Well now that the official ballot is out, people are starting to talk about who they’re voting for and launch the usual pro and con campaigns. Today’s feature is Scott Miller’s pro-Jim Rice argument.
I’ve always voted for Rice because, for me, he passes perhaps the most important criteria for Cooperstown: Did he dominate his era? That answer is a resounding “yes.” Based on the fact that he not only was the American League Most Valuable Player in 1978, but finished in the top five of the MVP voting five other times (and was an eight-time All Star).
Did Jim Rice dominate his era? No. He had two excellent years and a lot of good ones. Rod Carew and Dave Winfield were better hitters by every measure of hitting except homeruns. Does anyone say that Dave Winfield “dominated”? No, because they don’t have to spin together a crazy argument to decide if he is Hall of Fame worthy or not.
And what does dominating even mean? Measuring if a player “dominated” by how many times he wound up in the top five MVP voting is incredibly flawed. Dave Winfield–to continue using an example contemporary to Rice–never won an MVP and was only in the top 5 voting 3 times in 22 years so I guess he should get his plaque taken away.
I’m not even going to touch on Rice’s home/away splits.
Those who don’t vote for Rice build much of their case around the fact that he simply didn’t dominate for a sustained period of time, and that his RBI and runs totals were inflated because he was part of such a good lineup.
No, they’re usually about how he was a product of the park that he played in, RBIs are dumb (and of course they are a product of being in a good lineup otherwise how do people get on base for him to knock in??) and that an above average player who has a few excellent seasons shouldn’t be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
The Hall of Fame election always is grist for terrific debate, and there is certainly no lack of arguments where Rice is concerned. But I think he belongs, and I think his 1978 season — 406 total bases! — remains one of the greatest of all time.
Scott Miller you are insane it’s not even the greatest season of his era. And using total bases–seriously, total bases???–to justify this is equally crazy. It was a great season I am not disputing that but he had 406 total bases because he had 677 at bats. His slugging percentage is a much more reasonable statistic to look at and at .600 it’s very good but certainly not one of the greatest of all time.
Aside from Rice … Bert Blyleven? Andre Dawson? Jack Morris? Lee Smith? Don Mattingly? None of them have been able to even reach the front porch in voting, let alone cross the threshold.
I don’t even know why I bother to get irritated when a guy writes about how awesome Jim Rice is and then earnestly lumps Bert Blyleven in with Andre Dawson, Jack Morris and Lee Smith.
