So Bruce Sutter made it into the Hall of Fame but Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, and Jack Morris didn't. The Hall of Fame voters are true morons and unworthy of any respect. As custodians of baseball's list of immortals, I don't understand what their voting is based on. Regional bias? Racism? A personal dislike for Rice's brooding nature or Dawson's quick temper? I am stumped as to what exactly these guys need to do to get into Cooperstown.
Jim Rice's failure to make it in is particularly troubling to me. His career credentials are impeccable: 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .298 AVG, eight trips to the All-Star Game, one MVP award (1978) and five other top-five appearances in the MVP voting (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1986). Think about this for a second - in a five-year span, Jim Rice finished in the top five three times and won once. Didn't Pujols just do something similar? Hasn't Pujols finished in the top three in each of the past four seasons before finally winning this year? We all agree that Pujols' feat is dominant. Why is it any less impressive when Jim Rice does it? That alone should answer anyone's questions about Jim Rice's dominance. One more thing about the MVP voting -- Jim Rice finished third in 1986, a full 11 seasons after finishing third in 1975. Are there other players that could be as dominant at the beginning of their careers as at the end? Barry Bonds is the only player that comes to mind and we all know how Barry Bonds has sustained his career. The final example of his dominance is courtesy of research done by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com:
“From 1975 through 1985, Rice was No. 1 in his league in homers, RBI, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. And the only player even close to him in most of those categories was the great George Brett.”
George Brett finished second to Jim Rice in all of those categories and made the Hall of Fame as a first-ballot entrant. Enough said.
In researching Jim Rice's stats, I came across something very interesting. Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal posits that had Rice hit 16 more HR and increased his batting average by .002, he'd have the magic 400 HR and .300 AVG that voters might be looking for. Guess what? If Rice had just gotten 16 more hits, meaning one more hit for each of the 16 seasons he played in Boston, he'd have his magic .300.
It is very sad that the voters refuse to do their due diligence on Jim Rice. There can be no other explanation other than they don't like him. He was one of the best cleanup hitters of his generation.
Jim Rice's failure to make it in is particularly troubling to me. His career credentials are impeccable: 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .298 AVG, eight trips to the All-Star Game, one MVP award (1978) and five other top-five appearances in the MVP voting (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1986). Think about this for a second - in a five-year span, Jim Rice finished in the top five three times and won once. Didn't Pujols just do something similar? Hasn't Pujols finished in the top three in each of the past four seasons before finally winning this year? We all agree that Pujols' feat is dominant. Why is it any less impressive when Jim Rice does it? That alone should answer anyone's questions about Jim Rice's dominance. One more thing about the MVP voting -- Jim Rice finished third in 1986, a full 11 seasons after finishing third in 1975. Are there other players that could be as dominant at the beginning of their careers as at the end? Barry Bonds is the only player that comes to mind and we all know how Barry Bonds has sustained his career. The final example of his dominance is courtesy of research done by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com:
“From 1975 through 1985, Rice was No. 1 in his league in homers, RBI, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. And the only player even close to him in most of those categories was the great George Brett.”
George Brett finished second to Jim Rice in all of those categories and made the Hall of Fame as a first-ballot entrant. Enough said.
In researching Jim Rice's stats, I came across something very interesting. Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal posits that had Rice hit 16 more HR and increased his batting average by .002, he'd have the magic 400 HR and .300 AVG that voters might be looking for. Guess what? If Rice had just gotten 16 more hits, meaning one more hit for each of the 16 seasons he played in Boston, he'd have his magic .300.
It is very sad that the voters refuse to do their due diligence on Jim Rice. There can be no other explanation other than they don't like him. He was one of the best cleanup hitters of his generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment