The Rice Effect
Posted: February 7th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 45 Comments »
Well it seems pretty clear now that most of the Jim Rice Hall of Fame arguments, as Dieter would say, have grown tiresome.* Everybody pretty much knows where everybody stands. The Jim Rice people** mostly understand and don’t especially care that his road numbers were eh, his on-base percentage not overwhelming (he just didn’t walk) and his career numbers a touch short. The non-Jim Rice people mostly understand and don’t especially care that he did put up rare and unusual counting numbers (200 hits, 35 homers, 110 RBIs, etc), he was widely viewed as the American League’s premier power hitter for a decade or more, he was revered and, of course, feared by many in his time.
*Was there ever a more bizarre, out-of-nowhere and yet somehow hilarious bit on network television than Mike Myers’ “Sprockets?” To this day, I still can’t tell you WHY I found it funny, or why I think it’s funny now. I suppose it’s mocking that techno, synthesized Kraftwerk German thing, which as far as I know was never all that prominent here to begin with, but I still crack up thinking about Dieter. Now’s the time on Sprockets when we dance. Gets me every time.
**When I refer to “Jim Rice people” in this, I am generalizing and, as such, am not including Brilliant Readers of this Web site who shall remain nameless because you know I’m talking about Paul White.
The Rice argument has, unfortunately, descended to that next level. the sniping level, the Jocks vs. Geeks level, where one side pulls out the tired, “Put away your slide rules and your three-letter baseball quackdom and actually watch a game because then you would understand how great he was,” argument while the other side counters with the equally tired, “You know some people grow out of their childlike infatuation with batting average and one-dimensional hackers who happen to bang at Fenway Park.”
Well, what can you do? The Hall of Fame is an emotional thing, and Rice is an emotional player. He represents a time and place to a lot of people — 1970s baseball, Fenway Park, years when you could lead the league by hitting 35 homers, memories. No, I don’t think people would be as divided or as passionate about his case if he had played for Cleveland or Texas during that same time. It’s easy to see why people want Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. He hit a lot of home runs in a non-home run time, and he’s prominent in the childhood baseball memories of every 35 to 50 year old baseball fan in this country (and in the writing career of every baseball writer over the age of 55).
Then again, it’s just as easy to why people don’t want Jim Rice in the Hall — to many he perfectly represents some of the most prominent and annoying myths about the game (batting average and RBIs are telling stats, hitting well at Fenway Park is no different than hitting well at Cleveland Municipal Stadium, etc.). To put Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame, the other side would argue, is to deny that we’ve actually learned a thing or two about baseball the last 30 years.
Anyway, while the argument may rage on, it’s really decided. Jim Rice will go into the Hall of Fame next year. It is, after all, the aging baseball writers who have the vote. So here’s what I was wondering … who will this help? Who will this not help? Who will be unaffected?* Obviously we’re mostly just dealing with perceptions here — players who are already off the Hall of Fame ballot will need to wait around for the veteran’s committee, and nobody knows what THAT will look like over the next few years. Still … here are a few thoughts on how Jim Rice’s election will affect a few others lined up at the Hall’s gates.
*Other than Generalissimo Francisco Franco.
Editor’s note: I added Andre Dawson at the end … leaving him off was an oversight.
Dick Allen
Status: Greatly Improved.
Comment: Rice should help open the door for surly sluggers who were feared. Allen does not have the plate appearances that Rice had — his counting numbers fall even shorter than Rice’s do — but it seems that he was a much better hitter, he had a significantly better on-base and slugging percentage and nowhere near the homefield advantage that Rice had. Who knows? Momentum might build up again for Dick Allen’s case.
Dale Murphy
Status: Slightly improved.
Comment: They had almost exactly the same number of plate appearances, and they both had good-hitting home parks. Rice reached base 3,186 times, Murphy reached 3,125 times. Murphy hit more home runs, stole more bases and hit into half as many double plays. Rice hit more doubles and triples and drove in more RBIs and scored more runs. Murphy won two MVPs to Rice’s 1, Murphy won five Gold Gloves as a center fielder while Rice never was even considered a candidate for one and played the equivalent of about three and a half seasons as a DH. All in all, I think Murphy was the better player. That said, I just don’t think people view Murphy as a Hall of Famer, and I don’t think Rice’s induction with change that much.
Dave Parker
Status: Unchanged.
Comment: Simple math shows that Dave Parker has more hits, more doubles, more runs, more RBIs, more stolen bases and more total bases than Jim Rice. He won his MVP that same year as Rice, 1978, and had about as great and historic a season. He won two batting titles, three Gold Gloves and ranks 24th all-time in intentional walks, which tells you that managers were legitimately scared of him (or more scared of him than whoever batted after him). And yet … it seems voters have already drawn their Hall of Fame line … and it is somewhere between Rice and Parker. I’m not saying this is wrong — if I had to vote for one, I would vote for Rice too. And yet, paradoxically, if there was a draft in 1978, I would definitely have taken Parker over Rice — in their primes, I think Parker was better. He messed up his own career.
Ron Santo
Status: Unchanged.
Comment: He’s sort of the Generalissimo Francisco Franco of the Hall of Fame snubs. No matter how many players with similar or lesser numbers go into the Hall, he continues to be ignored.
Bert Blyleven
Status: Slightly improved.
Comment: You have to figure that us Blyleven geeks will point out that Rice never hit a home run off of Blyleven, once again proving Bert’s true greatness (though I guess Rice did hit .296 off Bert).
Don Mattingly
Status: Improved
Comment: No matter where you stand on it, you would probably agree to some extent that Rice’s induction will be a victory for passion and memory (or unfounded nostalgia) over advanced metrics (or geeky numbers). Well, that’s Mattingly’s case too.
Edgar Martinez
Status: Undetermined
Comment: It’s hard to tell how a lifelong designated hitter will do in the Hall of Fame voting. But there seems no question that Martinez was a better hitter — a lot better hitter — than Jim Rice. And since Rice is really going in entirely because of his bat (it seems true that he was a better left fielder than he was given credit for at the time, but I suspect that doesn’t add anything his Hall of Fame case), I wonder if this will get people to look a little harder at Edgar. Probably not.
Joe Torre
Status: Irrelevant
Comment: He’s going in as a manager anyway, that’s why it’s irrelevant. But from what I can tell Joe Torre sure seems to have a better Hall of Fame case as a player than Jim Rice. Take a look.
OPS+
Rice: 128
Torre: 128
Times on base:
Rice: 3,186
Torre: 3,206
MVPs
Rice: 1
Torre: 1
Neutralized numbers:
Rice: .298/.352/.501
Torre: .311/.379/.471
Rice has his advantages, of course, in virtually all the counting numbers — more hits, doubles, triples, homers, runs, RBIs. But … JOE TORRE WAS A CATCHER for more than half his career. He was not necessarily viewed as a great catcher, quite a bit less, (though he did win a Gold Glove in 1965) but you’re telling me there’s a CATCHER with comparable offensive numbers to Jim Rice and he’s not in the Hall of Fame?
No, I’m not telling you that. There are actually two catchers with somewhat comparable numbers to Jim Rice — Ted Simmons has more hits, more than 100 more doubles and the same number of All-Star appearances as Rice. But Simmons really is a different case. I think the Torre comparison is much more striking because of the similar OPS+ numbers and because, like Rice, Torre had a very good career and one exceptionally good year.
Anyway, I doubt that anyone is too interested in looking back at Joe Torre’s playing career now, but I think if you put them up, side by side, and can only vote for one, you vote Torre over Rice.
Dwight Evans
Status: Slightly hurt.
Comment: People will disagree with me on this, but I think Rice’s induction actually hurts Dwight Evans’s case … not that it really matters since Evans was starved off the ballot after only three years. You already know that Evans’ career numbers are generally as good as Rice’s, better in some ways, worse in others, but throw in Evans’ bazooka arm and seven Gold Gloves and you could certainly argue that he was the better player. I would. Still, in many ways I think the Red Sox fans and observers of the era have made their call. They prefer Rice.
Tim Raines
Status: Unchanged
Comment: Rice and Raines were such different players, that even though they were both left fielders for most of their careers, I don’t think Rice’s induction will have any effect at all Raines. The bigger question to me about Raines is how Rickey Henderson’s induction will affect him. Will voters develop a more complete appreciation of leadoff men who got on base and stole bases at a high-rate of success? Or will they say: “Ah, Henderson was better, that group is now represented.” I dunno.
Fred McGriff
Status: Undetermined
Comment: I’m very curious how the voters will react to McGriff. Pure numbers, even considering the times, McGriff is better than Jim Rice in pretty much every single way (Rice had more triples). And yet there is no real wistfulness for the Crime Dog. It will be interesting.
Joss Canseco
Status: Hurt badly
Comment: It’s funny, on the one hand you would think Canseco’s Hall of Fame case — which was never really made — would be helped a lot by Rice’s induction. After all, he was also a power-hitting outfielder who won an MVP award. And he hit more homers than Rice, drove in about as many runs (in about 900 fewer plate appearances), had a better OPS+ and so on. But part of the Jim Rice nostalgia is built around the fact that he was “clean” — at least steroid clean as far as we know — and that nostalgia is built largely upon Jose Canseco. Jim Rice should send the guy flowers when he gets in.
Albert Belle
Status: Unchanged
Comment: His Hall of Fame case should be helped a lot because he too was a surly outfielder who had a relatively short career and just flat hit. But Belle’s career just didn’t last nearly long enough — he had 2300 fewer plate appearances than Jim Rice — and because of that his counting numbers just don’t get him there. Plus, while Rice (and to some extent Allen) were mostly viewed as moody and sullen, Albert was viewed as a very bad guy. I’ve had enough people who know Albert tell me that the perception wasn’t fair … but you know what they say about perception. Anyway, I don’t think Rice helps Belle.
Andre Dawson
Status: Slightly improved.
Comment: I completely forgot about including Dawson on this original list which was an oversight … and I think Dawson will obviously move up closer to the front of the line when Rice gets in. However, while I know a lot of smart people think Rice’s induction guarantees Dawson’s induction, I don’t see that. They were very, very different players. Rice was a power/average/fear guy. Dawson was a power/speed/throw guy. Different. The problem people seem to have with Dawson is that he has the relatively unimpressive .279 batting average and even more unimpressive .323 on-base percentage. Rice’s induction won’t change that. I do think Dawson will get in — and I also think he is, for me, a better Hall of Fame candidate than Rice because I think he was a better player — but I don’t see Rice’s induction speeding up the process. Like always, I could be wrong.
Derrick Thomas
Status: Unchanged.
Comment: I still don’t get it. Fred Dean? Andre Tippett?
Loading ...
How long have you been waiting to crank out that one?
I’m convinced that Belle was a better hitter than Rice, unless someone can demonstrate that the difference in eras made that much of a difference. Belle played about two fewer seasons than Rice and put up similar counting numbers and much better percentage numbers.
Other than Red Sox fans, for whom Jim Rice’s situation is based on their hearts, most people look at a “marginal HOFer” like Rice relative to someone else. Those who want Rice in point to other people in the Hall and say, well if he is in, how can you leave Rice out?
Then there are those of US (I’m in this group) who ask how can Rice go in when (fill in the blank) isn’t in. My fill in the blank is Andre Dawson, who kicks Rice’s ass in virtually every hitting category AND he stole 300+ bags AND he won 8 Gold Gloves. It’s all relative.
The reality is that the Hall of Fame certainly has a place for Jim Rice. He was a great player, and he would not degrade the Hall as say the election of Ruben Amaro would.
It’s just that the drum beat for Rice is louder than almost anyone else because those damn Red Sox fans just won’t shut the heck up. No one in Montreal is screaming very loudly for Dawson.
I think that Rice’s induction actually improves to slightly improves Belle’s status.
I hear that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
“he’s prominent in the childhood baseball memories of every 35 to 50 year old baseball fan in this country”
Sounds like someone who should be in the Hall of Fame. It’s not the Hall of Stats, even though a lot of people now wish it was.
I like stats and am not a huge Rice fan, and don’t much care about the Hall anyway, but isn’t that what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be about? Honoring the players who were most prominent and historic of their time? If it’s not about that, then they need to change the name of the place.
Since you can’t actually kick people out of the Hall, they could improve it a lot by creating a Circle of Greatness or something, a level within the Hall for the greatest Hall of Famers. No one would say Rice belonged in there. But there would be huge debates about who does.
Everyone could argue about who belongs in that Circle of Greatness, or Pantheon of Statistical Dominance, or whatever you want to call it, which would provoke more attention for the Hall and the game and its history, which is what baseball really wants anyway.
Even if left out of the HOF, Edgar will find his reward through the Pozcars. I just know it.
Oh gosh, where to begin. First, before I decide whether or not to thank Joe for excluding me from the group of “Rice People”, I guess I need a clarification on whether or not “Rice People” is a positive or negative descriptor. Is that anything like a Straw Man?
Second, since I obviously am a “Rice Person”, am I schizophrenic if I also support (to use Joe’s term) geek-friendly candidates like Blyleven, Raines and Trammell? Do I need therapy? Would therapy even help since I’m Irish and I just learned (while watching The Departed) that Freud thought the Irish were impervious to psychoanalysis?
So many questions….
On a serious note, while I think the Rice drumbeat is partly due to his having played in Boston, I think a good deal of it is simply the time he’s been on the ballot. In his fourth or fifth year of eligibility, there was no loud outcry to elect Jim Rice. It wasn’t until it started to look like Rice was going to go the whole 15 years that he started to get more support and his supporters started to get more vocal. Dawson fans shouldn’t be too put out yet.
Rabbit Maranville, I totally agree with you. But you are wasting your time here. There’s only a handful of us that take the “fame” in Hall of Fame seriously. The rest think Fame = Stats.
If someone is viewed as borderline then the stats help. Maybe that player was underappreciated like Raines.
You know who’s famous? Jose Canseco. Bob Eucker. Steve Lyons.
Try not to get caught up in “fame” as it applies to baseball. More Americans know who Anna Benson is than have heard of Carl Hubbell. Bill Buckner is more famous than Rod Carew. (Then again, Carew is featured in Sandler’s Hanukkah Song (he converted!). Poor choice, but I’m not deleting it now.)
This isn’t a popularity contest.
Oh, wait. It is a popularity contest.
For NBC News, I’m that hard-of-hearing character on the old weekend updates. Emily Fossella or whatever.
The point is: Rice shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame for being famous or unfamous. He’s certainly not infamous. (”Jim Rice is Not My Padre.”) He should be in or out for being a great or good, respectively, baseball player.
Aaron, I really don’t think the word “fame” in Hall of Fame was ever meant to be taken seriously. This is a semantic argument that I find really tiresome.
Here are the voters’ instructions. “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.”
It seems abundantly clear to me that the Hall of Fame is intended to honor the best baseball players. To take the word fame from the title as a sort of guidepost for induction seems to be taking the literal to the point of absurdity.
Would Bo Jackson be in your Hall of Fame? Jose Canseco? Or if I may be allowed this silly analogy would you put Britney Spears in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
If a player is borderline (as Jim Rice is) and you want to make the case that his stature in baseball for a period puts him over the top, that’s fine. But there’s no need for the “some people want it to be all about stats” rhetoric.
Sorry to ignore the Great Rice Debate, but can you believe this site is free? We get what – ten? fifteen super-long posts a week, and without and fees or ads. And I haven’t had the common decency to buy Joe’s book (yet).
That part about Fred McGriff really struck me, since he’s someone who has some fantastic numbers and had a great career. There just isn’t any kind of clamor about him. I mean what’s not to like about Fred McGriff? He even had a fantastic nickname in an era where nicknames were definitely going out of style.
But he played first base in an era when everyone was hitting homeruns and played for more obscure teams, other than his 4 years in Atl. He was never considered “feared” in the same way Frank Thomas or McGwire were as the old guard will argue, while the stat guys will point to a lack of defense and baserunning and note that he was never really one of the top 2-3 guys in his league, even if he was really good. I don’t think he’ll be elected, but it will be interesting to see how much support he garners his first couple of years.
As long as Pete Rose is not in, the HOF is a joke.
Uecker is not only famous, he’s also in the Hall of Fame. He must be down in the front row.
UPS just delivered a box with 14 more copies of the Buck Book. That brings my total to 39. With the paperback coming out, the hardbacks are being sold CHEAP – I paid $5 each plus $30 for shipping the 14 books. That’s $7.14 a copy including shipping. We’ll let the State of CA come after me for the use tax. You guys are running out of excuses, though I must admit, that procrastination excuse is a pretty good one.
Nothing about Andre Dawson? I would think he would fall right in the same category wtih Jim Rice.
I’m confused. How does one “drove in more RBIs”? I can see “drove in more runners” or “had more RBIs,” but driving in more runs batted in seems awkward.
One big, gaping omission from this list: The Hawk. How does Rice getting in affect Andre Dawson’s chances?
I’d argue that it helps. If stats “geeks” (who are the guys arguing against Dawson) lost, and the “jocks” won, then clearly The Hawk is on the march (to mix my metaphors).
I think the prognosis will be: So what if his OBP sucked? He hit, he ran, he played defense, had a cannon arm, and (above all) played with heart and character.
I guess that makes me a schizo (like P. White), because I’m a stats geek…but I just love The Hawk.
[Aside: I became baseball aware in 1987, and was there ever a better story for a bright-eyed innocent lad than Dawson running wind sprints outside of Cubs spring training games, being the lowest paid everyday player on the team, and then winning the MVP? That's why I hope the "jocks" will win this one.]
What kind of upside down world is this where Andre Tippet gets into the HOF and Derrick Thomas continues to wait? Next you’re going to tell me China has replaced the USSR as the United States’ primary rival for world domination…
For the record, Joe, I will happily concede that Derrick Thomas is much more deserving of induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame than Jim Rice.
Joe—Edgar Martinez is “a lot better hitter than Jim Rice was”…REALLY? Joe, was the wife using the cooking sherry today while you decided to stroll through the kitchen? There’s only one stat Martinez has that leaves Rice “in the dust” so to speak, that being his doubles total of 514, versus Rice’s 373. With no speed, and playing on turf as long as he did, it’s not hard to see the disparity in doubles. Rice’s triples totally dust Edgars, 79 to a paltry 15. Rice–More HRs, More Runs, more RBI, More hits—yet in your eyes, Martinez “is a LOT better.” I ca just imagine how you would have glowed/crowed about Martinez versus Rice if Martinez actually WAS better, let alone “a lot”. It’s all fun and games to talk about how Rice played in a hitters park, but those of you who never watched him play regularly (yes this means YOU Uber-Dork Rob Neyer!), never saw how many shots Rice hit off the Monster for singles that would have screamed their way out of any park in the league, including Yellowstone. I understand that with the Sox no longer lovable losers, we Sox fans who used to be referred to pre-2004 as “passionate and intelligent baseball fans” are now “Those damned annoying Sox fans”, and bashing us is in vogue these days, but we argue Rice the way we do because we SAW the greatness unfold in front of us on the field (and for some of us, it started watching Jim hit moon shots over the pine trees at muzzy field in Bristol, CT back in 1973 in AA ball), not unfolding in a stat sheet or on a website. I have thought before he retired that Hawk Dawson was a Hall of Famer, so you’ll get no argument from me there…
How ’bout this player. One of the toughest outs I’ve seen under pressure. 17 seasons / 5 world series titles / 16-3 in playoff games / 5 time All Star / 1 time batting champion (.359) Career .288 / .363 / .470 120 OPS+ / 2105 hits / 451 doubles / 281 HR’s / 1269 RBI’s / 141 SB’S. (13.50 ERA in 2 IP) Probably no chance of the Hall but I’d take him any day, one at bat, pressure on – over Rice.
Really? Because I see 204 HR at Fenway and 174 on the road. It’s a pity he didn’t hit more of those wouldve-been-a-homer-anywhere-but Fenway shots while playing road games.
Rob – Jim Rice hit .298/.352′/.502. OPS+ of 128. Edgar Martinez hit .312/.418/.515. OPS+ of 147. Martinez was a much better hitter and it’s not even close.
Unless you deny the importance of you know..not making outs.
Edgar Martinez got on base 3,619 times. Jim Rice, 3,186 times.
There is absolutely no way to argue that Jim Rice was a better hitter than Edgar Martinez, unless you want to throw facts and everything we’ve learned about baseball over the last 30 years out the freakin window.
So what’s the over/under on the number of fish Rob will reel in with his post? We’re already at a definite 2. I say the number should be set at 5 1/2.
No way Rob is serious, anybody with a passing interest in baseball for the last 33 years knows Martinez was way better than Rice. Amusing though.
Nice to see you mention Dwight Evans- IMHO a better player than Rice with at least a marginal HOF case- and don’t get me started on Tony Oliva… As for the Green Monster, yes there are some singles that would be dingers elsewhere, but don’t forget the pop fly HR’s either.
“It’s just that the drum beat for Rice is louder than almost anyone else because those damn Red Sox fans just won’t shut the heck up. No one in Montreal is screaming very loudly for Dawson.”
—
Not yet. First we scream very loudly for Tim Raines. Then we move on to Dawson: http://raines30.com/
Going back to the ‘What is the Hall of Fame meant to be?” question: The phrase is based around the word ‘Fame’, no? When lawyers want to determine the true definition of a law or a rule, they dig into its legislative history to find out what that rule’s writers were thinking when they wrote it. Well, when the Hall of Fame was born, they didn’t choose to call it the “Hall of Sabermetrically Superior Players,” though that’s what it has sort of become. They intended to put in the most famous, or notable players of each generation, and by that standard I don’t know how you keep out Murphy or Mattingly. It is really difficult to understand what the voters might have been thinking that day they voted in 17 Negro Leagues players and left out Buck O’Neil. I mean, what could their argument possibly be? Well, maybe they were thinking Sabremetrically. Maybe someone in the room pointed out that Buck’s stats just didn’t quite make the statistical cut. But he certainly deserves to be in the Hall of FAME doesn’t he?
Funny – while Rob was trying to defend Red Sox fans (myself included) for being the “damn annoying” types, he came off as a yahoo homer who uses the Potter Stewart logic of “I know it when I see it” in regards to Rice’s HOF candidacy. I’m sure that makes Red Sox fans sound REAL intelligent.
As another poster said, for every Wall-ball single Rice hit that would have been a home run in 20 other ballparks, he also was the beneficiary of routine popups in 20 other ballparks that turned into Wall-ball singles or doubles or, even better, cheap “Bucky Effing Dent” home runs.
I have to totally agree with DB Cooper- I am pretty sure this website is heaven. Joe posts an article that we all feel mildly strongly about, one way or another, and throw in our own favoraite player who is being snubbed (Dane Iorg was a force to be reconed with- lol), then all y’all come in here with intelligence and humor galore, and its all free! Congratulations Joe Po on creating the best website- the one I can’t wait to get to in morning.
Rice’s OBP is almost a little underrated. While its not great, it wasn’t terrible either. The league OBP for his career was .337 and Rice’s was .352. I don’t think I’d vote for Rice but I think that this is interesting. Dawson’s OBP is just awful anyway you cut it.
Being elected to the HOF should be a slam-dunk, no questions asked process. If you have to debate someone’s qualifications, he probably does not belong.
re: digging into history to find out what the rule’s writers were thinking
I’ve got this groovy mystery solved!
“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.”
Bowzer, who is going to govern that process? Someone says Don Sutton? I say no Hall of Fame, but there could be a person who thought he was a sure-fire HOFer.
And also, not one man has been elected with a unanimous vote. Yes, there are folks who thought that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc. weren’t Hall of Famers.
You need numbers AND anecdotal evidence to make a case. They should go hand-in-hand. I’ve never understood why there has to be two opposed sides to this debate.
For example, Bert Blylven had one of the best curve balls that I’ve ever seen (anecdotal) and has some pretty strong numbers too. One side works with the other.
Touch my monkey!
A sure sign that a discussion thread is headed off the rails: when the law students/lawyers start chiming in. References to legislative history and Supreme Court justices are a dead giveaway.
Also, although I don’t consider the day “pitchers and catchers report” quite the high holiday that many seem to, I propose the following to Joe: once that day arrives, all discussion of the Hall of Fame must immediately cease until November.
If I read that hackneyed arguement for *any* player based on the name of the institution being The Hall of “Fame” one more time, I’m gonna scream.
If just some modicum of fame is the standard, then since just about every major league player who has made a roster once in his life is more famous than 99% of the population, so they belong in the hall of “fame”.
Criminy, it’s just a name. That argument is akin to saying only kickers and punters can be in the *FOOT*ball hall of fame.
Never said a player should get in based on ‘a modicum of fame’. I’m saying a player should get in based on a lot of fame. Don Mattingly was one of the most notable players of his era, mostly because he was really, really good. Hey, I’m not a Yankees fan, nor a Braves fan. But if I ever took my kid through the HOF, which purports to be a baseball history museum, mind you, and we didn’t run into Mattingly or Murphy in there, then, seriously, what the heck is it for? Those guys were among the elites of their time.
And I haven’t heard response to my point about Buck. Why wasn’t he voted in? All of the arguments I’ve heard were that he didn’t quite have the statistics. Isn’t this what you guys are fighting for, tougher statistical requirements? Well, then you would be firmly in the camp against voting Buck into the Hall. I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
“Here are the voters’ instructions. “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.†It seems abundantly clear to me that the Hall of Fame is intended to honor the best baseball players.”
Really? From the list you cited, it seems clear that integrity, sportsmanship and character are supposed to be considered by the voters just as much as a player’s record, playing ability and contributions to his team. They’re all mentioned, and none is highlighted over any others. Despite what many people wish, it doesn’t say that a player’s stats should be considered first and foremost, and that his character and integrity should be lesser considerations. They’re all in there together.
The statistical record is clearly not the only thing that voters are supposed to consider.
The whole point of the fame comment was to point out that it isn’t supposed to be just about the statistical record. Thanks for posting the actual voting criteria, as it makes that crystal clear.
(We’re about to really split hairs here, so the discussion has pretty much run its course)
Rabbit, I don’t think stats should be the only consideration for a player’s candidacy (and I really doubt anyone holds that position).
I took your position to be that a player who was very prominent in their time, embedded in the childhood memories of fans for a period should be honored with induction. But I don’t see any evidence that this has been the criteria. In my lifetime Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, Bo Jackson and Orel Hershiser would very easily fit this description (maybe not Doc if you consider the coke thing to be a breach of character).
The integrity/sportsmanship/character considerations seem to be aimed at keeping out the scoundrels (although they’ve been waived for more than a few scoundrels). They don’t appear to open the door for famous, larger-than-life types who weren’t quite as skilled. Record/ability/contributions sounds like the best players which yes, stats should elucidate.
The HOF’s museum section has enumerable rotating exhibits highlighting the periods of baseball. You might see McGwire’s record setting home run ball or Jack Morris’s glove from that game. Then there’s the rooms of player plaques. To me they’ve always meant, “Son, these are the best players (who also did things the right way).”
I think Allen(who,when I was 15,homered off a Tigers pitcher in sring training when Dick was a Phil),Rice,Tony Oliva(remember him?),and Dwight
but not Darrell,because of his .248 BA) Evans will be
enshrined,but how ’bout Jim Wynn?The five-nine,165-lb. “Toy Cannon” hit 291 HR,223 in the
cavernous Astrodome,and led the N.L. in walk three or four time,I forget which,in the pitchers’ era of the mid-60’s to the mid-70’s.