The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Jim Rice has finally, and rightfully, been elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame!

And Ricky Henderson.  Yay.

Rice!  Rice!  Rice!

This is awesome.

I just did a happy dance and called bio-dad. I'm so excited for Jim Rice!

Rice so deserved this.  Also, I have his rookie card so the price of that just went up.  ;D

I remember being at a Yankees-Sox game in 1986 in the Bronx, and Rice went up and grabbed the ball, robbing Dan Pasqua of a home run...... and then a fan grabbed his cap. 

I was always a Rice fan. Good for him.

I was sure Rickey Henderson wasn't officially retired yet...... ;D

I don't mean to poop on your parade, but I don't really think Rice has the stats to be in the Hall of fame (life-time .298 BA, 382 HR over 16 seasons)...I mean it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of pretty good...I think this opens up a can of worms to guys that haven't quite had the numbers before.

There are many different eras in baseball. .300/35/100 in 1985 meant you were Top 3 in MVP voting. Now, it just means you are probably the 2nd or 3rd best hitter on your own team.

Rice had a tremendous 11 year peak, but his career just died after that, ending in 1989 at the age of 36. I don't think I would've voted him in, but I can understand the case for him. During his time, he was definitely one of the most feared hitters. If he doesn't get in, it's kind of hard to argue for any other slugger from the 80's.

I think the way Tenshot is looking at Rice's stats is part of the problem with the way voting is. It was a totally different era when he played as Edge said. It's like comparing the game that Bill Russell played with Shaq. Different eras, different styles, totally different.

I agree and this has been the argument against Rice, but living during the era he played in I know what was thought of him during his career and he is definitely a Hall of Famer.

Tenshot is also looking at him in a way that a lot of 21 year old kids look at a stat line only.  No offense, Tenshot, but I doubt you are old enough to ever watch Rice play, and how his play changed the game, back "in the day."

Jim Rice changed the way his position was played, for starters.  He was THE most feared hitter in the game for a long time - and had power numbers when hitters simply didn't have power numbers.

*All Star - 8 times (left and right field)
*1978 MLB MVP.
*Finished in top three of MVP voting seven other times.
*Six seasons was in the top three in batting average.
*Two Silver Slugger awards
*Eight seasons in top ten of slugging percentage, career % was .502 (staggering)
*Eight seasons was in the top ten in hits.
*Seven seasons was in the top ten in home runs.  Lead the league three times, was second another. 
*Nine seasons was in the top ten in RBI. 

The only player in history to have over 2,000 hits and 1,000 walks.  Almost 400 home runs.  All this without three random 55 home runs seasons, Rice was the model of consistency. 

Jim Rice wasn't a good player, he was a GREAT player.  He was a game changer and he should have been in years ago.

There is one more guy that also should be in - Andre Dawson.  Hands down.

Word to that, a guy in my bowling league (age 21) is a "sox fan" so couple weeks ago I asked him if he thought Rice would get in this year. He thought I was talking about Jerry Rice. I said, no, Jim Rice and he said "who"

I felt old and sad all at the same time. I was raised with the mindset that you don't root for a team without know their history.

Guys I'm not that young...I'm 26 and although I was just a lad, I do remember Jim Rice before his numbers started to slide...It's just my opinion that he shouldn't be in the HOF, but Maine makes a pretty good argument on why he should...he is right on the boarder line of getting in or not, and I guess enough people think he's good enough to get in now.

That is sad.  I drag my kids over to the tv when a great former Cardinal is on.  They know who Stan Musial is, even though none of us were alive when he played.

Sorry buddy, but 26 is young.

I will be 27 in 3 weeks. Thank you for telling me I am young  ;D

Lol yeah I know but I am old enough to remember Jim Rice...I just don't like being put in the same category as that 21 yr old....thanks because my old lady is always calling me a dinosaur  ;)

Maine sprays coffee all over his computer and has co-workers asking him if he's okay because he sounds like he dying for the laughing / gagging...

26 is YOUNG.  It's not a bad thing, bro!  Not bad at all, cherish it!  But young, indeed! 

And, by the way, you were SIX when Rice retired.  How could you possibly remember him at all?  I'm not questioning your disagreement with me on Rice and the HOF at all, your opinion is valid (and held by a lot of people), but you couldn't possibly remember his playing days...

You're young, too!

Man!  It's baby fest around here!

Cherish that under 30 age, fellas.  You'll miss it!  And, once you knock on Stroke & Maine territory, you'll understand why we can look at you with a straight face and say "27 is young."

T-Minus 3 months give or take til I hit 30.

For what it's worth, my memories of Rice are fuzzy at best. For some reason, I really liked Greenwell as a kid.

Jim Rice and Luis Tiant were the only Red Sox players I ever heard my father say a kind word about...and my dad thought Jim Rice was one of the greatest hitters he'd ever seen.

Do you remember when the Bears where threatening to go undefeated and then they played the Dolphins, who beat them, to keep the '72 record in tact?  I do, vividly, and I was two years old at the time...it was the moment I became a Dolphin fan...there are things I just remember pretty well as a child and sports was one of them, including Jim Rice....you are right that I didn't see his best years, but I remember one or two years of him being good before he went downhill.

I don't mind being young at all actually, and I do cherish it...my brother is in his 40s and he tells me that all the time...I just don't like being grouped with ignorant, younger people that's all...not saying you said that, just making myself clear on the matter.  ;)

Two years old and you remember the '85 Dolphins-Bears game??  C'mon Tenshot, give us a break here.

I am not shitting you...I remember rooting for the bears because I was a kid and I said "a bear could eat a dolphin"...by the end of the game I was a dolphin fan and have been since.

Correction...I was three years old

We actually have something in common becuase I also shit my pants that night ...........GREAT Game. Vintage Marino at his Best.  :-\ :'(

I can buy three but I'm on board with Tommy.  You would be a medical marvel if you remembered that from age 2.

Anyone with kids knows a 2 or even 3 year old doesn't have the attention span to watch a football game. You would have to be one of the most advanced children I have ever senn to #1 understand the complexity of a football game and #2 have the attention span to sit through it.

Dude, can we get back to the Jim Rice talk?  I remember what I remember and I don't need to keep explaining it to a bunch of people on a message board...believe me or not...I don't really care.

I guess you wouldn't mind talking about it and trying to change the subject if you weren't so FULL of shit ............ :D

Naw just not relevant to the original thread...hey dude I'm not full of shit unless its taco night  ;D

And in an amazingly adroit display of topic turning, with a double entendric twist (difficulty rating 5.8, despite entendric not actually being a real word)...If there was a hall of fame for tacos and burritos, Rice would never get my vote.  Outside the confines of a tortilla, however, he was a much overdue no-brainer.

Don't be so quick to judge. Taco night at the Rice house could go down as one of the best in history.

But it kind of is.  Your stance on Jimmy not getting in was based on you watching him play and thinking he was good versus great.  The problem with that opinion is that he retired when you were two and it was physically impossible for you to remember how he changed a game.  Watching tapes of a game is simply not the same.  And, again, you don't have to see the guy play live to have an opinion.  You are part of a loud group that thinks Rice doesn't deserve it and don't need to justify it beyond that.  Not what I am saying at all.

But saying "I saw him play..."  Well, that just ain't true.

Not to pile on, but that statement does matter.

The one guy still "out there" that NEEDS to be in now is Andre Dawson.  I would love to discuss people's feelings on Dawson.

I was 7 when he retired...anyways I see your point Maine...You're saying there are some intangibles that the record books don't justify...I do think he should get in because of his merits you mentioned earlier (MVPs and the such) because that is pretty impressive...I don't think he should get in because of his stats not being the typical HOF stats...do you think your biased because he was on the Redsox?

I agree with you that Dawson should be in...in fact I think he should have been in before Rice, or at least at the same time....whether you want to argue with me about Rice or not, I do remember Dawson and how fearsome a hitter he was, plus he has better stats than Rice, but with more years in the league...longevity should count for something, seeing as he was pretty consistent during those years.

You speak of Dawson being a fearsome hitter when Rice was the same thing in his time.

If we're comparing Rice and Dawson, as hitters...

Dawson hit 438 career home runs.  He had 1,591 RBI. 

Jim Rice had 383 and 1,451.

Dawson played for 20 seasons, Rice for 16. 

In four seasons Dawson only hit 55 more home runs and 140 RBI.  Seeing that Rice averaged 30 / 133 per year...his numbers would have far and away exceeded Dawson's.  Dawson's career OBP was pretty bad, actually.

Hitting wise, it's not even close.  Rice's career BA was .298 and Dawson's was .279.

Rice was a much more complete hitter than Dawson, although Dawson was very good at the plate in his own right.  The thing is that where Dawson fell slightly short at the plate he made up with eight gold gloves and 20 steals (average) per season. 

Rice was a GREAT hitter, one of the game's best.  Power, average, Rice did it all.  And he was a GOOD defender.

Dawson was a GOOD hitter and a GREAT defender...along with being a great baserunner.  He changed games in completely different ways.

The Hawk needs to be in.

I hated Andre Dawson because he played against the Cardinals a lot.  If fans of rival teams hate you, you must be good.  :P  Yes, he will make it to the HOF.

I agree 110% that Dawson belongs in, sooner rather than later. This 15th try stuff is BS. If you were not an HOF in year 2 why are you suddenly a HOFer in year 15?

The thing about Rice is that his numbers outside of Fenway were VERY pedestrian. Like, Alex Rios pedestrian. That's solid for an outfielder, I guess, but it certainly isn't Hall worthy. These questions will also plague Todd Helton, who at the age of 34 seems just about done.

You have to take eras into account, so that's why he got in, but he was a serious Fenway Hitter and doesn't appear to be much else. In fact, 4 years in a row he led the league in double plays and for two seasons he led the majors in outs. Of course, that is balanced by his league leading stats in homeruns, sometimes triples and doubles. In 1978, he was 4th in outs, which is VERY bad, however, he also:

Won the MVP
Played 163 games and led the majors
Led the league in Slugging
Led the league in OPS
Led the league in At Bats
Led the league in Plate Appearances
"" "" HR
"" "" RBI
"" "" Adjusted OPS+
"" "" Runs Created

F it, I am stopping, just way too many league leader things. Point is, when Rice hit the ball, he usually crushed it. Problem is, he never was one to NOT swing the bat.