But we're talking about baseball here. And it generally has the highest standards.
Actually, you have me all wrong - I actually like Jim Rice. Think he was a very good hitter. Both respected and felt sorry for him being the first African-American baseball star in a still-racist Boston - and even more racist New England media, which vilified him and helped make him the surly guy he became.
I just happen to think he was a one-dimensional player and that his one dimension was not good enough to earn him a place in Cooperstown. As far as I'm concerned, he falls a little shy of that.
If, for example, you ignore Barry Bonds' PED usage and his early-career excellence in the outfield (range-wise, not his noodle arm), he has the kind of offensive numbers that constitute a great one-dimensional player. Manny is the same. Prolific hitters with great batting eyes and prodigious power. Jim Rice comes up short in my book.
Honestly, my not supporting Jim Rice's HoF credentials really has nothing to do with a dislike of the man. I never believed the bullshit that came out of Boston and New York about his personality, etc. I just thought he was a limited ballplayer.
Worst because I watched him play and because of what I read about him in an historical context and because he has a poor range factor and a weak-ish, inaccurate arm.
He was, at his very best, an average leftfielder. And that's not a compliment.
Again, read what I posted. Joe Carter does not belong in the Hall of Fame. And neither does Jim Rice.
Whether his position is traditionally one that has good defensive players isn't the point. The point, in case you still haven't caught on, is that he was a poor defender and that his batting alone should not quite be enough to get him into the HoF. The numbers just don't add up. Add to that a lack of basestealing and no postseason pedigree to speak of, and his case is a very weak one.
Gold Gloves, unless one's name is Ozzie Smith and the like, are meaningless (see: Palmeiro, Rafael - 1B GG in 1999.) I'm talking about his real defensive ability. There was only three years where Rice had over 300 put outs - the bare minimum for an above-average fielder.
Proof please. I have NEVER read anything that suggested Jim Rice was anything more than an average fielder at best and a defensive liability at his worst.
What do his teammates' defensive abilities have to do with Jim Rice's shortcomings in the field? (And btw, Yaz was far from a Gold Glover by the time Jim Ed came around.)
Thank you for bringing up Lou Brock. Overrated player who also doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - minimal power, didn't get on base enough or score enough runs as a leadoff hitter, surprisingly poor fielder for a "fast" player. Tim Raines is twice the ballplayer that Brock was and he can't get a sniff (double entendre intended) at Cooperstown.
Please tell me where I compared Jim Rice to Dave Kingman? Exaggeration is not helping your cause... lol!
See above for Manny. He can be a decent outfielder when he concentrates. Unfortunately, he is a dolt much of the time. But man, can he ever rake. He's always knocked the cover off the ball and been a playoff performer as well. Best right-handed hitter in the last 40 years.
Who does he stack up against? Fellow Hall-of-Very-Good players? Just because the Tony Perez's, Kirby Pucketts and Lou Brocks are in doesn't mean Jim Rice should be.
Like I said, I personally believe Rice's "character" issues were the result of the nasty New England media and racist Red Sox fans of the times.
There's hope for you yet.
Although I think the Hawk's also a borderline HoFer too - just a bit better than Rice. He just happened to be a 5-tool player, something Jim Rice never was.
