The Hall of Fame once again embarrasses itself with the election of Jim Rice
Well, it finally happened. On his 15th and final try Jim Rice, who hasn’t played an inning since 1989, miraculously became worthy of the Hall of Fame in the eyes of the voters. With one of the most ridiculous selections in history, the voters’ negligence in their analytical process has once again compromised an institution that is supposed to honor the greatest men to ever play the game of baseball. Instead, the standards and legitimacy of this hallowed body have now been compromised to the point where it might serve itself well – for purposes of accuracy – to change its name to the “Hall of Very Good.”…
Article comments
76 - Tony
Too bad you don't compare a player's Hall of Fame credentials to the people he played against at the time. You compare them to the greatest players ever (either at his position or period, depending on your interpretation). By those standards, Rice doesn't add up. It's not the Hall of the 70's and early 80's. It's the Hall of Fame.....of all time.
77 - Tony
No matter how many times people reference him leading the league in this or that, it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't belong in the same breath as the greatest outfielders of all time. His final numbers are his final numbers, no matter which way you spin it.
78 - Ethan
"Too bad you don't compare a player's Hall of Fame credentials to the people he played against at the time. You compare them to the greatest players ever (either at his position or period, depending on your interpretation). By those standards, Rice doesn't add up. It's not the Hall of the 70's and early 80's. It's the Hall of Fame.....of all time." "No matter how many times people reference him leading the league in this or that, it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't belong in the same breath as the greatest outfielders of all time. His final numbers are his final numbers, no matter which way you spin it."
Actually, the very baseball statisticians you constantly reference point out constantly that it is not true that a player's "final numbers are his final numbers, no matter how you spin it." In fact, they make their money revealing how this is NOT the case.
Also, I find highly dubious your distinction between greatness and greatness relative to contemporaries. Babe Ruth was great because he was great against his contemporaries, and if he played today he wouldn't make it out of the minors. In fact, he probably wouldn't be a pro ballplayer. Given all the changes that the game has undergone, performance against contemporaries is the only fair way to
judge players' greatness.
But I can see why you would want to eliminate performance against contemporaries as a criterion for making HOF decisions. You do say that it is okay to make these decisions based on how a player did in his "period," so I take it that the only debate here is over how long a period a player has to be great. For many of us, 12 years is enough. For you, apparently, it is not.
79 - BW
But half of the guys on this list ARE in the Hall of Fame (Brett, Schmidt, Jackson, Winfield etc. and Rose of course would be if he hadn't made a little too free with the lunch money) - that's the point.
When compared with them over quite a long period Rice is equal or better (as a hitter). Comparing him with Ted Williams (or Andres Galarragga, by the way) is misleading, because the hitting conditions were (in some cases a lot) different for the time they played. It's fairer and more revealing to compare him to contemporaries.
The fact that Rice wasn't a great all-around player is a point against him, as is the shortness of his career, so I can see the argument that he's marginal.
The argument that he wasn't REALLY a great hitter, though, just isn't right (in my opinion).
80 - Joe R
Once again proving that power guys are always overrated compared to balanced guys. The bar to get in for middle of the order guys is embarassingly lower than leadoff (or traditional #2) hitters.
Rice: 128 OPS+
Raines: 123 OPS+
Rice: 1384 RC, 6.0 RC/g (per b-r)
Raines: 1636 RC, 6.6 RC/g (per b-r)
Raines' career lasted an extra 1,301 PA's.
Raines could field the ball.
Raines was completely efficient in every aspect of the game (even his power, with 170 HR, was respectable).
But of course, Rice has the adjective edge. Also, the election of Rice wasn't even about stats, it was about the notion that the media outside of Boston hated Jim Rice, and THAT was why he wasn't getting the votes. Listen to Boston media, locals around here, and it was all they discussed when it came to Rice.
And I love when people say stats don't tell all the story. Of course they don't tell all of it. But if a player's baseball-reference page was Moby Dick, you'd be at the sentence "I alone survived" by the time you were done reviewing it.