Great player - yes. Hall of Famer - no.
Credit: Geisler Young | ©Baseball Almanac
In the National League, Mike Schmidt had 11 top-10 finishes, including four first-place finishes, two seconds and two thirds. Dave Parker had seven top-10 finishes, including two first-place showings and a second. George Foster had six top-10 finishes, including a first, second and three third-place showings. Dale Murphy had two first-place finishes.
So, even cherry-picking the best seasons in the career of Jim Rice, we still find him just among the best in the game, not clearly the best. There are some Hall of Famers in this group, like Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Reggie Jackson. And there are just as many non-Hall performers, like Foster, Lynn, Mattingly, Murphy and Parker.
Jim Rice is closer to the non Hall of Fame members on this list in overall career marks than he is to Brett, Jackson and Schmidt. Both Jackson and Schmidt topped 500 career home runs, while Jim Rice had less than 400. And George Brett had 3,154 hits while being a Gold Glove at third base, a much tougher defensive position.
Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game from 1975-79. But he did not remain an elite player for a long enough time to reach the milestones that normally merit induction into the Hall of Fame. Also, the peak that Jim Rice enjoyed was not as impressive as other left fielders already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And finally, Jim Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who enjoyed an extreme home field advantage. Fenway Park turned Jim Rice into a lifetime .546 slugger. In neutral road parks, Jim Rice posted just a .459 slugging mark. And that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame.
So, even cherry-picking the best seasons in the career of Jim Rice, we still find him just among the best in the game, not clearly the best. There are some Hall of Famers in this group, like Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Reggie Jackson. And there are just as many non-Hall performers, like Foster, Lynn, Mattingly, Murphy and Parker.
Jim Rice is closer to the non Hall of Fame members on this list in overall career marks than he is to Brett, Jackson and Schmidt. Both Jackson and Schmidt topped 500 career home runs, while Jim Rice had less than 400. And George Brett had 3,154 hits while being a Gold Glove at third base, a much tougher defensive position.
Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game from 1975-79. But he did not remain an elite player for a long enough time to reach the milestones that normally merit induction into the Hall of Fame. Also, the peak that Jim Rice enjoyed was not as impressive as other left fielders already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And finally, Jim Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who enjoyed an extreme home field advantage. Fenway Park turned Jim Rice into a lifetime .546 slugger. In neutral road parks, Jim Rice posted just a .459 slugging mark. And that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame.
Comments
RiceInTheHall
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/31/2009
This analysis is absurd. Firstly, take a look at the numbers of the LF's you say Jim Rice comes up short against -- and then look at Rice's numbers. Only two players on your list have numbers that are clearly superior to Rice's: Ted Williams and Stan Musial. Of the rest, Rice's numbers are just as good and even better. Secondly, your statement that Larry Walker and Jim Edmonds are "clearly" superior to Rice simply isn't backed up by statistics. Perhaps in the future you might actually do some fact checking before making pronouncements. That way, you might come across as knowing what you're talking about.
Sure - as soon as you use the right form of "you're" in your comment. Actually, I've wanted that fixed for nearly two years but unfortunately AC does not allow us that on articles published before a certain date.
nast
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/13/2009
if your going to make a case can you please spell Stan "the Man" Musial's name right...
Here are the guidelines for the writers: "Voting: 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.: Or in other words - subjective
JP G.
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/13/2009
Will do. One more quick question. Are there any hard criteria that writers are required by the hall to consider? That is, do the writers need to consider the areas of stats (vs. current HOfes & vs. contemporaries - i.e. how dominant was he in his era), # of Allstar appearances, MVPs, sportsmanship, etc. Or is it completely subjective?
People get elected to the Hall of Fame for different reasons. Lou Brock got in because he got 3,000 hits and stole a bunch of bases. He's not in for home runs or RBIs. The fact that Jim Rice has more HRs and RBIs than Lou Brock is meaningless. When you compare Rice to the players who got in because of HRs and RBIs - then you see why he falls short. But the die is cast. Now it'll just seem ridiculous when players with much better stats and all-around games are kept out of the HOF while Rice is in. Larry Walker and Jim Edmonds are but two players who were far superior to Rice that a lot of voters are going to have to do some fancy explaining why they vote no on them after putting a yes for Rice. Anyway, thanks for reading my article and I hope you'll check my archives and read some of my other stuff.
JP G.
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/12/2009
Okay, I guess I'll believe you when you say that you get emails on comment updates. ;-)
However, I still say that in an article titled: "Why Jim Rice's Hall of Fame Case Falls Short" with an opening statement that reads: "Perhaps I can help explain why Jim Rice does not belong in Cooperstown" is self-contradictory when you start out your argument by showing his stats to be within the margin of current HOFers. Maybe myself and Uncle Mum are missing something but....whatever. Perhaps the tilte should have read: Why Jim Rice's Selection Wouldn't be the Best Choice" or "Here's to Mediocrity in the HOF!" :-). I know that you guys don't write the headlines though.
Anyway, I retract my venomous statements that went beyond my above observation and apologize. Your opinion is valid with your supporting evidence but I believe that stats can be tortured to fit many sides of the argument. I happen to align with the analysis on the site I gave you (as well as your opening assertion :-) which I
I get an email whenever someone posts a comment on one of my articles. I hope it's a useful one but frequently I am disappointed. Obviously, you are the one who is so insecure that you go back to an article that you disagree with and see if there are any updates. Regardless, there is nothing in your linked article that I have not read or heard regarding Rice before. The case for Rice is flimsy, one that relies on emotion over logic. Rice supporters are going to happy later today when the voters elect him. In my 2009 article, which you can read if you click on my hyperlinked name which will bring you to my archives, I already predicted that the voters will pick Rice. It won't be the worst pick in the Hall of Fame. It will just not be a good one.
JP G.
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/12/2009
Wow, A real pro we have here. Look at the analysis on the website I gave you and the....handful of readers who bothered to comment. It is pretty convincing even to a guy who contradicts his own premise in 3 paragraphs. Oh yeah, things must be busy given that you are still looking for updated comments 12 months after the lat one. Good. Good. At least thank me for giving the site a hit. ;-)
Nice try JP G. I suggest brushing up both on your reading comprehension skills and your debate attempts.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 27)
Next >>
|
|