Gossage in, No Rice!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Numbers are one thing and how one fares against his contemporaries is another. I wouldn't care if baseball went through a stretch where the top home run hitter hit only 10 per year. If those 10 were enough to lead the league and over the course of a decade, the top home run hitter only hit 100 homers, he's getting my vote. That's what Rice was. He was the most feared hitter in the game for over an extended period of time. So what if he didn't play long enough to reach the so called "magic" numbers. He played long enough to prove that for what was at least an eight-year stretch, he was the most feared hitter in the game. To me, that means more than the final numbers.

Using this logic Dick Allen belongs too because his 8 year stretch is better than Rice's especially in light of the fact that some of it was accomplished in the modern day deadball era.

Blyleven belongs.

He wont get in.
Switched teams too many times.
Always whining.
Somewhat of an a-hole.

But the guy had one of the best curves
ever. And he was a big game player.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Blyleven belongs.

He wont get in.
Switched teams too many times.
Always whining.
Somewhat of an a-hole.

But the guy had one of the best curves
ever. And he was a big game player.

He had the misfortune to play for mostly bad teams. He has the numbers but W/L is such a big stat for thw writers that they dont see the rest. If he played now he would be a $18 million a year pitcher. He had 242 complete games. Lifetime ERA of 3.31 despite pitching an average of 245 innings a year. Hell if he only knew he had to pitch 6 or 7 like todays guys his ERA would probably be under 3.00. He did strike out 3700 guys. Like you said he was a great post season pitcher for the few good teams he did pitch for.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He had the misfortune to play for mostly bad teams. He has the numbers but W/L is such a big stat for thw writers that they dont see the rest. If he played now he would be a $18 million a year pitcher. He had 242 complete games. Lifetime ERA of 3.31 despite pitching an average of 245 innings a year. Hell if he only knew he had to pitch 6 or 7 like todays guys his ERA would probably be under 3.00. He did strike out 3700 guys. Like you said he was a great post season pitcher for the few good teams he did pitch for.

And I guarantee he believes more than
everything you wrote and is
bitter.

But I can still see the huge hook
that guy could throw.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He had the misfortune to play for mostly bad teams. He has the numbers but W/L is such a big stat for thw writers that they dont see the rest. If he played now he would be a $18 million a year pitcher. He had 242 complete games. Lifetime ERA of 3.31 despite pitching an average of 245 innings a year. Hell if he only knew he had to pitch 6 or 7 like todays guys his ERA would probably be under 3.00. He did strike out 3700 guys. Like you said he was a great post season pitcher for the few good teams he did pitch for.

True Story!!

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Blyleven belongs.

He wont get in.
Switched teams too many times.
Always whining.
Somewhat of an a-hole.

But the guy had one of the best curves
ever. And he was a big game player.

his best seasons were the late 70's with the pirates.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Using this logic Dick Allen belongs too because his 8 year stretch is better than Rice's especially in light of the fact that some of it was accomplished in the modern day deadball era.

# of top five finishes in the MVP voting:
Allen-2 (won once)
Rice-6 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in HR's:
Allen-4 (2)
Rice-5 (3)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in RBI:
Allen-3 (1)
Rice-7 (2)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in extra base hits:
Allen-6 (3)
Rice-5 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in total bases:
Allen-3 (1)
Rice-5 (4)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in hits:
Allen-1 (0)
Rice-5 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in batting average:
Allen-3 (0)
Rice-4 (0)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in slugging %:
Allen-7 (3)
Rice-5 (2)

I don't know that Allen's stretch was better than Rice's was. I rank them more among their peers than among players from different years. Perhaps Allen's standings, while very good, weren't higher because he competed against better players. That could be. But I don't think that Allen was more dominant among his peers than Rice was over his and that's what I look at.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

# of top five finishes in the MVP voting:
Allen-2 (won once)
Rice-6 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in HR's:
Allen-4 (2)
Rice-5 (3)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in RBI:
Allen-3 (1)
Rice-7 (2)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in extra base hits:
Allen-6 (3)
Rice-5 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in total bases:
Allen-3 (1)
Rice-5 (4)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in hits:
Allen-1 (0)
Rice-5 (1)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in batting average:
Allen-3 (0)
Rice-4 (0)

# of seasons finishing in the top five in slugging %:
Allen-7 (3)
Rice-5 (2)

I don't know that Allen's stretch was better than Rice's was. I rank them more among their peers than among players from different years. Perhaps Allen's standings, while very good, weren't higher because he competed against better players. That could be. But I don't think that Allen was more dominant among his peers than Rice was over his and that's what I look at.

You made my point because there is very little difference between the 2 and Allen is not a Hall of Famer. The "feared" hitter crap is just that. Albert Belle was "feared" and not just because he may run you over in his SUV, and no one is stumping for him. Rice's numbers were aided by the Park he played in and they are barely passable as is. The fact that some questionable guys got in shouldn't just open the floodgates anymore than the fact that modern guys were taking steroids makes older players any better or more worthy. Pretty soon some nutjob will be saying that Steve Garvey should be in. The inclusion of Rice may make him correct.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You made my point because there is very little difference between the 2 and Allen is not a Hall of Famer. The "feared" hitter crap is just that. Albert Belle was "feared" and not just because he may run you over in his SUV, and no one is stumping for him. Rice's numbers were aided by the Park he played in and they are barely passable as is. The fact that some questionable guys got in shouldn't just open the floodgates anymore than the fact that modern guys were taking steroids makes older players any better or more worthy. Pretty soon some nutjob will be saying that Steve Garvey should be in. The inclusion of Rice may make him correct.

good point on Belle. From '93 to '99 he was most likely the best offensive player in the game for a 7 year period. Because he was completely insane, people forget how good he really was. Not a hall of famer or even close though. MO Vaughn getting the MVP in 1995 instead of him was one of the biggest crocks in MLB award history and there have been many of them. Rice never had 7 years like Belle however.

[King Glorious]

Well, for me, it's not about just the numbers. It's more important to me how a player fares against his peers. As I mentioned earlier, if next year, the leading HR hitter in baseball finishes with only 10, nobody will be rushing to call it a great season. But if the runner up only comes up with four, it would show that the guy with 10 was completely dominant. That's what Rice was to me. If he had only one or two seasons, even three, where he was the best hitter in the game, that would be different. His stretch was long enough for me though, to be convinced that he earned his spot.

What I will say though is that while he would get my vote, Rice probably shouldn't be in the Hall. I know that sounds inconsistent but here's why. Just as in horse racing or any other hall of fame vote, I think that if a candidate has to be debated on this much, he shouldn't be in. I think the only entrants to any hall of fame should be candidates that there is no need for debate over. If a 75% level can't be reached the first time, that's it. When Gwynn and Ripken finished, there was no debate. When Alex Rodriguez finishes (assuming no steroid stuff comes out about him), there will be no debate. If there has to be debate and convincing to get to the required level of votes, chances are that you shouldn't be in.

Side note. Isn't it interesting that if the steroid stuff keeps Clemens and Bonds out, it would mean that arguably the best hitter (Rose), the best power hitter (Bonds) and the best pitcher (Clemens) in major league history.......would all NOT be in the hall?

[horseofcourse]

I dont' think anyone would call rose the "best" hitter. Hitting wise you have a plethora to choose from...Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Babe ruth, even Tony Gwinn were all better "hitters" than Rose. Rose was simply unique...in my opinion the best complimentary player of all time is how I would describe him. He was never even the best player on his own team in his entire career. When he came up...Frank Robinson was certainly the team's headliner...then in the big Red machine days I would certainly argue that Bench and Morgan were "better" players than him...and in his Phillie days, Mike Schmidt was certainly the headliner. It is certainly a shame what happened to him as I don't think there is a better example of anyone in any sport who got more out of himself than Pete Rose. HE has the most hits...but no way is he even arguably the best hitter. Certainly one of the best ever despite all that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I dont' think anyone would call rose the "best" hitter. Hitting wise you have a plethora to choose from...Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Babe ruth, even Tony Gwinn were all better "hitters" than Rose. Rose was simply unique...in my opinion the best complimentary player of all time is how I would describe him. He was never even the best player on his own team in his entire career. When he came up...Frank Robinson was certainly the team's headliner...then in the big Red machine days I would certainly argue that Bench and Morgan were "better" players than him...and in his Phillie days, Mike Schmidt was certainly the headliner. It is certainly a shame what happened to him as I don't think there is a better example of anyone in any sport who got more out of himself than Pete Rose. HE has the most hits...but no way is he even arguably the best hitter. Certainly one of the best ever despite all that.

And he likes to send it in at Turfway...how bad can he be?