PDA

View Full Version : Jim Rice to the Hall of Fame?


Fenway
12-26-2007, 04:36 PM
discuss

Dan Shaughnessy
This is Jim Rice's year (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/12/26/this_is_rices_year)

Hall of Fame ballots are due to be mailed soon and when the announcement is made next month, I'm betting Rice is going to Cooperstown.


gallery A case for Rice (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/12_19_05_jim_rice/)

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 05:24 PM
Jim Rice is just short of the Hall of Fame. While he certainly had several impressive years he also fizzled somewhat early. Perhaps the best thing I can say about him is if he makes it, he won’t be by far the worst player enshrined, but at the same time I can think of several players who should be in ahead of Rice who won’t ever catch a whiff of the hall of fame.

Fenway, I happen to think Evans should get more consideration given his ability in RF, am I insane for thinking that?

Fenway
12-26-2007, 05:27 PM
Fenway, I happen to think Evans should get more consideration given his ability in RF, am I insane for thinking that?

No you are not insane

In the 1980's guess who had the most home runs hit in the AL

Dwight Evans

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 05:35 PM
No you are not insane

In the 1980's guess who had the most home runs hit in the AL

Dwight Evans

yeah I knew that, I just feel silly when ever I think that his OPS is only .840. Evans is a guy who's hard to figure out. Most of his value in my mind comes from what most fans no nothing about, defense. The more I think about it, the more I think Evans just falls short (though if he could have eaked out another 200 hits he'd have been a shoe in due to the voters being complete dolts) and Rice falls well short given that he was awful in the field. BTW there will never been an influx of young talent on a team as good as the 75 Red Sox. Rice, Evans and Lynn, that's amazing.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 05:49 PM
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Survey says...............

WhiteSox5187
12-27-2007, 02:03 AM
If Jim Rice gets in, Harold oughta get in too.

Grzegorz
12-27-2007, 07:12 AM
Didn't Rice's statistics turn down after the age of twenty-six? I don't know; I am leaning towards voting him in but that is more of a heart play than a head play.

Hitmenof77
12-27-2007, 08:12 AM
Jim Rice is just short of the Hall of Fame. While he certainly had several impressive years he also fizzled somewhat early. Perhaps the best thing I can say about him is if he makes it, he won’t be by far the worst player enshrined, but at the same time I can think of several players who should be in ahead of Rice who won’t ever catch a whiff of the hall of fame.

Fenway, I happen to think Evans should get more consideration given his ability in RF, am I insane for thinking that?

No you are not insane

In the 1980's guess who had the most home runs hit in the AL

Dwight Evans


Rice should have been in the HOF a long time ago. He was such a feared power hitter. Yes, he did fade at about 34 or so but so what? He didn't have BALCO to help him.

He was a dominant player for 6-8 years, the second best player in baseball, next to Dave Parker, during that time.

Dewey was a damn good player, but he doesn't come close to being a HOF.

Fenway
12-28-2007, 12:58 PM
Rice should have been in the HOF a long time ago. He was such a feared power hitter. Yes, he did fade at about 34 or so but so what? He didn't have BALCO to help him.

He was a dominant player for 6-8 years, the second best player in baseball, next to Dave Parker, during that time.

Dewey was a damn good player, but he doesn't come close to being a HOF.

Rice lost his eyesight and that is why his numbers dropped so badly.

Rice missed the 75 post-season when he was hit by a Vern Ruhle pitch that broke his wrist with a week left in the season. If Rice had played in the 75 Series, Boston would have won it. His replacement in the Series was good guy Cecil Cooper who went 1-19 against Reds pitching. That series was so close that you can assume Rice would have done far better than that.

JorgeFabregas
12-28-2007, 01:11 PM
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Survey says...............
Survey says what? Two of those are in his favor and two of them are against. It seems like that says what most people already figured: he's borderline.

Oblong
12-28-2007, 01:17 PM
Rice lost his eyesight and that is why his numbers dropped so badly.

Rice missed the 75 post-season when he was hit by a Vern Ruhle pitch that broke his wrist with a week left in the season. If Rice had played in the 75 Series, Boston would have won it. His replacement in the Series was good guy Cecil Cooper who went 1-19 against Reds pitching. That series was so close that you can assume Rice would have done far better than that.

I don't think you can necessarily assume that. Every year in the playoffs we see key guys go cold.

Fenway
12-28-2007, 01:26 PM
I don't think you can necessarily assume that. Every year in the playoffs we see key guys go cold.

I doubt Rice would have made the last out in an inning SEVEN times like Cooper did in the 75 Series.

I want to see the Red Sox retire #14 and that can only happen if he makes the HoF. Given the horrific racial history the Red Sox had under Tom Yawkey it would be deliciously ironic.

Oblong
12-28-2007, 01:56 PM
I doubt it too because I don't think Rice would have been batting leadoff like Cooper did so he wouldn't have been in the same situations. Cooper did it once in game 1, which Bos won 6-0. Did it twice in game 2 with nobody on bsae. Did it three times in game 3, once with a guy on first and another with a guy on second, and another after a Carbo HR.

But in this year's ALDS I saw future HOFer Derek Jeter ground into two crucial inning ending DP's with guys on first and third. If he were hurt and his replacement did that, then a Yankee fan would cite that performance and say "Jeter wouldn't have done that!"

But it's just nitpicking. If Boston had won in 75 then we may have never heard of Dan Shaunnessey because he'd not have a reason to write a book.

Save McCuddy's
12-28-2007, 02:47 PM
Rice lost his eyesight and that is why his numbers dropped so badly.

Rice missed the 75 post-season when he was hit by a Vern Ruhle pitch that broke his wrist with a week left in the season. If Rice had played in the 75 Series, Boston would have won it. His replacement in the Series was good guy Cecil Cooper who went 1-19 against Reds pitching. That series was so close that you can assume Rice would have done far better than that.

No question that an appearance in that series would have done wonders for Rice's resume for the HOF. As it stands, I think there's room in the Hall for him.

santo=dorf
12-28-2007, 02:53 PM
Survey says what? Two of those are in his favor and two of them are against. It seems like that says what most people already figured: he's borderline.
:?:
It's 3 out of 4, and the other one he's off by 7.

Frank Thomas for comparison sakes.
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 21 (97) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 200 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 61.4 (25) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 194.0 (42) (Likely HOFer > 100)

JorgeFabregas
12-28-2007, 02:56 PM
:?:
It's 3 out of 4, and the other one he's off by 7.

Frank Thomas for comparison sakes.
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 21 (97) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 200 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 61.4 (25) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 194.0 (42) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Gotcha, not sure which one I misread.

Edit:
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)

For some reason I was thinking 49 as the Average HOFer Black Ink Batting

Fenway
12-28-2007, 03:08 PM
No question that an appearance in that series would have done wonders for Rice's resume for the HOF. As it stands, I think there's room in the Hall for him.

Jim today does post game for NESN along with Eckersley. They a lot better than anything Bristol Clown College has.

http://www.survivinggrady.com/uploaded_images/riceshirt-724040.jpg

tick53
12-28-2007, 05:31 PM
discuss

Dan Shaughnessy
This is Jim Rice's year (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/12/26/this_is_rices_year)

Hall of Fame ballots are due to be mailed soon and when the announcement is made next month, I'm betting Rice is going to Cooperstown.


gallery A case for Rice (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/12_19_05_jim_rice/)

I think so too. I liked Rice and he deserves to go there.

Tragg
12-29-2007, 08:37 AM
Jim today does post game for NESN along with Eckersley. They a lot better than anything Bristol Clown College has.

Apparently, he hasn't gone to the Santo/Blyleven school of self-pimping. That's worth 6 points on the blue scale right there.

Is he the guy when, in the midst of the NL domination of the All Star game, said "Taters - where are the taters in our lineup?" It was either him or someone talking about his abscence. In my youth, when the AS game meant something to me, the AL couldn't win for squat.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 09:37 AM
I hope not. I really hate watering down the HOF to include really good guys like Rice.

Oblong
12-29-2007, 10:13 AM
I hope not. I really hate watering down the HOF to include really good guys like Rice.

That's how I feel. He's the definition of a not quite HOFer. There's nothing wrong with that.

fquaye149
12-29-2007, 10:55 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96113

jabrch
12-29-2007, 12:24 PM
I look at Rice as being only slightly better than Harold Baines. And I'd NEVER argue for the HOF for Harold - despite how much of a fan I was of him as a player.

Fenway
12-29-2007, 12:35 PM
Apparently, he hasn't gone to the Santo/Blyleven school of self-pimping. That's worth 6 points on the blue scale right there.

Is he the guy when, in the midst of the NL domination of the All Star game, said "Taters - where are the taters in our lineup?" It was either him or someone talking about his abscence. In my youth, when the AS game meant something to me, the AL couldn't win for squat.

Rice is as borderline as they come. If he makes it in people will not be outraged as they were with say Bill Mazeroski or Phil Rizzuto.

But he has never cried about it....yes he has expressed disappointment but that is human.

I know White Sox fans want Billy Pierce in the HoF. Yet when I said I wanted Luis Tiant in Cooperstown the Pierce supporters were aghast. Guess what, their numbers are equal in almost every way.

75% is a tough number to crack.....just remember what happened to Nellie Fox.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 12:52 PM
I know White Sox fans want Billy Pierce in the HoF.

Do they really?

I am too young to have seen him play, but I just don't see HOF in his numbers when you look at them relative to his era. In an ERA of the 4 man rotation, he only had (exactly) 20 wins twice. He had a 3.30 Career ERA and never struck out 200 hitters despite having 6 seasons with over 240 IP.

I don't see Pierce as HOF worthy - nor is Tiant.

There are lots of nice baseball players that don't belong in the HOF. I think we just listed four of them - Pierce, Tiant, Rice and Baines.

Fenway
12-29-2007, 01:05 PM
Cooperstown is the hardest Hall of Fame to get into, with Canton a close second.

The Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass have way too many players in that you wonder about.

I have a beef with the football HoF over their refusal to give Gino Cappellitti a nibble.

Cappelletti led the American Football League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_League) in scoring five times and had two of the top five scoring seasons in pro football history – 155 points in 1964 and 147 points in 1961 (14-game seasons). Nicknamed the "Duke", he is the all-time leading scorer in the American Football League. Cappelletti is among the AFL's all-time top ten receivers, in yards and in receptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gino_Cappelletti

How can he NOT be in Canton?????

http://nflhistory.net/images/Cappelletti4.jpg

jabrch
12-29-2007, 01:24 PM
I have a beef with the football HoF over their refusal to give Gino Cappellitti a nibble.


I'm hoping that was intended on being in teal...Gino will have to wait until Johnny Morris gets in. And that's going to be a cold day in you-know-where.

Save McCuddy's
12-29-2007, 06:38 PM
This may not be of any interest to anyone but me, but I have broken down Jimmy's case on a handful of levels.

First, I make no apologies that accumulated career totals do not weigh heavily with me as credentials for hall worthiness. 3000 hits collected 150 per year for 20 yrs does not mean Hall of Fame to me. I focus much more on peak value than overall tallies. My theory centers on impact. MVP caliber performances carry clubs and make the jobs of others easier. I prefer a Hall of Fame that recognizes that type of greatness than the wonderful consistency of say, Harold. I love Harold, but his example serves me well in this instance. He was very good -- and very good often -- but outside of 1984 never at the top of the game. There are players in the Hall that he compares favorably to, but that's not the point either.

I do have basic metrics for the peak value method. I refer to something called a hall of fame season. This is purely subjective, but with some rule of thumb guidelines. I adjust for eras as the post strike era has seen some mushrooming numbers, and I adjust for position. For left fielders, I apply the same figures as 1st basemen and DH's. These are the qualifiers: Any full season with a .300 BA or higher is a hall of fame year. Any season with 100 RBI or 100 Runs is a hall of fame caliber year. Any season with 30 or more HR's qualifies. A season of 20 HR's plus combined with 20 SB's qualifies. SLG over .500 or OBP over .390 are also qualifiers. You get the gist. 19 Hr's and 19 swipes can qualify. A freakish year with 50 doubles or 50 plus steals can as well. It's fairly subjective, but the main factor is that a player have at least 10. Interestingly in Harold's case he has very close to ten, but most are narrow escapes.

Rice has exactly ten with his top 5 being quite significant.

This qualifier advances him to another level of conversation. How does he compare with his contemporaries? In Rice's era which I define as 1970 -1978 for the player's first full year in the majors, there is only one hall of famer who played predominantly either 1B, LF or DH. Eddie Murray is that man and scores 8 lock hall of fame caliber years with 3 very close ones that I can see giving him the benefit of the doubt on. Granted, Eddie has the added resume builders of being a switch hitter and 3 time gold glover with a World Series Ring, two other fall classic appearances and of course the 3000 hit 500 HR milestones. here's how Rice and Murray stack over 550 AB increments:

AVG OBP SLG HR RBI
Rice .298 .352 .502 26 97
Murray .287 .359 .482 24 93

Remarkably similar. No question that Eddie belongs, but does Rice is the question. My answer is yes and no. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the Hall will be a lesser place with him in -- there is room for one left fielder who broke into the game in the '70's -- but, his case is not so compelling that it reeks of injustice. He clearly belongs when the litmus test of "if Orlando Cepeda's in, then so should Jimmy be". His numbers are borderline enough that he needs some additional impetous to get over the hump -- a memorable post season, gold glove, or favorable relationship with the media.

I likely have just wasted this last half hour as I anticipate Rice going in Jan.8 whether I believe he should or not.

Daver
12-29-2007, 06:41 PM
Do they really?

I am too young to have seen him play, but I just don't see HOF in his numbers when you look at them relative to his era. In an ERA of the 4 man rotation, he only had (exactly) 20 wins twice. He had a 3.30 Career ERA and never struck out 200 hitters despite having 6 seasons with over 240 IP.

I don't see Pierce as HOF worthy - nor is Tiant.

There are lots of nice baseball players that don't belong in the HOF. I think we just listed four of them - Pierce, Tiant, Rice and Baines.

Take Drysdale out of the hall then, his numbers are very similar to Pierces.

Save McCuddy's
12-29-2007, 06:46 PM
Take Drysdale out of the hall then, his numbers are very similar to Pierces.

Read Bill James' "What Happened to the Hall of Fame?". He seriously debunks the myth of Drysdale. I'd like to see somebody do the retrospective stats on Pierce vs the Sox main penant competitors down the stretch that James did on Drysdale in that book.

Save McCuddy's
12-29-2007, 06:50 PM
I look at Rice as being only slightly better than Harold Baines. And I'd NEVER argue for the HOF for Harold - despite how much of a fan I was of him as a player.

I can't see how the two are even similar. Rice finished in the top 5 for MVP 7 times and top two in Slugging 5. They have the same number of career homers despite Harold having 1700 more AB's. Believe me, I love Harold -- and Bill Veeck for finding him in that mythical sandlot -- but he and Rice are very infrequently mentioned in the same sentence.

Tragg
12-29-2007, 08:22 PM
I have a beef with the football HoF over their refusal to give Gino Cappellitti a nibble.



He can get in line behind Rickey Jackson, who the HoF has never seriously considered. Jackson was a contemporary of Lawrence Taylor, who is considered the best linebacker in NFL history (no worse than top 3). Taylor and Jackson played virtually at the same time for a simlar number of seasons. Taylor has 6 more sacks and 1 more int than Jackson. Taylor made 10 pro bowls and Jackson made 6. He was competitive with one of the all time greats and belongs in the Hall of Fame.
The NFL hall is extremely political - moreso than baseball.

Daver
12-29-2007, 09:45 PM
Read Bill James' "What Happened to the Hall of Fame?". He seriously debunks the myth of Drysdale. I'd like to see somebody do the retrospective stats on Pierce vs the Sox main penant competitors down the stretch that James did on Drysdale in that book.

I won't be reading anything written by Bill James ever.

jabrch
12-29-2007, 11:31 PM
Take Drysdale out of the hall then, his numbers are very similar to Pierces.

There are a lot of guys I'd take out of the hall if I had that power - but just because Phil Rizzuto is in, doesn't mean we have to use him as the benchmark, do we?

jabrch
12-29-2007, 11:57 PM
I can't see how the two are even similar.

Thier career BA is .009 off. Their career OBP% is .004 off. Their SLG% was only .040 off. OPS+ is similar. RC/G is .2 off. Both were considered pretty good OFs when they were young.

They similar ball players in a lot of ways, including the fact that IMO neither belongs in the HOF.

Save McCuddy's
12-30-2007, 09:53 AM
I won't be reading anything written by Bill James ever.

I forgot -- too cool for school. I sometimes wonder why I post on this board.

Save McCuddy's
12-30-2007, 10:21 AM
Thier career BA is .009 off. Their career OBP% is .004 off. Their SLG% was only .040 off. OPS+ is similar. RC/G is .2 off. Both were considered pretty good OFs when they were young.

They similar ball players in a lot of ways, including the fact that IMO neither belongs in the HOF.

The routes that these two took to their similar career totals are dissimilar. In the first ten years of his career, Rice was a perennial fixture in the top 10 in BA, SLG, HR's and RBI. In Baines' first decade he was a very nice player who was consistent if not spectacular and slugged over .500 once in that span.

While Rice declined following his 11th season and retired shortly after, Baines slugged over .500 for the second time in his career in his 14th season. League-wide in the 1990's slugging averages were up as much as 10% versus the previous decade. Harold remained healthy and extended his career posting precipitously better numbers than he had in the 80's, but versus the league his performance remained at a nice but not top rated level. Despite tripling the number of seasons in which he slugged .500 or better in the final 8 years of his career, his only top ten finish in an offensive category over that stretch was a 10th in OPS. Nevertheless, the benefit of playing those 8 seasons with league-wide inflation in the offensive statistics helped Harold's career numbers rise to a level that can be viewed as similar to Rice's. But those career totals are the only similarities that I see.

jabrch
12-30-2007, 10:46 AM
Blah Blah Blah....But those career totals are the only similarities that I see.

So you do see a similarity - in their net career numbers? That's a far cry from not seeing any similariities.

Neither have the numbers to be in the HOF in my book.

jabrch
12-30-2007, 10:47 AM
I forgot -- too cool for school.

More likely uninterested in the topic. I really don't think Daver cares about being cool.

I sometimes wonder why I post on this board.

You know where the window is.

FarWestChicago
12-30-2007, 10:48 AM
I sometimes wonder why I post on this board.So do the rest of us. :D:

Daver
12-30-2007, 12:36 PM
I forgot -- too cool for school. I sometimes wonder why I post on this board.

Then don't. This isn't rocket surgery.

Save McCuddy's
12-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Then don't. This isn't rocket surgery.

You commented that a Pierce detractor better be willing to remove Drysdale from the HOF based on the similarities between their numbers.

I weighed in supporting your point with a study that Bill James did on Drysdale that further calls Drysdale's enshrinement into question. His numbers on the face of it are not slam dunk hallworthy so the speculation had been that the writers revered his competitiveness and that he must have won big games for his team. This was shown by James to not be the case in the aforementioned book, "What Happened to the Hall of Fame".

Call me thin skinned, but I didn't appreciate your "I will never read anything by Bill James" response to my post which was backing you up.

California Sox
12-30-2007, 12:48 PM
Rice should have been in the HOF a long time ago. He was such a feared power hitter. Yes, he did fade at about 34 or so but so what? He didn't have BALCO to help him.

He was a dominant player for 6-8 years, the second best player in baseball, next to Dave Parker, during that time.

And that's the problem. If Rice gets in, does Dave Parker get in? How about George Foster? Or Fred Lynn? Then you're looking at Baines, Eric Davis, Darryl Strawberry. Even guys like Ken Singleton compare favorably to Jim Rice. Hell, you can make a case that by the end of his career Maggs is going to have as good or better HoF resume than Rice.

Rice was a good, not great one-dimensional slugger with a very short peak. His best statistic, rbi, is one of the most overrated. He's one of the worst defensive outfielders I have ever seen. Personally, I liked the guy as a player well enough, but if he gets in how are you going to keep out every decent outfielder of the last thirty years?

Daver
12-30-2007, 06:55 PM
You commented that a Pierce detractor better be willing to remove Drysdale from the HOF based on the similarities between their numbers.

I weighed in supporting your point with a study that Bill James did on Drysdale that further calls Drysdale's enshrinement into question. His numbers on the face of it are not slam dunk hallworthy so the speculation had been that the writers revered his competitiveness and that he must have won big games for his team. This was shown by James to not be the case in the aforementioned book, "What Happened to the Hall of Fame".

Call me thin skinned, but I didn't appreciate your "I will never read anything by Bill James" response to my post which was backing you up.

You're right. you are thin skinned.

Oblong
12-30-2007, 09:58 PM
Check out Rice's Home/Road (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=riceji01) splits. A .043/.044/.081 batting line difference and a whopping .131 OPS disparity. If he had played a little better on the road he'd probably be in already.

Brian26
12-31-2007, 12:13 AM
I won't be reading anything written by Bill James ever.

I'm not a huge fan of Bill James' work either, but I admit that I enjoy reading about how he gradually aspired to where he is today. The story involves him posting ads in the yearly Sporting News baseball yearbooks in the early 80s for his fan newsletter, and its intertwined with the evolution of rotisserie baseball.

Whether or not you agree with this work, you have to respect a guy who went from being a fan to a front office position in MLB.

TommyJohn
12-31-2007, 09:31 AM
I'm not a huge fan of Bill James' work either, but I admit that I enjoy reading about how he gradually aspired to where he is today. The story involves him posting ads in the yearly Sporting News baseball yearbooks in the early 80s for his fan newsletter, and its intertwined with the evolution of rotisserie baseball.

Whether or not you agree with this work, you have to respect a guy who went from being a fan to a front office position in MLB.

I don't care for Bill James because he once wrote "in my opinion, people who
want Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame are equal to women who line up in the
courtroom to see the cute murderer." Sorry, but that ridiculously over-
reaching hyperbole just drvies me nuts. It tells me everything I need to know
about that insufferable *******. And no, I don't support Joe Jackson for the
Hall of Fame either.

Save McCuddy's
12-31-2007, 11:35 AM
Check out Rice's Home/Road (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=riceji01) splits. A .043/.044/.081 batting line difference and a whopping .131 OPS disparity. If he had played a little better on the road he'd probably be in already.

Great call. Take a look at Yastremski and Boggs as well. Incredible what Fenway can do to boost a hall of fame resume.

Oblong
12-31-2007, 12:43 PM
Great call. Take a look at Yastremski and Boggs as well. Incredible what Fenway can do to boost a hall of fame resume.

wow, I didn't realize it was so dramatic for them too. In Yaz's case I still see a HOF career. With Boggs, I see a guy who suddenly becomes a little questionable. I think it's somewhat useful when guys play in parks perceived as extreme is to just take their road stats and double them. It's just one factor in the analysis because you still have to give them credit for what they did at home, it is half their career.

I did the same thing with existing HOfers of varying degree, randomly picked, Mays/Musial/Kaline/Sandberg/Mantle and the only other one who stood out with such home/away disparity was, not surprisingly, Sandberg.

PennStater98r
12-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Had to weigh in on this one.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1731522#post1731522

Maybe Rice belongs in the Hall of Really Really Really Good for Five or Six Years (HoRRRGfFoSY) - and I am not even sure about that, but the Hall of Fame was intended for Cobb, Ruth, Matthewson, Young, W. Johnson, Mays and Aaron. Rice... no.

TheVulture
01-02-2008, 02:27 AM
wow, I didn't realize it was so dramatic for them too. In Yaz's case I still see a HOF career. With Boggs, I see a guy who suddenly becomes a little questionable. I think it's somewhat useful when guys play in parks perceived as extreme is to just take their road stats and double them. It's just one factor in the analysis because you still have to give them credit for what they did at home, it is half their career.

I did the same thing with existing HOfers of varying degree, randomly picked, Mays/Musial/Kaline/Sandberg/Mantle and the only other one who stood out with such home/away disparity was, not surprisingly, Sandberg.

They don't have splits for Mel Ott, but I've read he hit something like 350 of his 511 HRs in the Polo Grounds where it was around 275 down the lines. Now that is park effect!

jabrch
01-22-2008, 06:49 PM
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/01/listen_buster_r.php


Lederer does a great job explaining why Jim Rice doesn't belong in the HOF...

santo=dorf
01-22-2008, 07:11 PM
Thier career BA is .009 off. Their career OBP% is .004 off. Their SLG% was only .040 off. OPS+ is similar. RC/G is .2 off. Both were considered pretty good OFs when they were young.

They similar ball players in a lot of ways, including the fact that IMO neither belongs in the HOF.
:o:

Aren't you the same nut who goes out of his way to slam sabermetrics stats? What are you doing here using these two stats?

Well, I guess it fits in well seeing that you called the 2006 White Sox season a "success," and "OK season," and "not a success." :rolleyes:

ode to veeck
01-23-2008, 12:36 AM
They don't have splits for Mel Ott, but I've read he hit something like 350 of his 511 HRs in the Polo Grounds where it was around 275 down the lines. Now that is park effect!

But he had such style as he picked up his front foot when he swung

Fenway
01-23-2008, 02:15 AM
from Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe

Memo to 30-year-old stat geeks combing through Jim Rice's numbers: Get out of the house and look at the sky one time. I know personal contact frightens you, but let go of OPS for a moment and try talking to someone who saw Rice play, or better yet, played against him.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/01/16/observations_that_cant_wait/?page=full


The people who played against Rice all agree he should be in.........that should count for something.

TommyJohn
01-23-2008, 06:41 AM
from Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe

Memo to 30-year-old stat geeks combing through Jim Rice's numbers: Get out of the house and look at the sky one time. I know personal contact frightens you, but let go of OPS for a moment and try talking to someone who saw Rice play, or better yet, played against him.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/01/16/observations_that_cant_wait/?page=full


The people who played against Rice all agree he should be in.........that should count for something.

This from the guy who made a name for himself promoting a nonsensical "curse."

jabrch
01-23-2008, 08:14 AM
from Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe

Memo to 30-year-old stat geeks combing through Jim Rice's numbers: Get out of the house and look at the sky one time. I know personal contact frightens you, but let go of OPS for a moment and try talking to someone who saw Rice play, or better yet, played against him.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/01/16/observations_that_cant_wait/?page=full


The people who played against Rice all agree he should be in.........that should count for something.

First, Shaughnessy is a douchnozzle.

Second, who the hell he to say what the people who Rice played against ALL agree on?

Third, No - it doesn't. The BBWA votes on him. Not his peers. When peers vote, we get guys in via the veterans committee who we almost all don't believe belong there.

Oblong
01-23-2008, 09:02 AM
from Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe

Memo to 30-year-old stat geeks combing through Jim Rice's numbers: Get out of the house and look at the sky one time. I know personal contact frightens you, but let go of OPS for a moment and try talking to someone who saw Rice play, or better yet, played against him.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/01/16/observations_that_cant_wait/?page=full


The people who played against Rice all agree he should be in.........that should count for something.

Is he honestly calling the HOF voters sabergeeks? Quite the contrary. To be a voter you have to be a 10 or 15 year member of the BBWAA. It's not the "geeks" keeping him out it's the old fuddie duddies who "know it all". In fact Rice's vote totals have increased as the saber methodology of player evaluations has gotten more mainstream so he's got it exactly backwards.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 01:49 PM
Hmm... 65% say Rice does not belong in the Hall. Methinks a number approaching 65% is just sick of Red Sox related threads. In the context of his era, Jim Rice belongs in the Hall. He was arguably the best player in the game for ten years. Translate his numbers to another era, there would be no doubt.

BTW - 29th all-time in MVP voting shares according to baseball-reference

fquaye149
01-23-2008, 02:05 PM
Hmm... 65% say Rice does not belong in the Hall. Methinks a number approaching 65% is just sick of Red Sox related threads. In the context of his era, Jim Rice belongs in the Hall. He was arguably the best player in the game for ten years. Translate his numbers to another era, there would be no doubt.

BTW - 29th all-time in MVP voting shares according to baseball-reference

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong that Rice belongs in the hall. I don't think he does, and it has nothing to do with Boston.

However, talking about his "era" as if that's a point for him is a little bit off. Rice played in the 70's and the 80's--both fine eras for hitting.

for instance,

League Batting Average:
1975: .258
1980: .269
1985: .261
1990: .259
1995: .270
2000: .276
2005: .268

That doesn't PROVE anything, per se, about the era in which Rice played, but I just mean to suggest that Rice's era wasn't particularly known for low hitting numbers...

jabrch
01-23-2008, 02:50 PM
Hmm... 65% say Rice does not belong in the Hall. Methinks a number approaching 65% is just sick of Red Sox related threads. In the context of his era, Jim Rice belongs in the Hall. He was arguably the best player in the game for ten years. Translate his numbers to another era, there would be no doubt.

BTW - 29th all-time in MVP voting shares according to baseball-reference

He's on his very last chance to be voted in by the BBWA. Are they sick of Red Sox threads too?

He will probably garner enough of the sympathy vote to make it in next year - but it is just another move to weaken the overall talent level in the HOF. Some day, Ron Santo will have his bust sitting next to Jim Rice. I hope those two are smiling together.

The more pretty good guys make the HOF, either by BBWA or the veterans, the less interested I am in the HOF. The museum part of Cooperstown is awesome. But the volume of players in it who just aren't amongst the all-time greats really is sad.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 03:08 PM
He's on his very last chance to be voted in by the BBWA. Are they sick of Red Sox threads too?

...

The more pretty good guys make the HOF, either by BBWA or the veterans, the less interested I am in the HOF.

Well, over 60% voted to put him in...and Jim Rice was far far above "pretty good."

jabrch
01-23-2008, 03:17 PM
Well, over 60% voted to put him in


Which isn't enough. Good for the HOF and the BBWA.

...and Jim Rice was far far above "pretty good."

probably equally as far as he is from truly being worthy of having his bust in Cooperstown.

I look at guys in the following buckets...

HOF

Pretty Good

Average

Below Average

Bad

So to me - Rice is a "Pretty Good" ballplayer.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 03:20 PM
However, talking about his "era" as if that's a point for him is a little bit off. Rice played in the 70's and the 80's--both fine eras for hitting.



yeah, I suppose you're right - still, there weren't more than 1 or 2 guys who put up the kind of seasons he did during that time. Hitting .300 with 40 homeruns in the mid 70s-early 80s was very rare to say the least.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 03:29 PM
Which isn't enough. Good for the HOF and the BBWA.



probably equally as far as he is from truly being worthy of having his bust in Cooperstown.



My point was that over 60% vs. 35% on this site, given the history of unrest on the board re: a certain team's news being constantly posted by a certain member seemed to indicate perhaps a voter bias on this board. I wouldve expected closer to a 50/50 split.

Hey, I'm not a huge Jim Rice supporter and I can see looking at his overall numbers how one could conclude he's not a hall of famer. On the other hand, looking at his individual seasons, within context and considering he was at the time considered perhaps the best player in the league, I personally think he should be in. I mean 6 top 5 MVP finishes is a pretty good indication of his dominance. Really, I don't feel too strongly one way or other to tell you the truth.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 03:54 PM
I mean 6 top 5 MVP finishes is a pretty good indication of his dominance.

If MVP meant much - then yes
HOFers in bold
Order of voting


1975 MVP
Lynn
Mayberry
Rice

1976 (not top 25)
Munson
Brett
Rivers
McRae
Carew
Chambliss
Otis
Campbell
May
etc.

1977
Carew
Cowens
Singleton
Rice

1978
Rice
Guidry
Hisle
Otis
Staub
Nettles
Baylor

1979
Baylor
Singleton
Brett
Lynn
Rice

1980 (not top 25)
Brett
Reggie
Goose
Wilson
Cooper
Murray
Cerone
Quis
Stone
etc.

1981 (not top 25)
Fingers
Henderson
Evans
Armas
Lansford
Winfield
Cooper
Gooose
Paciorek

1982 (ranked 19th)
Yount
Murray
Decinces
McRae
Cooper
Reggie
Evans
Thomas
Quis
then about 50/50 between HOFers and Parish/Downing/Wilson type players
Rice

1983
Ripken
Murray
Fisk
Rice
(followed by 6 of 7 non HOFers)

1984
Hernandez
Hrbek
Quis
Murray
Mattingly
Gibson
Armas
Winfield
Trammell
Wilson
Evans
Davis
Baines
Kingman
Rice

1985 (not top 25 with 7 of the top 25 HOFers vs 18 non)

1986
Clemens (I know - but for arguements sake lets say he would be)
Mattingly
Rice
followed by 19 guys - only 2 who are HOFers


MVP Voting means very little.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:11 PM
If MVP meant much - then yes



MVP Voting means very little.


The only guy I see on that list 6 times is Rice, though.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 04:19 PM
The only guy I see on that list 6 times is Rice, though.

So we know he is consistent - and he played during that time period we selected - the years that he was a HOF candidate. Neither of those make him an HOFer.

I believe that there are lots of guys who were top 25 6 times or more who don't belong in the Hall. I don't have time to look it up...but I'm sure there are plenty.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:19 PM
Also, Rice ranks 29th all-time in career MVP shares, according to baseball-reference.com. Amongst those in the top 50 that are eligible for the HOF, only Rice and Dave Parker are not in the hall of fame. And looking at the list, it seems the higher up you get, the greater the player (imagine that) - so maybe there is some correlation.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:21 PM
I believe that there are lots of guys who were top 25 6 times or more who don't belong in the Hall. I don't have time to look it up...but I'm sure there are plenty.

Based on career MVP shares cited above, I do not believe that possibly could be true.

BTW, the guys ineligible in the top 50: Rose, Bonds, Pujols, Thomas, Griffey, Ramirez, Piazza, Guerrerro and Bagwell.

Looking at the HOFers on the list, the only guy I've heard argued doesn't belong is Puckett, but usually the opposing side wins that argument.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:33 PM
I believe that there are lots of guys who were top 25 6 times or more who don't belong in the Hall.

Top 5, not 25

jabrch
01-23-2008, 04:42 PM
Top 5, not 25

We can slice it however we want I suppose. I still look at the people on the list of MVP candidates and I don't think HOF.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:42 PM
Umm, Bell was top 5 three times, and Carter twice - i didn't bother looking up the rest.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 04:43 PM
Umm, Bell was top 5 three times, and Carter twice - i didn't bother looking up the rest.

I was looking at top 25...not top 5. That's an arbitrary selection to me. My point was that MVP votes don't mean much when looking at the HOF. If that's the case, let's compare Rice to guys who BELONG in the HOF, not who don't belong.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:45 PM
We can slice it however we want I suppose. I still look at the people on the list of MVP candidates and I don't think HOF.

There's quite a difference between top 25 and top 5 - there is no one who was top 5 six times and not in the HOF unless baseball-reference's career MVP share method is seriously flawed. Like I said, the only non-HOFer on the list is Dave Parker, and he was top 5 four times.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:46 PM
I was looking at top 25...not top 5. That's an arbitrary selection to me. My point was that MVP votes don't mean much when looking at the HOF. If that's the case, let's compare Rice to guys who BELONG in the HOF, not who don't belong.

That's what I was doing when I provided the list that featured nothing but HOFers, future HOFers and those that would be HOFers if not banned from baseball.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 04:47 PM
baseball-reference's career MVP share method

Not flawed - I'm sure it is 100% accurate and measures exactly what it purports to measure.

But that doesn't make someone HOF worthy.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 04:51 PM
Not flawed - I'm sure it is 100% accurate and measures exactly what it purports to measure.

But that doesn't make someone HOF worthy.

True, but it does mean that there aren't loads of players who have been top 5 six times that are not Hall of Fame caliber, as you contended. In fact, I can deduce, if the method is not flawed, that there is no one in the history of the game, other than Rice in your opinion, who has done that who is not HOF worthy, considering every other player higher than Rice on that list is a sure-fire HOFer.

PennStater98r
01-23-2008, 04:54 PM
He was arguably the best player in the game for ten years.

This is just a ridiculously silly statement.

Which ten years are we talking about - first of all? I am going to assume 1975-1986 (okay 12 years). I would like to now run off a list of hitters that were - without a doubt - better than Rice over this span (those in bold were better sluggers).

Rod Carew
George Brett
Reggie Jackson
Willie Stargell
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Johnny Bench
Carlton Fisk
Fred Lynn (not in the Hall)
Paul Molitor
Rickey Henderson
Eddie Murray
Tim Raines
Dave Winfield
Take a look at the following players as well who had great runs for a 10 year span in that era, but didn't have the careers it takes to be in the Hall:

George Foster
Dwight Evans
Andre Dawson
Steve Garvey
Dale Murphy

Look at the list above of those that are not in the Hall - and tell me why we pine for Rice to be in the Hall while staying silent on the above? George Foster - everyone talks about Rice's magical 1978 season - when the actual MVP that year should have been Guidry. IF we go back a year to 1977, Foster had a much better year than Rice did in 1978.

Dwight Evans - okay, so his numbers are not quite as good from 1975 to 1986 as Rice's, but by the time we get to the later part of Rice's career, Evans is starting to come into his own as one of the superstars of those mid-Eighties BoSox teams. That's not to mention that his career totals look very much like Rice's. Both don't deserve in.

Andre Dawson - sure, we're going to see more support for him over the next couple of years. His numbers are very similar to Rice's, but Dawson brought speed to the game as well as gold gloves.

Steve Garvey - here's a guy that had a great ten year run. From 1973 to 1985, he had 7 seasons with a .300 or better Avg. He had 200 or more hits six times, and 175+ another four times on top of that. Before Cal Ripken Jr, there was Garvey chasing Gehrig's record, and if I am not mistaken, he does hold the record for consecutive games played on the Senior Circuit. I am by no means saying Garvey deserves in, but where was his support. I'll say this. If he wore a Cubs, Yankees or Red Sox uniform - we'd have been talking about Garvey 5 years ago.

Dale Murphy - What's said above for the other players - oh and he won 2 MVPs (back-to-back).

PennStater98r
01-23-2008, 04:59 PM
I think one last thing to consider is this whole silly concept that we should only inspect the best 10 year run of Rice. When he had clunkers of years - they were horrible, and he was not that old when he retired. Pitchers figured him how and his swing slowed down. That's not to mention that he really only had one and one only "great" season. The rest were very very very good! For ten years he was very, very, very good. If he'd done that for another 5 on top of that, I say vote him in. Where do I get in line? He didn't though, and he doesn't deserve it.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 05:59 PM
This is just a ridiculously silly statement.

I would like to now run off a list of hitters that were - without a doubt - better than Rice over this span (those in bold were better sluggers).




Ok I concede, that was a ridiculous statement, but a lot of those guys are questionable during that period as far a comparison to Rice, but, guys like Schmidt, Brett, Bench were obviously better players.

Other than Rice's last 2 years, I don't see any clunkers though - he looked pretty solid year in year out to me.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 06:16 PM
he looked pretty solid year in year out to me.

That's true.

I'd vote for him for the Hall of Pretty Solid

Rice for HoPS!!!!

PennStater98r
01-23-2008, 06:18 PM
Ok I concede, that was a ridiculous statement, but a lot of those guys are questionable during that period as far a comparison to Rice, but, guys like Schmidt, Brett, Bench were obviously better players.

Other than Rice's last 2 years, I don't see any clunkers though - he looked pretty solid year in year out to me.

Yeah - he had nearly all solid years during that span, but when you look at 1974, 1981, 1984 and 1986-1988, he just wasn't very good. I didn't even put up numbers that a "good" player would - much less a HoF player. For a "slugger," 441 (at 28), 467 (at 31) and 408, 409 and 344 as slg% just don't do it for me when he's supposed to be the best slugger of his era (or close to it). He didn't get sick. He didn't have a career-ending injury. He just got bad fast.

BadBobbyJenks
01-23-2008, 06:25 PM
But he was the most feared hitter in the game!:rolleyes:

Oblong
01-23-2008, 06:41 PM
Put Albert Belle in as soon as you are done putting Jim Rice in.

soxinem1
01-23-2008, 07:32 PM
His crap attitude with fans and media, not to mention lacking the numbers have me say NO.

soxinem1
01-23-2008, 07:35 PM
This is just a ridiculously silly statement.

Which ten years are we talking about - first of all? I am going to assume 1975-1986 (okay 12 years). I would like to now run off a list of hitters that were - without a doubt - better than Rice over this span (those in bold were better sluggers).

Rod Carew
George Brett
Reggie Jackson
Willie Stargell
Pete Rose
Mike Schmidt
Johnny Bench
Carlton Fisk
Fred Lynn (not in the Hall)
Paul Molitor
Rickey Henderson
Eddie Murray
Tim Raines
Dave Winfield
Take a look at the following players as well who had great runs for a 10 year span in that era, but didn't have the careers it takes to be in the Hall:

George Foster
Dwight Evans
Andre Dawson
Steve Garvey
Dale Murphy

Look at the list above of those that are not in the Hall - and tell me why we pine for Rice to be in the Hall while staying silent on the above? George Foster - everyone talks about Rice's magical 1978 season - when the actual MVP that year should have been Guidry. IF we go back a year to 1977, Foster had a much better year than Rice did in 1978.

Dwight Evans - okay, so his numbers are not quite as good from 1975 to 1986 as Rice's, but by the time we get to the later part of Rice's career, Evans is starting to come into his own as one of the superstars of those mid-Eighties BoSox teams. That's not to mention that his career totals look very much like Rice's. Both don't deserve in.

Andre Dawson - sure, we're going to see more support for him over the next couple of years. His numbers are very similar to Rice's, but Dawson brought speed to the game as well as gold gloves.

Steve Garvey - here's a guy that had a great ten year run. From 1973 to 1985, he had 7 seasons with a .300 or better Avg. He had 200 or more hits six times, and 175+ another four times on top of that. Before Cal Ripken Jr, there was Garvey chasing Gehrig's record, and if I am not mistaken, he does hold the record for consecutive games played on the Senior Circuit. I am by no means saying Garvey deserves in, but where was his support. I'll say this. If he wore a Cubs, Yankees or Red Sox uniform - we'd have been talking about Garvey 5 years ago.

Dale Murphy - What's said above for the other players - oh and he won 2 MVPs (back-to-back).

Your argument is very valid, but when borderline HOF players like Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda were shoved in, blocking Rice is harder.

jabrch
01-23-2008, 08:32 PM
Your argument is very valid, but when borderline HOF players like Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda were shoved in, blocking Rice is harder.

My problem is that you are saying that he should make it in because there are other players who aren't deserving who are in. I don't believe the HOF should compound an old mistake by using that as a new lowered bar for entry.

soxinem1
01-24-2008, 12:02 PM
My problem is that you are saying that he should make it in because there are other players who aren't deserving who are in. I don't believe the HOF should compound an old mistake by using that as a new lowered bar for entry.

Not at all. I don't think any of those guys should be in. But by Perez and Cepeda being in, you logically weaken the argument for keeping Rice out by allowing those two entry. Besides, if Rice would have played in MIL or with us, he would not even be discussed.

The HOF is not an All-Star team, and who says that every year someone should be elected? Good, very good, or even excellent players should not be in. It is for those who performed on a superior level for most, if not all, of their careers.

jabrch
01-24-2008, 12:11 PM
Not at all. I don't think any of those guys should be in. But by Perez and Cepeda being in, you logically weaken the argument for keeping Rice out by allowing those two entry.

I completely disagree. It is not good logic at all to find the weakest link and use that as the mesuring stick.

Evaluate Jim Rice based not on Perez or Cepeda, but based on Jim Rice.

Doesn't have 400 HRs, much less 500
Doesn't have 2500 Hits, much less 3000
avg/obp/slg are all good - but not legendary great enough to overcome the lack of overall raw stats from essentially having only a 14 year career
Played in a notoriouos hitters park - and was significantly less effective on the road
Just doesn't look like what I want in the HOF. The fact that he is better than Cepeda and Perez doesn't mean much to me.

On the bright side, he is #6 all time in career GIDPs despite having 3000-4500 fewer ABs than the 5 guys ahead of him!!!!

Really good ball player - but there are a lot of guys who are equally as good as him and not HOFers... I hope the BBWA has the intestinal fortitude to not give him the sympathy vote.

BadBobbyJenks
01-24-2008, 09:50 PM
Cooperstown is going to be come the hall of very good and not fame if they continue to let borderline/undeserving canidates in because of lobbying.

Jim Rice the people of Boston have obviously turned you into some sort of folk hero, so you can take pride in that, but you do not belong in the hall of fame.

Daver
01-24-2008, 10:01 PM
Cooperstown is going to be come the hall of very good and not fame if they continue to let borderline/undeserving canidates in because of lobbying.

Jim Rice the people of Boston have obviously turned you into some sort of folk hero, so you can take pride in that, but you do not belong in the hall of fame.

Cooperstown is a joke and has been for years.