2009 BBW Hall of Fame Vote [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

11-28-2008, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)I'd go with Henderson . . .should be unanimous but the writers won't do that no matter what --- for Anyone -- (See Aaron, Hank) After that: I like Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Andre Dawson and Jack Morris (none of whom have a chance in the foreseeable future for different reasons I find less than compelling) I think that Rice will get in at long last. . .He's not a bad choice but really not a great one either. . . Great hitter at Fenway -- not so much on the road. One dimensional for the most part (like McGwire but to a lesser degree)... A class act, nothing special in the field or on the basepaths, nothing notable in terms of post-season play (unlike Morris) and he played a position(s) that are not especially valuable (as opposed to SS or Catcher).

Archive

11-28-2008, 03:36 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellOnly Henderson hopefully. HOF in my opinion should be for the best of the best and Rice and other very good players miss by that definition.

Archive

11-28-2008, 03:43 PM

Posted By: D. BerginAs a lifetime Yankee fan..........................I hope Jim Rice finally makes it. For a little over 10 Years he was the guy I most feared coming to the plate against the Yankees. Not George Brett, or Robin Yount, or Eddie Murray. It was Jim Rice by a mile. He was in the top 5 for MVP voting 6 freakin' times. Has anybody ever done anything close to that and not gotten in the HOF?

Archive

11-28-2008, 03:47 PM

Posted By: D. BerginFrom 1975 to 1986 Jim Rice was "the best of the best". I'm not sure how anyone can say differently. I really don't understand a system Kirby Puckett gets in on the 1st ballot and Jim Rice is still on the outside looking in.

Archive

11-28-2008, 03:48 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanD, I agree. When I think watching baseball in my youth Jim Rice was by far the most feared hitter. Too many great years to be left out of the HOF. I think he and Henderson get in this year.

Archive

11-28-2008, 04:03 PM

Posted By: Tim SandersDale Murphy?

Archive

11-28-2008, 04:56 PM

Posted By: MikePugedaAnd if Dale Murphy....why not Andre Dawson? Both were valuable offensively and defensively and played in an era when big power numbers were not the norm. Both great players and I feel under-appreciated.

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRice had 8 seasons of 100+ RBI; Murphy and Dawson had 4 and 5 of such seasons, respectively. Rice was a more potent player, period.

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:33 PM

Posted By: KBRHenderson will be automatic. Rice certainly deserves it. He was the most dominat hitter in baseball for quite a while. I cam keeping my fingers crossed for him.

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:37 PM

Posted By: MikePugedaJeff, On the flip side, as 2-way players, Dawson had 8 gold gloves (with a rifle arm), Murphy had 5 compared to zero for Rice. Dawson also had over 300 steals. For what it's worth, I think Rice was a great player as well and should go into the Hall, I just don't understand why Dawson and Murphy and some other players from that era get so little recognition. Edited to add: While he may not have had as many 100+ RBI seasons, Dawson ended up with close to 1600 RBIs, which is no small feat. Mike

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:47 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanMike, those are good points re Dawson; sometimes that rifle arm and fielding is forgotten when cold, hard statistics are viewed. I think he'll eventually get in as well. As for Murphy, he just petered out too quickly I suspect to ever get in.

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:47 PM

Posted By: Robert DixonJim Rice should NOT be in the HOF. He was not the best of the best in his era...not even close. Guys like Eddie Murray, Paul Molitor, George Brett, Ozzie Smith, Dave Winfield, Wade Boggs were the best of the best of that era. Letting Kirby Puckett in was a mistake, but there were extenuating circumstances there. If you say that Rice should get in because Puckett is in, then I agree that Dawson and Murphy should get in as well. But the Baseball Hall of Fame is for the elite....not the pretty good.

Archive

11-28-2008, 05:52 PM

Posted By: Tim Sandersthe RBI's can be there ....if someone is on base in front of you. Murphy is only 190 or so behind Rice with hardly the same line-up around him (maybe that's why he walked almost 300 more times in his career compared to Rice). Imagine if someone was on the 398 times he hit one out in Atlanta!!!(16 more times than Rice I may add)!

Archive

11-28-2008, 06:00 PM

Posted By: Rick McQuillanHenderson and Dawson yes. Rice and Murphy no. Gary Sheffield is only 1 HR away from 500. What do you think? First ballot? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">

Archive

11-28-2008, 06:06 PM

Posted By: MikePugedaRobert D., Certainly Jim Rice was as good offensively as Ozzie Smith was defensively. I grew up near St. Louis and Ozzie was truly a wizard defensively...however offensively can you say he was as valuable as Rice or Dawson? I believe he got the HOF nod due to his defensive prowess and personality/popularity.

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:05 PM

Posted By: AnonymousRobert D, How can you say that Rice is not even close to being the best of his era? He finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting 6 times in a 12 year span. That is pretty dominate. Winfield, Molitor and Murray had great careers, but they were never the most feared hitter in the League as Jim Rice was. He did not have the longevity of some, but at his peak, he was the game's best hitter. edited to add name.

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:09 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI agree. Rice was more feared than Murray, Molitor, Brett, Ozzie, Winfield and Boggs put together.

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:24 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundThe only guy on that list even comparable to Rice in terms of being feared by pitchers was George Brett - Dave Winfield was only feared in May...

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:31 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)Ozzie and Rice: I think Ozzie may be a tad overrated, still its hard to deny that he was at least among the greatest fielding infielders of all-time (and he did it for a long time). A great fielder at SS is very valuable, Vizquel is still in the majors (he'll probably be in the HOF some day, too) I'm a Cub fan so I never really liked Ozzie much -- he irritated me the minute he took the field and did his flip. Ozzie made 15 All-star Teams. Meanwhile Rice was (at most) one the best hitting outfielders in Baseball for a just a few years (77 & 78 come to mind). I liked Rice, I rooted for the Sox to beat the Yankees. I wanted Yaz, Fick, Dewey (now he could field!) and Lynn to win in the late 70s. Rice made 7 All-Star Teams. Kirby Puckett: The fact that his playing career ended suddenly and tragically that seemed to get him into Cooperstown quickly, while some of his contemporaries were still playing. After his induction his reputation took a precipitous fall and when he passed away a few years ago it seemed that "Kirby Puckett" had been dead for years. Nonetheless, in his short career (12 seasons) he made 10 all-star teams, Won 2 world series (they would not have won either without him), picked up several gold gloves and accumulated hits at an Ichiro-like pace. The post-season heroics put him over the top for me . . . Rice was on the Red Sox and he did have some post-season opportunities (more than Kirby I think?) but neither he nor the Sox delivered. He was great player to watch -- he seemed to be able to do things with that unathletic-looking body that were impossible. Charles Barkley, who was a better Basketball player than Kirby was a baseball player, was similar. I guess if the HOF were limited as Jim suggests (not a bad idea in the abstract but impracticable now) Kirby would be out along with a bunch of lesser players -- maybe there would be less than 120 players left. Speaking in generalities: If there are about 225 players in the HOF: Kirby falls in the lower 1/3. Rice would fall in the lower 1/4 or 1/5. Ozzie in the upper 1/2 and Rickey would be in the upper 1/3 (or better)

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:39 PM

Posted By: Robert DixonObviously I am not alone in my thinking. All of the guys that I mentioned were first or second ballot HOFers. Nobody had to make a case for them to get in. Just look at the career numbers. .298 avg, 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .352 OBP. He only has 30 more HR and 245 more RBI than Ellis Burks. I'm not saying that he was a scrub. He made 8 All Star teams. But "Feared By Pitchers" is not a stat, and the rest of his stats don't make him a HOFer.

Archive

11-28-2008, 07:43 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanLee Smith.......do I say more?

Archive

11-28-2008, 08:40 PM

Posted By: Stephen MitchellNobody compared to Babe Ruth. For the past two decades (plus) we have endured the Steroids Era. For those 20+ years well-engineered creatures have almost made Babe Ruth to be Ho Hum. Hardly anyone truly compares to Babe Ruth - or Ty Cobb or Wagner or Williams or a select few true "first ballot" Hall of Famers. But for my money, these non-steroids-using (so far as I am aware) skilled athletes are Hall of Famers NOW: Rice, Dawson, Lee Smith, Raines, Murphy, Blyleven, John, Baines, Trammell, Mattingly and Rickey Henderson. Since ten is the limit, I'll cut Mattingly this year since he's the most Yankee (and I am somewhat biased).

Archive

11-28-2008, 08:47 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzFor all those who claim Puck does not belong, here is my response to Frank Wakefield back in March, to which I have never received a response from anyone: "Frank, take a look at the stats of George Brett, Tony Gwynn and Kirby Puckett. Look at their first full 12 seasons--Puckett only played twelve, so I'm letting you discard the partial seasons of the other two, who couldn't crack the everyday lineups their rookie years like Puck. Anyway, unless I'm messing up my math you should see that Puckett had more hits (2304) than EITHER Brett or Gwynn during those 12 seasons. In fact, Puck had more runs scored, HR and RBI than Brett too. Same for Puckett over Gwynn, except for runs scored, where Tony scored exactly two more during that time than Puck. Oh and Kirby fielded his position at least as well and probably better than those two also. These are not marginal HOFers I'm comparing to Puckett--they are two guys pretty much regarded as studs. Again, add in the two rings, one over your Cardinals when he hit just .357 and the other when they beat Atlanta and he hit two homers plus made a great catch to help save a game in a seven game set. Now, please tell me why, with any objectivity, there is no way Puckett belongs. Even use your yardstick and rely heavily on what is said by those who played against him--I doubt you will find ANY who feel he doesn't belong." You can add Boggs and Sandberg as HOFers whose numbers, during the same period and during their first twelve seasons, fall below Kirby Puckett. Boggs, who did little more than slap hit, still had fewer safeties than Puck counting all of his time at Boston and his first season as a Yankee, and of course can't be even be compared when it came to speed or power. Donny Ballgame also had fewer hits AND fewer RBI over the same stretch. So list for me the better hitters than Puck during his era, and then we'll look at rings, defense, awards and intangibles, where Puck more than holds his own as well. Edited to add: come to think of it, even Pete Rose had only 33 more hits than Puckett during his first twelve seasons, and it took him 315 more at bats to do it.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:19 PM

Posted By: KBRRobert, No one is saying that Brett, Winfield, Boggs, Murray, Smith and Molitor etc. should not be in the Hall of Fame. I personally think that they all are deserving. But, regarding Jim Rice, you said "He was not the best of the best in his era...not even close." Rice may not have had the long careers of some others and he may not be a Hall of Famer, but to say that he was not even close to being the best of his era is crazy. 6 top 5 MVP finishes in 12 years? That is pretty amazing. I would venture to say that solidifies Rice as one of the best of his era.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:20 PM

Posted By: Robert DixonYour points are valid about Puckett, but I still don't think he deserves to be in the hall based on his career numbers. I do believe that had his career not been cut short, he would have easily gotten to 3k hits and would have gotten in without any skepticism. The thing is, George Brett and Tony Gwynn didn't play 12 seasons. Gwynn racked up close to 700 hits after his 12th full season. He also went to 4 AS games and won a silver slugger award. Baseball awards longevity. Career numbers are all that matter when it comes to the hall...not who had the best 12 year stretch.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:29 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzthen change the eligibility rules to reward longetivity--make it 15 or more years. Lord knows we need more Don Suttons and Phil Niekros.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:31 PM

Posted By: Robert DixonKBR, Your point is well taken. He had some great seasons. During his 16 seasons in the league (14 full seasons), he had 6 great seasons and 8 more solid seasons. But even though he was great at times, he doesn't stack up (career wise)to the other players of his era that I mentioned.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:35 PM

Posted By: Robert DixonNot 15 seasons. 300 wins. 500 HR. 3000 hits. 3000 K's. Just to name a few. Those things make you a HOFer, and those things take time.

Archive

11-28-2008, 09:45 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzthat's one measurement for sure, just examine totals. That's how you get guys like Sutton, who won twenty games exactly once and was usually the third best starter on his own team, into the Hall of Fame.

Archive

11-28-2008, 10:32 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundIf numbers are all that matter why not just have a computer automatically select Hall of Famers immediately upon their retirement and eliminate the whole voting process altogether? Statistics are useless with no context - just take 500 home runs for an example. In 1960 there were four players in history with 500 home runs: Ruth, Foxx, Ott, and Ted Williams. In recent years we have seen an explosion of 500 home run hitters, increasingly watering down the number and making it mean less than it used to. In fact, this generation of players will probably end up including the first 500 home run hitter who is never elected to the Hall.

Archive

11-29-2008, 01:12 AM

Posted By: David SmithI don't know if Jim Rice deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame or not however, I started watching baseball and seriously paying attention to it during the 1975 World Series. In those first few years of watching, I thought Jim Rice was REALLY good. He might not have been much of anything else on the baseball field but he was a feared hitter. There is one stat of Jim Rice's that has stuck with me from back then. In 1978, Rice accumulated 406 Total Bases. After he did that and won the MVP, sportscasters always seemed to bring that up when broadcasting a Game that he was playing. I just looked it up and Rice is the last AL player to get 400 or more Total bases in a season. Before 1978, the last person to get 400 Total bases in a season was Hank Aaron in 1959. The last AL player to do it was Joe DiMaggio in 1937 when he had 418. After Rice, the next person to get 400 or more Total bases was Larry Walker in 1997 when he had 409. I don't know if that really means anything but, to me, it shows Rice did have one DOMINANT season amongst a number of very good ones. David

Archive

11-29-2008, 08:16 AM

Posted By: howardThe "best of the best" of Jim Rice's era was Mike Scmidt, no contest. He was a star before and after Rice was (1974-1987 for Schmidt, 1975-1986 for Rice) and in between he was a better hitter, fielder and runner than Rice. Rice beats him only in batting average which is offset by Schmidt's higher on base average. I do agree that Rice has a decent Hall of Fame case and that if there is any Rice enshrined it should be Jim and not Sam.

Archive

11-29-2008, 08:16 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellI would agree that Murphy/Rice/Dawson are as deserving on average as the bottom quintile of those already in the Hall and unfortunately there seems that nothing can be done to reverse the mistakes of the past. I am a big advocate of the Hall becoming not just a place where very good players end up but an elite group that lets in perhaps 3-5 players every decade that will be viewed truly as the best of the best.

Archive

11-29-2008, 08:56 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen"I do agree that Rice has a decent Hall of Fame case and that if there is any Rice enshrined it should be Jim and not Sam." I'd be curious to know the basis for the assertion that Sam Rice shouldn't be in the Hall.

Archive

11-29-2008, 09:51 AM

Posted By: howardI'm not necessarily saying that Sam Rice doesn't belong in the Hall, just that Jim Rice is more worthy. However, if I were to play devil's advocate I'd say that he was a singles hitting OF in an era when the top hitters were batting .350 to .400 w/at least some power. Also, although he was fast he was a poor base stealer.

Archive

11-29-2008, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Andrew S.Runs: Sam - 1514 Jim - 1249 Hits: Sam - 2987 Jim - 2452 Walks: Sam - 708 Jim - 670 Stolen Bases: Sam: 351 Jim: 58 Strikeouts: Sam: 275 Jim: 1423 Batting Avg: Sam: .322 Jim: .298 Jim Rice only holds an edge in HR and RBIs. Sam pitched nearly 40 innings in his career with an ERA of 2.52 Also, he had a year with 616 at bats with only 9 strikeouts. Sam Rice is a clearcut Hall of Famer, while Jim Rice clearly never deserves to be enshrined.

Archive

11-29-2008, 12:50 PM

Posted By: dennisfirst off ... i never saw sam rice play, but by looking at his stats, he had an odd career to say the least. 1. he became a regular at a late age.most of his stats were put up after the age of 29. this says it all,if he had talent he would play regularly at a young age. 2. he did not get any MVP votes when his team won the pennant,not any. the only time he got any votes was 1926 and he finished 4th(a down year for the A.L.). 3. he was elected to the hall of fame 30 years after his career was over. 4. there were no all star games in his time so there is no way to tell if he was an all star. 5. he was a slap hitter probably similiar to matty alou. this would tell me he was not a great player by any strectch of the imagination...but a good player. I did see jim rice play and he was a power hitter who was feared thru out his career....an all star every year,an mvp vote getter with regularity and no one would rather have sam on their team over jim rice?

Archive

11-29-2008, 01:32 PM

Posted By: howard"Sam Rice is a clearcut hall of famer..." I disagree. Sam Rice put up some nice career totals but it was largely because he played for a long time in an offensive era. He was seldom, if ever, one of the top ten players in the majors or even his own league.

Archive

11-29-2008, 01:32 PM

Posted By: Andrew S.I would rather have Sam Rice on my team. I want someone who is only going to strikeout once a month over someone that will strikeout once per game.

Archive

11-29-2008, 01:38 PM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenPoint number 1 really says nothing. Rice was in the Merchant Marine and Navy till his mid 20s and then he started in pro career as a pitcher.

Archive

11-29-2008, 01:53 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranI have to admit that I am a Huge Red Sox Fan, and Jim Rice (along with Yaz) was my favorite player as a kid, but I don't understand how he is not in the HOF. Besides being the most feared hitter in the American League and his MVP voting credentials, take a look at these facts: From 1975 through 1986, Rice was the most dominant player in the American League. Period. He ranked first in the AL in games (1,766), first in at-bats (7,060), first in runs (1,098), first in hits (2,145), first in home runs (350), first in runs batted in (1,276), first in slugging percentage (.520), first in total bases (3,670), first in extra-base hits (752), first in go-ahead RBIs (325), first in multihit games (640), fourth in triples (73) -- so much for the notion that Rice was nothing but a plodder -- and fourth in batting average (.304). He also was first in outfield assists with 125. If you look at the entire major leagues over that same 12-year period, Rice still ranked first in RBIs, hits, total bases, go-ahead RBIs and multihit games, second in slugging, runs and extra-base hits (to Mike Schmidt), third in homers (to Schmidt and Dave Kingman), and second in outfield assists (to Dave Winfield). Enough Said. Hall of Famer.

Archive

11-29-2008, 02:00 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanAndy, well said. Without looking at the numbers, as a kid growing up in the 70s Rice was the most feared player of his era. That was enough for me -- and your numbers just support my memories.

Archive

11-29-2008, 03:46 PM

Posted By: KBRAndy, That was the type of message that I orginally wanted to post, but was too lazy to look up all of the stats. If those stats do not confirm Rice has as one of the best of his era, then I do not know what to say. Also, to compare the lifetime stats of Sam Rice and Jim Rice is difficult to do. They were two totally differen types of players playing in two totally different eras. I think that it is most helpful to compare the players against their contemporaries, which is what Andy did so well.

Archive

11-29-2008, 04:27 PM

Posted By: Jeff SchwarzIMO, anyone who needs a case built for them to be in the HOF should not be in. Only the "Best of the Best" should get in and those should be obvious selections like Greg Maddux and Ken Griffey Jr. If the BBWAA does not vote in a player only 5 seasons after his retirement when his career is still fresh in the minds of the voters, he should not get in, after say 5 tries. If he was not dominant enough to be voted in after 5 tries, then he was not one of the "Best of the Best". He was probably a very good player, but not a HOFer.

Archive

11-29-2008, 04:46 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranI would agree with your theory if the voters were impartial. Many people believe (myself included) that the main reason that Rice has not been voted into the hall is that he was not liked by the media, the very same people that are doing the voting.

Archive

11-30-2008, 06:26 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellJeff-five years--great idea. Also do away with the veterans committee who further cheapen the honor.

Archive

11-30-2008, 07:10 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldOne flaw with advocating a candidate for the HOF is to crunch stats to show that a certain player was in the top 3 in such and such catagories in a 4 year period, or 6 year span... That assumes that there's always a HOFer out there on the field somewhere, we need only find him. I'm ok with Rice getting in. He was a solid player for several years. Many in the BBWA suffer from rectal craniums, and until they get their heads out they're incapable of making consistent, sound HOF decisions. They get some right, they've really screwed up on some and seriously diluted the Hall. It is now past salvation, it is hopeless. The Veterans' Committee righted a few wrongs of the BBWA... and they also committed a few wrongs of their own. All in all, I'd rather the system keep a Veterans' Committee, the damage they do is less than the oversights they correct. Bill James' FIRST book about the HOF, The Politics of Glory, THAT is the book to read to get some insight into what happened to the HOF. Bad reading for folks who want to cling to their biases, misconceptions, and comfortable opinions. A great book if you really want to know about the Hall.

Archive

11-30-2008, 09:44 AM

Posted By: Ken WirtI'm actually one of the rare folks who believes that the HOF voting system has worked pretty well through the years. As problems arose, they adapted, which is completely appropriate. I also am a firm believer in the Veterans committee, realizing that it has changed formats many times. You simply must have some way to judge players with the benefit of hindsight and historical context. And to the idea that the Hall has somehow been diluted, remember the mathematics: only about 300 members divided by the total number of players through the 150 or so years of the game. Compared to other major sporting Halls-of-Fame, Baseball's is by far the most exclusive. This is why I am a HOF card collector.

Archive

11-30-2008, 11:37 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldIn fairness, when doing that math... HOF players, almost without exception, have 10 or more years of play. So do that math with players with careers of 10 or more years. Don't dilute with the one day, or one season wonders...

Archive

11-30-2008, 01:03 PM

Posted By: boxingcardman1. The writers have not always been unbaised or intelligent in their decisionmaking. No one has ever been unanimously elected. That means some dunce did not vote for Ted Williams, Je DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Tom Seaver, Johnny Bench, Tony Gwynn, Stan Musial, Warren Spahn, etc., when each of them first appeared on the ballot. 2. Sometimes a long delay is needed to understand the historical context of the players. Those who played in a mid-1960s and those who played in the late 1990s were and are difficult calls because of how certain developments skewed the game. And what about the relievers who defined the position; there has been a lot of difficulty placing guys like Sutter and Gossage in context. Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

11-30-2008, 02:22 PM

Posted By: howardGwynn and Brett "couldn't crack the everyday lineups their rookie years like Puck" Todd, I'm all for Puckett being in the Hall but that is a misleading statement and not helpful to his case for being enshrined. Yes, Puckett was a starter the minute he joined the Twins but that was when he was 24 years old. True, Brett did not start in what you consider his rookie year when he had a cup of coffee at age twenty but he was a starter in his true rookie year when he was only 21. Gwynn was in between the two becoming a full time starter in the middle of his second season when he was 23.

Archive

11-30-2008, 02:38 PM

Posted By: SteveNot sure I'd call them dunces, since no one, not even Ruth and Cobb Wagner etc etc etc have ever received 100% of the vote, they do it out of tradition. Also, in all the votes ever taken, only 20 or 21 have even received 90% Around 10 players have gotten 95% or better, quite a small club. I think Seaver had the best at 98.5 or something like that. At one time active players could receive votes. Steve

Archive

11-30-2008, 03:54 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldPuckett has no business being in the Hall... emotion and sympathy got him in. Both of which will prompt someone to blast me for posting this.

Archive

11-30-2008, 04:26 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzstill haven't received a response to my post in March, Frank, which I cut and pasted for you here too. That's OK everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is ignorant.

Archive

11-30-2008, 04:39 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzHoward, I didn't mean to belittle either Brett or Gwynn--just meant to say you can throw out those partial rookie seasons they put in when looking at their first twelve years and Puckett still beats their numbers. The ONLY rationale for keeping Puckett out is that his career total raw numbers don't reach prolific heights. That's because he only played twelve years. Look at anyone's twelve year numbers, especially from Puckett's era but most others as well (which is why I made the comparison to Rose), and Puckett absolutely stands out, even among several in the Hall. If you don't like the raw totals, change the eligibility rules so that a player must play more than 12 years. Otherwise, deal with it. Look at Kiner and Hack Wilson and you'll likely get the same debate, minus the sympathy argument that Frank incorrectly relies upon when giving us his "informed" opinion. BTW, HAck Wilson, he of the 191 RBI record season, has fewer career RBI than Puckett.

Archive

11-30-2008, 04:55 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldI wish the man well with his eyesight problems, but that was a sympathy factor. He was abusive to women, not really role model material there... He had a short career, and had the fortune to be the 'exciting' 'spark plug' component of some good ball teams that would not have won as often as they did, nor won the 1987 WS, if they'd played in a 'normal' ballpark. Here's a link to his page at Baseball Reference Dot Com <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml</a> They list comparable players as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, Carl Furillo, Kiki Cuyler, Cesar Cedeno, Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso, Joe Medwick, Felipe Alou, Bobby Abreu, Jo-Jo Moore, Frank Demaree, Farmer Weaver, Mike Greenwell, and Al Oliver. Good players, a couple of HOFers with Cuyler and Medwick. But ya know, they have Kirby like a dozen good non-HOF players. Kirby was a very good ballplayer for half a dozen years. He was a good player another half a dozen. He doesn't fit my concept of someone for the HOF. And Todd, I guess I must be wrong about this since you've been waiting since March.... Two or three years ago I opined about how Puckett and Carter and some others have no business in the Hall. I reckon I need to post it more often. Peace.

Archive

11-30-2008, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Stephen MitchellThis contribution addresses a post or two somewhere "up the line." It also has application, generally, to a few others. We baseball card collectors are sometimes long on looking at the fronts of our cards and at best knowing some of the stats on the backs. I'm all for induction for Jim Rice but it's Sam who needs a little defending although you'd think a guy with his credentials would need no defense - particularly from me. Let's start with some stats, though: Rice was a 25 and 1/2 year-old rookie when he took the field in August 1915. He would still play all or parts of 20 major league seasons. In that time he NEVER batted below .293. He made 2,987 base hits (498 of which were doubles, 184 triples) and six years made more than 200 hits. He scored 1,514 runs, stole 351 bases and 15 times hit above .300. Furthermore, he played his first five years in the deadball era and 19 of his 20 seasons for the Washington Senators in a stadium known for its size and, until its dimensions were reduced, not for its home run hitters. On a personal level, Rice did not have an easy go of it. In 1912, as he was starting out in professional ball, his wife, two children and his father were killed in a tornado. Rice dropped out of baseball and voluntarily joined the navy, serving 1913-14. Later, as he restarted his career, America entered World War I and he was drafted back into service, missing all but 7 games of the 1918 season. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1963 by the much-maligned Committee on Veterans. (Even the Baseball Writers Association of America could not stoop to elect this man who fell 13 hits shy of the vaunted 3,000.) There is no doubt that Sam Rice is no Babe Ruth. (Sam once struck out 9 times in a 616 AB season. Nine whiffs for The Babe was a good two week stretch, and for some moderns, a doubleheader.) But Sam Rice belongs with the greatest ballplayers of all-time since, in my view, the game should produce a few hundred Hall of Famers among the many thousands who made it to the pinnacle of their profession: the major leagues. And Jim Rice belongs, too.

Archive

11-30-2008, 05:33 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzGlad to see you finally offered something to support your position on Puckett, however much I disagree with it. First, if you look at you baseball reference.com "comparable players", you'll see that all but one of them played far more seasons than Puckett--most played 17 or 18 seasons. Only Ducky Medwick had more hits, and he played 18 seasons. Cuyler had fewer in 17 years. BTW, however you may want to rely on this little feature of baseballreference.com, I find it interesting to note that they list Indian Bob Johnson and Moises Alou as similar players to Joe Dimaggio. Next time you see Moises roaming the OF next year, post here on the similarities you observe between him and Joey D. Personally, I just don't see it, but if baseballreference.com says it's so, it must be true. Finally, thanks for the little cheap shot at the '87 Twins and the Metrodome. The dome has been mischaracterized as a "Homer" dome for years--check the numbers if you wish. It is instead built for speed, the kind of venue where a team with Vince Coleman, Ozzie Smith, Willie McGee, Tommy Herr and Terry Pendelton would flourish. Oops, wait, they couldn't win a single game there in four chances, hmmm, how'd that happen? Yeah, I wonder what it would have been like if Puckett had to play in a "normal" stadium, indeed I do.

Archive

11-30-2008, 05:38 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundHere's an article on Sam Rice that appeared in the July 19, 1993 issue of Sports Illustrated - well worth reading for those who don't know a whole lot about him. <a href="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138465/1/index.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138465/1/index.htm</a>

Archive

11-30-2008, 05:38 PM

Posted By: Rob D.Careful, Todd, you seem to be providing way too many facts.

Archive

11-30-2008, 05:57 PM

Posted By: AnonymousGreg, Thank You for the Sam Rice link. I remember reading that article in 1993 and it has always stuck with me over the years. It is probably my favorite article.

Archive

11-30-2008, 06:37 PM

Posted By: Stephen MitchellGreg... It's a great article. Thank you.

Archive

11-30-2008, 09:36 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldWell ya know if Kirby plays 17 years then his averages start to dwindle... And I didn't call it a homer dome. It did hold the noise better than Busch Stadium held the heat, though. Realistically, a BS place to play a World Series. I'm comfortable with Kirby getting into the Hall whenever he buys a ticket.

Archive

11-30-2008, 09:39 PM

Posted By: D. BerginPuckett has almost identical statistics to Mattingly in nearly the same amount of AB's and Games played minus the MVP award Mattingly holds. As much of a Yankee fan as I am, Donnie Baseball is not close to being a HOF'er. Albert Belle's career ended just as abruptly as Puckett's and at a younger age but he wasn't exactly a sympathetic figure. Somebody go check his stats and then let me know when the push for Albert Belle belongs in the HOF begins. Jim Rice put up an 11 year run in which his only competition as best hitter in the game came from the National League (Mike Schmidt). Top 5 in MVP voting for 6 years. Someone explain to me how somebody can do this and not be considered the "Best of the Best" of his era?

Archive

11-30-2008, 09:39 PM

Posted By: Anthony S.Frank, I don't think he'll be buying any tickets anymore.

Archive

11-30-2008, 09:51 PM

Posted By: Fred CWow, I almost forgot about Albert "don't call me Joey" Belle. Based on his career stats I think Belle warrants induction in to the HOF, based on how well he got along with the BBWs I doubt we'll see him inducted any time soon. You have to admit that Joey knew how to swing the lumber. He was a feared hitter in his day (which wasn't too long ago).

Archive

11-30-2008, 10:42 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI'm not here to carry the torch for Donnie Baseball or Joey Belle, but would consider their numbers to be HOF worthy or very very close. Still, Donnie finished with 150 or so fewer hits than Puck, which is not really identical--it's nearly a full season's worth, and he played an extra year. His biggest knock, besides those who insist that you must reach certain raw totals (even if it means you play 5 or more substandard, mediocre or even poor seasons to get there),is his lack of post-season star power--he only played in one October series. Puckett starred in two post seasons, and led his team to two rings. Mattingly, who I always loved to watch, played in only one divisional series. I suspect that difference came into play with the voters. Hey, I've already put up Kirby's numbers vs. his contemporaries, including Mattingly. Forgot Robin Yount, the boy wonder who started about ten years earlier, but who still played several of the same seasons as Puck. Over the first dozen years of his career---generally considered to cover a player's prime, Yount had almost 450 fewer hits, 110 fewer runs, 185 fewer RBI and 61 fewer Home Runs than Puckett. So that makes Puckett's numbers stronger than Boggs, Brett, Gwynn, Mattingly, Sandberg, and Yount. It wouldn't take huge effort to find HOFers from other eras whose numbers don't match Puckett either--Kaline and Yaz had fewer hits and fewer RBIs---Puckett actually AVERAGED more hits per season (192) than Yaz ever reached (his high was 191). All in all I do not see how once can fairly say that Puckett's HOF appearance is meritless or that he's unworthy of it.