Re: Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- From: Danil <danil.suits@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:48:43 -0500
tim.njean@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
>
> "Danil" <danil.suits@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > tim.njean@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
> >> WHY JIM RICE IS WORTHY OF HALL OF FAME INDUCTION
> Please be careful here. This is NOT my argument. This is the argument sent
> by the Red Sox to HOF voters. I am not responsible for the information they
> used.
Sorry about that, I misunderstood. I am a bit surprised that an
organization which made a big deal out of hiring the author of _Politics
of Glory_ would put out this sort of thing. Well, no I'm not, because I
realize that again this is about Jim Rice, not about the Hall of Fame.
> >> 1978 A.L. MVP (.315 AVG, 46 HR, 139 RBI, 406 TB, .600 SLG, 213 H, 121 R,
> >> 15
> >> 3B)
> >
> > A good line. And of course, no AL player had managed 400 TB in quite
> > some time. But take a look at that SLG - doesn't that seem a bit low?
> > For example, Yastrzemski's SLG in 67 was .622, and he played only two
> > fewer games, yet somehow Rice ended up with 46 more total bases....
> >
> >
>
> No one will say Rice had a better career than Yaz. It is worth noting that
> Rice batted 4th in a lineup that included Yaz, Fisk, and Evans. All were
> all-star players, yet somehow the manager selected Rice as the run producer.
> Isn't this an indication he thought Rice was as good or better in those
> years?
We're talking about Don Zimmer, remember? Not the smartest gerbil on
the wheel. :-)
The point here isn't that Yaz had a better career; but rather that Yaz
had a season where (1) he played just as much as Rice and (b) averaged
more total bases than Rice, yet (c) didn't come close to the total bases
that made everybody say oooh, ahhh in 1978.
In other words, Rice didn't reach this milestone by being a better
hitter than the great hitters before him that missed it; he reached this
milestone by accumulating a LOT more at bats than anybody else.
Yes: Rice, during his peak, was a better hitter than Yaz (who was 37-39
at the time), Evans, and Fisk, during the same time period.
>
> A good question! But shouldn't one of the very best players of his era be
> worthy of more serious study as a candidate for induction?
And he has been - he's been studied very seriously, and found wanting.
> Should he be
> blamed that fewer HRs and runs scored occured in MLB while he played? It
> becomes a difficult situation to work though. If an era isn't as productive
> as some others, should everyone be penalized? Rice would be the only
> outfielder from that era to represent MLB in the HOF. Should we say NONE of
> them are worthy?
Given the players who represented the MLB outfield at the time, yeah,
I'm comfortable with that.
The problem here isn't his era. The problem is that he (and everybody
else too) didn't stand out from the pack.
For example: think about Albert Belle in the early nineties, when he was
really scary good. Did he remind you of Rice, just a bit? Did that 50-
50 campaign remind you of Rice with 406 bases in 1978?
Here's the kicker: Rice, relative to the peers of his day, did not stand
out nearly as much as Belle did. It isn't even close. Albert Belle is
what a hall of Fame peak is supposed to look like. Rice's peak was only
very good.
> > exceptional baserunning,
>
> double digits in triples a few times when he was younger. He had wrist
> injuries staring in 1982 that would have made it tough to specialize in
> stealing bases. Even if he did, would you send Rice with guys like the Red
> Sox had in some of those years at lineup positions 5,6, and 7?
Rice was hitting triples with power, not with running well. His wrist
injury had nothing to do with failing to specialize in stealing bases.
Of course, all these excuses just reinforce the point - he wasn't an
exceptional baserunner. Not a big deal, if you have a compelling hall
of fame case otherwise.
> >or a bunch of rings
>
> Yaz and Fisk have no rings, yet they are in.
This is true, but they have compensating merit elsewhere. Yaz had
longevity and defensive brilliance (not to mention a better peak); Fisk
was a good catcher who lasted forever.
> > Really, the only intangible he's got going for him is that he was our
> > favorite player when we were younger.
>
> Guilty as charged. What can I say? *grin*
I'm right there with you.
>
> Players who played with him like Eckersley and Fisk have publicly come out
> in favor of Rice.
Does the name Frankie Frisch mean anything to you, in this context?
> He was a feared opponent, and valuable teammate. He is
> not simply an all-star caliber candidate for the HOF. Is he in the top 50%
> of the HOF position players? Of course not! We all know that. But it's not
> the lowest level of the VC inductees either. Where he places in that range
> makes for valid and reasonable debate. I feel he's high enough in that
> bottom half to neatly fit in.
Only if you first agree that is a reasonable standard.
Here's my take on the mess: we're talking about the writers inducting
him (he's not VC eligible yet). And the writers have, for the most
part, held to a standard higher than that which Rice reached. Here's
the list:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/full_inducte
d&desc.htm
Scan the list for yourself. How many players have an inferior case to
Rice (I'll spot you Puckett)? How many have a roughly comparable case
(not very many)? So why are we suggesting the writers place him in this
group?
Danil
.
- References:
- Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- From: TC
- Re: Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- From: Danil
- Re: Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- From: TC
- Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- Prev by Date: Re: Manny's house on the news
- Previous by thread: Re: Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- Next by thread: Re: Text of Red Sox HOF argument (very long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
