Rabbethan Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 And now things are right with the world (though Jim Rice is still in there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 What's wrong with Rice being in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbethan Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 What's wrong with Rice being in? He's not good enough to be there; It's not the Hall of Really Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 What's wrong with Rice being in? He's not good enough to be there; It's not the Hall of Really Good.Eh, I'm not as savvy as you are with this stuff so I'll leave this where it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was in the top 10 for BA 6 times, the top ten OBP twice, SLG 8 times (leading twice), OPS 6 times (leading twice). He led the league in HRs and RBIs in various years and won the MVP. He had a career .854 OPS. Jim Rice drastically fell off after 33 years old but he had a Hall of Fame run of 12 seasons or so. There are actually stupid choices in the HoF, Rice just isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was in the top 10 for BA 6 times, the top ten OBP twice, SLG 8 times (leading twice), OPS 6 times (leading twice). He led the league in HRs and RBIs in various years and won the MVP. He had a career .854 OPS. Jim Rice drastically fell off after 33 years old but he had a Hall of Fame run of 12 seasons or so. There are actually stupid choices in the HoF, Rice just isn't one of them. He had 4 seasons that were HOF worthy and several that were very good. I'd say that makes him borderline, but not a HOFer. You can tout the accomplishments of virtually any player, but in the end he still falls short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Albert Belle had a better career than Rice did, in my opinion. Sure, he was an asshole, but he only got less than 8% of the vote. I think what helped Rice the most was that he spent his entire career with one team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbethan Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was in the top 10 for BA 6 times, the top ten OBP twice, SLG 8 times (leading twice), OPS 6 times (leading twice). He led the league in HRs and RBIs in various years and won the MVP. He had a career .854 OPS. Jim Rice drastically fell off after 33 years old but he had a Hall of Fame run of 12 seasons or so. There are actually stupid choices in the HoF, Rice just isn't one of them. Jim Rice has the 31st best OPS+ of any LFer, just behind Moises Alou. He had the 70th best OBP, just behind Bob Bescher. And those guys didn't get to be a right handed hitter at Fenway (he only hit .277/.330/.459 away from Boston). He only had 4 or 5 really special seasons and he didn't play for all that long. Unless you're a special case (going off to war or coming to the US at 27), that's just not enough to be a solid HOFer. And it's not worth mentioning that he was a butcher even for a LFer manning some of the smallest LF real estate in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was certainly a crap OF, but of all the questionable Hall of Fame folks, he seems odd to call out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbethan Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was certainly a crap OF, but of all the questionable Hall of Fame folks, he seems odd to call out. Really? There were like 1000 articles about how he didn't belong in the HOF when he went into the HOF a couple years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 We used to debate Rice's status here all the time before he was inducted. Rice is probably the most questionable inductee of the last 10 years or so. I still contend that if he weren't a career Red Sox player, he wouldn't have gotten in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbethan Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 We used to debate Rice's status here all the time before he was inducted. Rice is probably the most questionable inductee of the last 10 years or so. I still contend that if he weren't a career Red Sox player, he wouldn't have gotten in. For two reasons, one being the media market and one being the monster. Though I think that he wouldn't have been in the HOF if he was a Yankee. He owes so much to that big green wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 He was certainly a crap OF, but of all the questionable Hall of Fame folks, he seems odd to call out. Really? There were like 1000 articles about how he didn't belong in the HOF when he went into the HOF a couple years back. 999 of which were by Yankee writers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 next year's group should be very interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Why's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 The past few years there have being some questionable inductees. Below are the positions players voted in by the writers going back to 2000. The first number is their runs above replacement (excluding the fielding component *) and the second number is the first number divided per PA. Henderson - 1038 / 0.078 - No Doubt HoF Boggs - 776 / 0.072 - No Doubt HoF Molitor - 730 / 0.060 - No Doubt HoF Ripken - 711 / 0.055 - No Doubt HoF Alomar - 670 / .064 - No Doubt HoF Windfield - 652 / 0.053 - HoF but Debatable Gwynn - 648 / 0.063 - No Doubt HoF Fisk - 628 / 0.064 - No Doubt HoF Murray - 582 / 0.045 - No Doubt Not HoF Carter - 536 / 0.059 - HoF but Debatable Sandberg - 531 / 0.057 - HoF but Debatable Dawson - 468 / 0.043 - No Doubt Not HoF Perez - 465 / 0.043 - No Doubt Not HoF Puckett - 459 / 0.059 - No Doubt Not HoF Ozzie - 410 / 0.038 - No Doubt HoF Because of his Defense Rice - 380 / 0.042 - No Doubt Not HoF (*) I left fielding out of the runs above replacement not because I think it's not important but because there's no GOOD way to measure it. For example Rice was described as a butcher but according to his WAR his defense was 24 runs ABOVE replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Do you consider guys that had a HoF career through 34 to be good candidates? Even if they hung around another 10 years, mostly has a bench player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I think it's best to look at the entirety of a guy's career rather than what he did in certain years so I would need to see he did up to and after 34. To me being a hall of famer is about accumulating very good / elite numbers over an extended period of time. A player that was once "very good" who becomes "mediocre" and hangs around will continue to accumulate numbers (runs above replacement) but his rate (runs above replacement / PA) will decrease. Eddie Murray is a good example. Up to 34 - 543 / 0.060 After 34 - 41 / 0.011 If he retired at 34 he would in the HoF but debatable bucket. However, after 34, he had 3,692 PAs in which he was a "bad" player. His OPS+ was 103. The OPS+ of 1B is about 120. I think his poor play over those 3,692 PAs should be held against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 See, If I look at a man that should be in the Hall of Fame after 15 seasons, and then he is valuable enough to hang around in the average level for another 6-7 seasons, I don't think the 6-7 hang around seasons should negatively impact his canidacy. Tony Perez and Eddie Murray are clear examples of that, and perhaps Dawson as well. Let look at Pujols right now. Lets say he has 2 more seasons where he can do what he is doing. But he has another 10 season where he is basically Todd Zeille. Should he "lose" his HOF cred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 See, If I look at a man that should be in the Hall of Fame after 15 seasons, and then he is valuable enough to hang around in the average level for another 6-7 seasons, I don't think the 6-7 hang around seasons should negatively impact his canidacy. Tony Perez and Eddie Murray are clear examples of that, and perhaps Dawson as well. Let look at Pujols right now. Lets say he has 2 more seasons where he can do what he is doing. But he has another 10 season where he is basically Todd Zeille. Should he "lose" his HOF cred? I agree with the underlined but the thing is in the downside of their careers Murray and Perez were not "average" players. From 1991-1997 Murray was 71 runs below the "average" player. From 1979-1986 Perez was 61 runs below the "average" player. Both were bad players their last few years. Had Murray being "average" from 1991-1997 then he would be HoF worthy. I'm not sure about Perez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Congrats to Blyleven for successfully whining his way into the HOF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 See, If I look at a man that should be in the Hall of Fame after 15 seasons, and then he is valuable enough to hang around in the average level for another 6-7 seasons, I don't think the 6-7 hang around seasons should negatively impact his canidacy. Tony Perez and Eddie Murray are clear examples of that, and perhaps Dawson as well. Let look at Pujols right now. Lets say he has 2 more seasons where he can do what he is doing. But he has another 10 season where he is basically Todd Zeille. Should he "lose" his HOF cred? I agree with the underlined but the thing is in the downside of their careers Murray and Perez were not "average" players. From 1991-1997 Murray was 71 runs below the "average" player. From 1979-1986 Perez was 61 runs below the "average" player. Both were bad players their last few years. Had Murray being "average" from 1991-1997 then he would be HoF worthy. I'm not sure about Perez. Perez was a bench player for his last 6 years. He was questionable to begin with, but mostly because the Reds acquired Morgan, which bumped Perez off of 3rd. As a 1B his numbers were unremarkable. But Murray on the other hand: Steady Eddie's similar batters: Similar Batters View Similar Player Links in Pop-up Compare Stats to SimilarsRafael Palmeiro (885) Dave Winfield (883) * Carl Yastrzemski (831) * Al Kaline (792) * Frank Robinson (786) * Gary Sheffield (785) Mel Ott (771) * Ken Griffey (765) Harold Baines (764) Reggie Jackson (764) * * - Signifies Hall of Famer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.