Worst HOfer Ever!

[brewing]

Bill, I find it interesting that Dwight Evans has an OPS .029 lower than Rice in the years selected as Rice's peak. Evans the far superior fielder and the guy no one mentions as a HoF candidate.

I think it's fair to consider numbers to an era, but it's not right to pick a range of years and say this guy had the most xxx. It's the same weak argument they make for Jack Morris. Most wins in the decade. Big deal! Of course they forget to mention he pitched on the winningest team of the decade.

I don't have the time right now, but a stronger case can be made for Whitaker, Trammell, and Richie Allen than Jim Rice.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

Bill, I find it interesting that Dwight Evans has an OPS .029 lower than Rice in the years selected as Rice's peak. Evans the far superior fielder and the guy no one mentions as a HoF candidate.

I think it's fair to consider numbers to an era, but it's not right to pick a range of years and say this guy had the most xxx. It's the same weak argument they make for Jack Morris. Most wins in the decade. Big deal! Of course they forget to mention he pitched on the winningest team of the decade.

I don't have the time right now, but a stronger case can be made for Whitaker, Trammell, and Richie Allen than Jim Rice.

I saw Evans' name listed there while compiling, and wasn't surprised at all. He's another guy I feel deserves a second look. Man, the Red Sox had some great outfielders in the 60s and 70s, didn't they? Yaz, Reggie Smith, Rice, Dwight Evans, Freddy Lynn, Tony Conigliaro.

As far as your comment regarding numbers within an era, I understand where you're coming from, Brent, but here it's a little different. Wins are a team accomplishment. You can have a 4.00 ERA and still win 20 games if your offense comes through with a lot of run support, just like you can have a sub 3.00 ERA, and win nine games if your offense stinks (think Nolan Ryan in 1987. He went 8-16 though he led the NL in ERA, strikeouts, H/9 IP, K:BB ratio, K/9 IP). Batting average, home runs, and total bases, are really individual metrics. RBIs are, of course, not, as other guys have to be on base for you to to drive them in. But when you look at a wide range of statistics, Rice is either at the top, or very near the top, for a twenty year span. And while the supporting numbers I put out there for Rice are hardly definitive (I would really need to get into a year by year breakdown, because no matter where one draws the lines when sampling a large amount of data, players with different starts, peaks, and ends are not going to match up perfectly for comparative purposes), they are a good start. And his 162 game average for his career is pretty darned good. How many players in that era could say they averaged .300 with 30 HR and 110 + RBI every single year?

Jim Rice is by no means the greatest slugger to ever play the game. I wouldn't put him in my top ten, and likely not in my top twenty. But he'd be up there. The man had some downright massive seasons, but the other ones were really good, too. Even when you examine a season like 1984, where he had a .791 OPS, he still drove in 122 runs. He's what I call sneaky good. Led his league in hits once, triples once, home runs three times, RBI twice, slugging twice, OPS once, and total bases four times.

He certainly wasn't the fielder Evans was, that's for sure.

When you have some time, make your argument for Whitaker, Trammell and Allen. I'd love to see your thoughts.

[the 'stache]

Hmm, not sure why there was a double post. My apologies, gang.

[djson1]

There are a lot of "all-star" type players who were good, but not HOF-worthy, like Ron Santo.

[33rd Street]

I'd have to agree on Santo, I don't think he's the worst selection but how Santo's in an Hodges is out is beyond me. I personally don't think either belongs but I always thought Hodges had a better case than Santo. I'd say Santo was just a sentimental favorite but Hodges kind of is to.

[33rd Street]

This is why I love boards like this, nothing better than baseball talk with other educated fans, weather you agree or not! Just another reason why baseball is an always will be the national pastime to me. Love football to but does anyone really care who goes into Canton?

[djson1]

Originally Posted by 33rd Steet

I'd have to agree on Santo, I don't think he's the worst selection but how Santo's in an Hodges is out is beyond me. I personally don't think either belongs but I always thought Hodges had a better case than Santo. I'd say Santo was just a sentimental favorite but Hodges kind of is to.

Agreed...some players get voted in by the Veterans committee because they were great personalities and representatives of the game, like Santo. Hodges should be in, but maybe just didn't have enough friends (which surprises me as I believe he was described as a liked player). Another one that comes to mind is Rick Ferrell....a great nice guy..but I just don't see it in his numbers as HOF-worthy.

On the flip side of all this, there are also many great players that took so long to get voted in, like Duke Snider, Hack Wilson, and Joe Sewell (or not in yet as in Hodges case).

[bn2cardz]

This conversation went towards players right away, but I do believe that the hand's down worst hall of famer is Morgan Bulkeley. I know he was the first President of the National Leauge, but he got the position by luck of the draw (literally, they drew lots and he won). Whereas William Hulbert, the 2nd president (1877-1882 when he passed away), a founder of the National League, is not inducted at all.

[RTK]

A pretty good book on the HoF.