2009 BBW Hall of Fame Vote

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

I just reviewed the list of newly eligible players for the BB HOF Writer's Vote in 2009. Does anyone think that any player other than Rickey Henderson will ever have a serious chance at making the Hall?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Don't you think Mo Vaughn and Dan Plesac are shoe ins?

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Among the new players I dont think anyone else has an outside chance but Jim Rice has been getting closer every year since 2003(he fell just 16 votes shy last year) and it is his 15th year on the ballot,that might sway a few voters

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Plesac, Vaughn and Henderson hardly qualify as Big Beautiful Women.

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

Jim Rice. I hope. Ironically, he is actually a member of the media now on Sox NESN games and he (IMO) is actually glib and funny which was not his rep with the media as a player. Good luck to Jim.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Rice is an absolute hoot to be around. Simply put, he's a fun-loving guy who revels in his semi-retirement.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Henderson is a first ballot player. I hope Rice makes it in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

A potential BBW Hall of Fame "First Five"

Aretha Franklin
Marilyn Monroe (by today's standards, at least)
Mae West
Delta Burke
Ann Wilson

But who is the Cobb, Ruth, and Matty of this group?

In all seriousness, if I had a ballot I would be voting for Henderson and Jim Rice

[Archive]

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]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Only 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]

Posted By: D. Bergin

As 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]

Posted By: D. Bergin

From 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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

D, 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]

Posted By: Tim Sanders

Dale Murphy?

[Archive]

Posted By: MikePugeda

And 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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Rice 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]

Posted By: KBR

Henderson 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]

Posted By: MikePugeda

Jeff,



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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Mike, 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]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

Jim 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]

Posted By: Tim Sanders

the 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]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Henderson and Dawson yes. Rice and Murphy no.

Gary Sheffield is only 1 HR away from 500. What do you think? First ballot?

[Archive]

Posted By: MikePugeda

Robert 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]

Posted By: Anonymous

Robert 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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree. Rice was more feared than Murray, Molitor, Brett, Ozzie, Winfield and Boggs put together.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

The 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]

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]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

Obviously 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]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

Lee Smith.......do I say more?

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen Mitchell

Nobody 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]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

For 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]

Posted By: KBR

Robert,

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]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

Your 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]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

KBR,

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]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

Not 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]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

that'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]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

If 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]

Posted By: David Smith

I 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]

Posted By: howard

The "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]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I 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]

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]

Posted By: howard

I'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]

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]

Posted By: dennis

first 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]

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]

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]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Point 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]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I 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]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Andy, 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.