sport's history is way up there (500 hrs, for example), but era/position qualifiers are way up there.
I think that's widely accepted in the baseball world.
Calling Rice the Big Cat was a classic move. All I know if Rice gets in but no Bob Horner then I am pissed.
Quote from: GoReds on 12/28/03, 03:10:59 PM
Hey I love Jim Rice, but being a "dominant" player is s shit argument for being in the HOF.
That is the most prevalent criteria for being elected. Because statistics are skewed in reference to a player's era (eg. 500 home runs by Mickey Mantle is more significant that 500 home runs by Eddie Murray), a player is measured in the context of his ability to dominate his position in his era. You gotta give Rice that...
PLUS, the main reason he brings so much support is because he is one of the most popular all-time player for one of the most popular teams in history - the Red Sox have a rich tradition, and Rice is a big part of it. I think that should be noted; even though it tends to refute my argument a little, it would be irrational to leave that thought out just because it doesn't help my argument.
Rice is making news because he is a famous Red Sox player, but I think he was dominant in the context of 70s and 80s outfielders as well - defensively sound, he had 20+ assists one year too.
Calling someone's argument "shit" might be too harsh, especially when their logic is more sound than yours. You might get your head out of your ass before you post again - that is all in fun of course; I am assuming that this banter is not intended to be hurtful, so don't take that personal (notice the smiley face) - I am guessing that this is half reasonable argument, half shit-talking... so I'll play along this time... in fun of course. :)
Quote from: GoReds on 12/28/03, 03:10:59 PM
Again....Change your argument, because being the best at a position, or dominant, that doesnt cut the mustard...
That's what the Hall of Fame bases their decision on... It's not my argument; I think I will stick with it.
Nice reference to Galaraga.
Again, good comparison with Gallaraga.
He's more statistically comparable (baseball-reference.com) with Orlando Cepeda, though.
Gallaraga lacked the consistency in All-Star appearances and never won an MVP (also was not as consistently high as Rice in the voting). Those are dominance statistics.
Rice has 1 more all-star appearance than Cepeda, and 3 more than the Big Cat.
Rice finished in the top 3 in MVP voting 3 times; Cepeda, 2 times; Big Cat, never.
Of the three, I think Rice is the most consistent; the best.
Here is his voting record (from the Hall of Fame's Website):
You need 75%
Rice's numbers seem to be declining slightly
Jim Rice
Year Election Votes Pct
1995 BBWAA 137 29.78
1996 BBWAA 166 35.32
1997 BBWAA 178 37.63
1998 BBWAA 203 42.92
1999 BBWAA 146 29.38
2000 BBWAA 257 51.50
2001 BBWAA 298 57.86
2002 BBWAA 260 55.08
2003 BBWAA 259 52.22
Bob Horner
Bob Horner
Year Election Votes Pct
1994 BBWAA 0 0.00
Looks like you'll be pissed.... then again, Rice would have to get in: not making it is not making it, whether you have 74% and don't make it or 0% and don't make it.
Horner only played 10 seasons; only 6 of 100 or more games.
Solid career, and I didn't know much about him before I looked up his record - thanks for the motivation to look him up.
Horner is solid at best; but may be better described as a player who failed to reach his full potential - ROY syndrome?
I love how the HOF is such an opener of worm cans (how about that backwards cliche?)
Rice has been the guy who is almost there, the last few years. The next highest vote-getter has earned his induction.
Speaking of great real life player but RBI suck ass player Andres Galarraga...an interesting fact about the Big Cat: was the only player in history of baseball to lead the league in both hits and strike outs in the same year.
Is the veterens committee still in place? I always saw it as the backdoor way for players like Jim Rice to reach the hall, for good or bad.
I hear Jim Rice likes the back door..."Busty Back Door Nurses," "Debbie Does the Back Door," etc.
I guess maybe my point was....voters are not only stupid, but blind....I mean if Rice were to get in, there are alot of guys deserving also....That is my point with Concepcion....The guy was without a doubt the best shortstop of his time...and no, he didnt have great numbers ever really...but was by far the best at his position defensively and offensively for over a decade and he won several championships....(And yeah, I think that would matter to a voter) but the guy isnt going to make the hall, and I think if Rice is deserving so is Concepcion, and about a hundred other guys that get looked over...
And the Veterans comitee is supposedly a bigger group of assholes than the voters....I mean the voters didnt vote sandberg is on first ballot because that should be reserved for the creme de le creme, but I am pretty sure that if the league office allows Rose reinstaement just for HOF purposes, the veterans comitee would be mostly split and he may not get in based on their decision....
Oh and first ballot is just pure shit....Dont they all end up with a plaque...and no where on the plaque does it say how many times it took him on the ballot before he gets voted in anyways...
Ahhhh the Hall..what a ridiculous concept, created only to force arguments....
My faith was shattered today, when I learned that Rogers Hornsby was not a first-time inductee... There must be two Rogers Hornsbys because this is bullshit:
Rogers Hornsby
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 105 46.46
1937 BBWAA 53 26.37
1938 BBWAA 46 17.56
1939 BBWAA 176 64.23
1942 BBWAA 182 78.11
Here are some others who surprisingly did not make it the first time around... something must have happened in 1936.
Jimmie Foxx
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 21 9.29
1946 BBWAA 26 12.87
1947 BBWAA 10 6.21
1948 BBWAA 50 41.32
1949 BBWAA 85 55.56
1949 BBWAA Run-Off 89 47.59
1950 BBWAA 103 61.31
1951 BBWAA 179 79.20
Hank Greenberg
Year Election Votes Pct
1945 BBWAA 3 1.21
1949 BBWAA 67 43.79
1949 BBWAA Run-Off 44 23.53
1950 BBWAA 64 38.10
1951 BBWAA 67 29.65
1952 BBWAA 75 32.05
1953 BBWAA 80 30.30
1954 BBWAA 97 38.49
1955 BBWAA 157 62.55
1956 BBWAA 164 84.97
Nap Lajoie
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 146 64.60
1937 BBWAA 168 83.58
John McGraw
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 4 1.77
1937 BBWAA 35 17.41
Tris Speaker
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 133 58.85
1937 BBWAA 165 82.09
Hack Wilson
Year Election Votes Pct
1937 BBWAA 1 0.50
1939 BBWAA 1 0.36
1942 BBWAA 1 0.43
1948 BBWAA 2 1.65
1949 BBWAA 24 15.69
1949 BBWAA Run-Off 12 6.42
1950 BBWAA 16 9.52
1951 BBWAA 21 9.29
1952 BBWAA 21 8.97
1953 BBWAA 43 16.29
1954 BBWAA 48 19.05
1955 BBWAA 81 32.27
1956 BBWAA 74 38.34
1958 BBWAA 94 35.34
1960 BBWAA 72 26.77
1962 BBWAA 39 24.38
Cy Young
Year Election Votes Pct
1936 BBWAA 111 49.12
1937 BBWAA 153 76.12
i guess i get a little carried away...
to be accurate/fair, Foxx and Wilson were both alcoholics and did not fulfill the character requirements
Wilson also had an incredibly short peak - only 6 seasons in which he played as many as 135 games (in the others, he was barely over 100). He's kind of like Roger Maris - one big year in which he set an awesome record, a few really good years, and not much else.
J.Rice, I've agreed with most of what you've said on this thread - I agree that the Hall of FAME should be more about fame and perception, not necessarily about objective greatness, although I don't disagree that the latter should play a very large part.
By the way, has anyone else read Bill Simmons' column on the Hall of Fame from a couple years ago (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020108.html)? He proposes replacing the Hall with a pyramid, with players on levels representing their relative greatness throughout history. It's actually a really cool idea, and he puts players on about the right levels, too. Good read.
Quote from: BeefMaster on 12/29/03, 09:30:10 AM
J.Rice, I've agreed with most of what you've said on this thread - I agree that the Hall of FAME should be more about fame and perception, not necessarily about objective greatness
I don't think it SHOULD be based on this, but I am basing my ideas on how it is actually done.
I would base it on eras, statistics, achievements, and awards... among a few other things - that's just a vague idea, but I don't like the idea of the most "famous" being honored; I would rather it just be called the best players, and base it on stats in perception of other variables.
EDIT: I like the Pyramid idea
Then again, we wouldn't have any discussion if that were the case.
The Keltner List for Jim Rice (http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/dszymborski_2003-01-04_0.shtml). Also an interesting discussion that follows. I would agree with the verdict.
F Jim Rice.
He wasn't a stud long enough to be hall worthy.
I personally do not think Rice is hall of fame worthy, BUT ever since the hall fucked up and let kirby puckett in as a 1st ballot I have lost all respect for the process. If puckett can make it, then so should Rice. Personally, both don't belong.
I'd say Dale Murphy has to get in first.
Quote from: vgp100 on 12/30/03, 03:07:14 PM
I'd say Dale Murphy has to get in first.
Dale murphy highlights
http://users.aol.com/brave3/ani3.gif
http://users.aol.com/brave3/ani2.gif
http://users.aol.com/brave3/ani1.gif
I would say Murph and Rice are pretty comparable... I would say both should get in.
The Hall is all fcked up, and I believe in exploiting its retardedness.
Gary Carter---out
Jim Rice---In
Rice actually beat Carter in voting one year.
Jim Rice was just as good, in his prime..as Griffey was in his. If Rice doesn't make it into the Hall, and Griffey's career is truly over...then I think everyone has to question griffey ever going in.
griffey gets in as a first ballot....trust me, he'll end with 500hrs, 10 gold gloves, played in the modern era at age 19, dominated the american league.......he's is leagues abouve jim rice
Quote from: japetus462 on 12/30/03, 03:46:17 PM
Jim Rice was just as good, in his prime..as Griffey was in his.
Player of the 90s though - His dominance is unquestionable there. This is an example of stats vs. a player's perception.
As far as WHEN Griffey will make the Hall.... I'm torn.
I'd say second or third year - I'd snub him for the first year.
I think his problems started when he broke a thumb/finger making that awesome catch against the wall - I think most people remember that.
He kinda turned into a pussy after that - maybe a few years later, he had one or two good seasons with Cincy. He's no A-Rod though.
a-rod is no bonds :)
Gantry can you lock and delete this thread so I can stop hearing about that Rice fuck?
Quote from: japetus462 on 12/30/03, 03:39:26 PM
Gary Carter---out
Jim Rice---In
Gary Carter is among the top 10 catchers of all time. Jim Rice isn't among the top 25 LF of all time.
'Nuff said.
Mike
PLUS, Gary Carter is without a doubt the BEST catcher of his era.
The same is not true for Rice.
You all are obviously overlooking Carter's huge "perm-advantage." That curly, greasy mullet is his ticket to HOF glory.
Quote from: J.Rice on 12/30/03, 11:01:41 PM
PLUS, Gary Carter is without a doubt the BEST catcher of his era.
The same is not true for Rice.
I will make my last comment on this thread. There are many logistics to which people can detract, or add to for Jim Rice's eligibilty to the HoF.
I personally feel as though, he contributed enough to Major League Baseball to have earned that spot. I hope the majority can be convinced to see otherwised.
The problem with the HOF is that it is too inclusive. Who freaking cares if 10 guys get in every year. I think it aught to be limited to like 10 guys per decade. That would make it special.
Quote from: japetus462 on 12/31/03, 12:05:47 AM
Quote from: J.Rice on 12/30/03, 11:01:41 PM
PLUS, Gary Carter is without a doubt the BEST catcher of his era.
The same is not true for Rice.
I will make my last comment on this thread. There are many logistics to which people can detract, or add to for Jim Rice's eligibilty to the HoF.
I personally feel as though, he contributed enough to Major League Baseball to have earned that spot. I hope the majority can be convinced to see otherwised.
I think he should be in the Hall, but it's... let's say "incorrect" to only accept points that support your own argument.
Are you saying that Rice was the best outfielder of his era? Carter was, but Rice was a better hitter. Don't abandon common sense.
Let's put everyone in, and have elections to remove people... First ballot for removal could be Mark Lemke, Eddie Gaedel, Bobby Jones, and Mookie Wilson.
If you make a Major League roster, you get a plaque.
I just think a certain quality of player deserves the hall. I never thought of Carter as a star. Rice was at least more of a star in my opinion.
I thought that Murphy was a star as well.
It's just my perception of these guys--even guys with good numbers don't seem hall-worthy to me.
Do you think that has to do with the 80s perception of the catcher... It wasn't really a "star" position.
Is that because they really were all that good, or was it a misconception?
That's possible. The only stud catcher from the 80's that I can think of is Lance Parish
Something nobody has mentioned is that Rice hit into an enormous number of double plays in his career, and hat few sacrifice hits. He struck out a lot and didn't walk a whole lot to make up for it.
He IS the only Red Sox player to collect 400 total bases in a season - probably due to the change from 154 to 162.
Is the Hall looking at that stuff?
I think it's because most people look at catcher as defensive position, any offensive production you get out of your catcher is extra. Guys like Mike Piazza, Pudge, Javy Lopez, etc have changed that. Of course there have been guys like Roy Campenella, Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk, and Gary Carter; but they came along once in a very long while. Gary Carter was the best at what he did; he was an offensive force, he was a great defensive catcher, and he was a tremendous leader.
Quote from: vgp100 on 12/31/03, 09:51:58 AM
That's possible. The only stud catcher from the 80's that I can think of is Lance Parish
A-hem! Carlton Fisk.
And that's the point. Catchers are primarily a defensive position, because of the unique set of skills required by it. They generally go downhill quicker than any other position, because of all the strain it takes. So a catcher like Fisk or Carter adds more value to a team than a good hitting LF, because you can easily find a LF that hits pretty well, than a catcher that hits & fields his position.
Mike
Quote from: J.Rice on 12/31/03, 09:55:16 AM
Something nobody has mentioned is that Rice hit into an enormous number of double plays in his career, and hat few sacrifice hits. He struck out a lot and didn't walk a whole lot to make up for it.
He IS the only Red Sox player to collect 400 total bases in a season - probably due to the change from 154 to 162.
Is the Hall looking at that stuff?
1. The hitting into double plays is a bit disturbing.
2. Stiking out a lot doesn't mean a whole lot to me. A strike out has been shown to be just about the same as any other out.
3. His walk totals are low, at least for a LF.
4. No the people that vote for the hall, are most likely not looking at any of these numbers. All they see is: MVPs, W.S. rings, HRs, RBIs, BA, Hits. In that order.
Mike
When you look at their offensive numbers, Parrish and Carter weren't too far apart.
Fisk is special because of his longevity, but his power numbers (at least on average) were not as good as Lance and Kid.
Quote from: MarquisEXB on 12/31/03, 11:32:51 AM
2. Stiking out a lot doesn't mean a whole lot to me. A strike out has been shown to be just about the same as any other out.
Good points, I agree... BUT I think a flyball out shows more skill than a strikeout. The strikeouts are not really all that high, so my point is pretty weak, but I think strikeouts show a lack of skillful hitting - pitchers get a lot of strikeouts, which is another point of view you may take.
You're probably right, just a piece of my perspective
In my opinion...I dont think it is a skill thing K'ing....like guys who K alot arent necessarily worse hitters....they are just less patient....They take cuts at alot of bad pitches, and usually get fooled by speed changes....Alot of great strikeout pitchers can change the speed on the pitches and make guys look jutst foolish...no matter how good a hitter is....
BUT in todays game...these guys that pitch in the four and five holes are essentially AAA or AA pitchers really...expansion has killed the talent pool pitching-wise....and that, steroids, and all the other natural body building shit is why we've seen a power boom...long gone are the days of Greg Maddux type pitchers I fear...I think guys are getting called up JUST because they have an OK curveball and can throw 95...but cant hit their spots for shit....
Then again...thats just my opinion...I could be wrong....
I think you should give Dennis miller a reference there asshole.
And still... you can bad mouth the big leagues all you want. But i still say you couldnt bat any better than .000 in a full season of 500 at bats. I dont care what you say... you couldnt do it. I might be able to get a hit or two, but thats because i am coordinated. Unlike yourself.
Anyway I feel like some Emulator RBI..
Catch you later.
We need more posts from Briznock. Because he is coordinated.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=1696690
Great column from Mr. OffBase, Jim Caple. The Goose should definitely be in as well as Blyleven. Sandberg too. He just needs to make sure he's leaves his tramp ho-bag wife at the door.
For the most part I agree with this column, the 80s are being overlooked with the big numbers that have been put up since. However I stand by the fact that Jack Morris should NOT be a HOFer.
There is an excellent article discussing the two here (http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/charlie_saeger_2003-01-07_0.shtml).
See that Blyleven pitched 1146 more innings, but walked 68 fewer batters. Even if we look at the other numbers, we see that Morris would have had to pitch for about 5 more years with Pedro Martinez's numbers to match Blyleven.
That is very telling.
I support Rice, but noted his strikeouts... I also support Blyleven, but must note that he gave up a ton of homers.