Jim Rice in the Hall?

I'm guessing he's on one heck of a short list among guys with that kind of baserunning talent, power and batting eye. There's guys that were as fast. Guys that stole lots of bases. Guys that hit lots of homers. Guys that drew boatloads of walks.

But all of it?

 

Rickey's uniqueness is exactly why he didn't revolutionize the game. How can you replicate that? Nobody can do all the things he did -- and as well as he did, for as long as he did.

 

Wait a minute. Since you're the one who said that Rice was more feared than Belle, why are you now asking someone to prove to you that Rice was, in fact, so feared? Shouldn't you be able to answer your own question?

 

When we get an answer on "fear" I'd love to know which statistics are numerical representations of action on the field and which are "compiled," presumably at a desk with a green lamp and while wearing a visor.

 

Yeah, well, I don't think Rice -- or Belle -- deserves to be in the Hall, Joe.

Other people do, and that's one of their biggest reasons. I'd like to know how that fear manifested itself, if that's such an important factor. So far, nobody else has responded.

I've tried to help them make that argument (MVP votes), and refute some basic points against it (BB/IBB and teammates getting better pitches). If anybody else would like to chime in with some evidence for Rice being "feared," please feel free.

Right now, I'm just arguing with myself. And, frankly, I think I'm winning. ;D

 

Me either! I knew we'd come to a meeting of the minds.

 

I liken it to Potter Stewart's definition of pornography. "I know it when I see it."

I'm in the middle here. I have no issue with statistical arguments for or against HOF candidates. At the same time, I have no problem with anecdotal arguments for or against HOF candidates. I think the problem lies when someone uses one or the other to the extreme.

Jim Rice is a great example. I'm one of those "most feared hitters" types who argues for Rice. From 1975 to about 1983, there was no one in some pretty damn good Red Sox lineups you wanted to see least in a key situation.

Anecdotal? Sure. Open to criticism? What isn't? But I think there's something to be said for anecdotal. When the numbers are as close as Rice's are, I think anecdotal evidence can break a tie one way or another. Bert Blyleven is the same way. He's borderline in the same way Rice is, my anecdotal opinion tells me he doesn't cut it. It tells me Rice does cut it.

I'm not sure it's that easy. One thing I'd like to know ... how do Rice's intentional walks compare to the rest of the league at the time? I don't know, I'm asking.

I could be way wrong, but it seems to me that pitchers and managers were much more willing to challenge hitters during that period. Maybe that has something to do with it, maybe not.

Plus, if you pitched around Rice, you'd get someone like Yaz, followed by Carlton Fisk, followed by Fred Lynn, followed by George Scott or Dwight Evans, etc. Later on it was Tony Armas (when he could still hit for somewhat consistent power), Bill Buckner, Mike Easler (in a brief period of productivity).

 

I'm pissed at Rice for making this thread possible.

 

He's better than Harold Baines, bitch!

 

I refuse to argue baseball until football season is over.

 

Does that mean you'll start arguing when the Bears are eliminated on Sunday?

Hey. That's why I'm here. The Packers are deader than Dillinger.

 

Yes, but do you fear him?

I honestly don't know what I'd do if I had to vote on Rice. I don't completely discount the anecdotal evidence.

But, in the end, I don't know if he was good enough for long enough.