Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, August 24, 2009

Futility Infielder: Jaffe: Why Does Jim Rice Hate America?

Weeee…More fun than Drew Friedman dropping kookie Bedazzlers all day!

The completion of Rice’s tedious march to the Hall of Fame — as the most horseshit selection the writers have made in a long, long time — doesn’t qualify him to start bashing players of the current generation. At least not without providing an accompanying visual of an incontinent old man yelling at the teenagers doing donuts on his lawn.

The YES Network broadcast team had fun bashing Rice during Friday night’s Yankees-Red Sox blowout. Smooth Ken Singleton, whose nature in the booth always seems to be an extension of the joie de vivre of a guy coming off a 2-for-4 night, took serious umbrage at Rice’s statements as both a contemporary of Rice and observer of the bulk of Jeter’s career. Michael Kay spoke of an old Red Sox yearbook in which Rice was quoted as saying that his favorite thing about playing in the majors was the 1st and 15th days of the month, when he got his paycheck. Awkward.

Rice, never known for his charm with the press, has claimed he was misquoted, but even if he didn’t mean to tar Jeter with the same brush he used on Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, his comments about players in his day being either somehow morally superior or simply better than those of today despite improvements in training and nutrition doesn’t ring true. Put a sock in it, dude.

Repoz Posted: August 24, 2009 at 03:42 PM | 119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: announcers, hall of fame, history, media, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2009 at 03:56 PM (#3303328)
The more shitt Jim Rice talks about Derek Jeter, the more forgiving I become of his place in the Hall of Fame.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 03:59 PM (#3303331)
has claimed he was misquoted,

How was he misquoted? Was he talking about Shawn Jeter?
   3. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:07 PM (#3303342)
Shawn Jeter only looks out for one guy...Shawn Jeter. He's almost as selfish and greedy as Aurelio Rodriguez and Mario Ramirez were.
   4. SoSH U at work Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:09 PM (#3303347)
How was he misquoted? Was he talking about Shawn Jeter?


Actually, two other publications that covered the event didn't contain disparaging remarks about Jeter or Arod from Rice. Even the one that was linked here didn't really have any direct quotes bashing Jeter, but a convulted, ellipsis-filled paragraph.

I generally treat the "I was misquoted" remarks with appropriate disbelief, but Rice may have a case here.

The completion of Rice’s tedious march to the Hall of Fame — as the most horseshit selection the writers have made in a long, long time


I'll take Sutter for this honor.
   5. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:18 PM (#3303360)
I'll take Sutter too for that honor.

I know the writers were basically wetting their pants about his incredible peak, and his great influence on the game, but all I see is a guy who was basically Duane Ward or Scot Shields, except with a full career in the closer role.

Rice, however, is a close second.
   6. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:22 PM (#3303367)
Considering Jim's non-relationship with the local media it was a bizarre experience for me to witness the strong push by the Boston crowd for Rice's induction. Rice was uniformly depicted as a money-grubbing, standoffish, somewhat lazy guy during his career.

The transition from THAT to his current depiction of a player who caused grown men to swoon or soil themselves upon his mere entrance onto the field of play is one of the more astonishing image evolutions........
   7. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:25 PM (#3303370)
Rice was uniformly depicted as a money-grubbing, standoffish, somewhat lazy guy during his career.


You might be too kind in your description. Rather than stanoffish, a large percentage about what I've read about him during his playing career seems to portray him more as assholish.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3303373)
I'll take Sutter for this honor.

And Catfish Hunter wasn't that long ago.
   9. dejarouehg Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3303375)
Rice is a HoFer......Was clearly the most dominant player in the League for many years. Opposing pitchers and managers quaked when he came up. Very similar to Albert Belle in so many ways. (It also couldn't be too easy being a black player in Boston.)

The fact that Rice is 10x the a**hole that he was as a player, just shows how well he's perfected the art of being an a**hole. Again, very similar to Albert Belle (..........and yes, Belle deserves to be in the Hall, if you believe that he was not on the juice, which is about as likely as the Giles brothers or Nomar being clean.)

If he's going to rag on players for using PED's than he'd better carve out an exception for greenies. They were as prevalent in his day as Red Bull is now...........just read Willie Mays' testimony in the Pittsburgh drug trials......and this is the best player any of us have ever seen!

I can't stomach the Yankees but picking on Jeter is stupid. (It may bother some of us, but he really is that good.) Maybe Rice would rather have had Rick Burleson at SS over DJ.


BAD HoF picks? Sutter was iffy...Sutton was a joke. He re-defines the HOF from great players to good players that last long. Game on the line, I'd rather face Blyleven than Sutton and I'd rather face Sutton, Blyleven, Tommy John, Mussina and Jim Kaat than David Cone. None of them belong in the Hall.
   10. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:28 PM (#3303377)
I know the writers were basically wetting their pants about his incredible peak, and his great influence on the game, but all I see is a guy who was basically Duane Ward or Scot Shields, except with a full career in the closer role.

Rice, however, is a close second.


Agreed that Sutter is an even weaker selection than Rice, and also agreed that Rice is probably the second-most-dubious non-VC choice within the past, what, 20 years?

Rice's competition would be:

- Tony Perez
- Kirby Puckett
- Dennis Eckersley

And if we go back 30 years, we can toss Catfish Hunter and Don Drysdale into the mix.
   11. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:28 PM (#3303376)
I heard that Rice was a complete ####### so many times that I still remember reading a Hawk Harrelson quote from the mid-1980's along the lines of "I would be proud to have sons who grew up to be like Jim Rice."

Edit: Here's the actual quote. It was from 1979, but I must have heard about it around 1985-

"Jimmy is almost too good to be true," said Harrelson. "He's a kind of Frank Merriwell. I have a 12-year-old son, and I just hope he can grow up to be the person Jim Rice is. Jimmy is such a good kid—except for this one thing with the press. If he could only cultivate or even tolerate the media better. He's so thoughtful with everybody but writers. As a former player, I know what the media can do for you. The press made a personality out of me. If only Jimmy could portray himself to the writers the way he really is, if he could only get that charisma across."
   12. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:28 PM (#3303380)
Considering Jim's non-relationship with the local media it was a bizarre experience for me to witness the strong push by the Boston crowd for Rice's induction. Rice was uniformly depicted as a money-grubbing, standoffish, somewhat lazy guy during his career.

The transition from THAT to his current depiction of a player who caused grown men to swoon or soil themselves upon his mere entrance onto the field of play is one of the more astonishing image evolutions........


I couldn't figure this out either, Harvey. But after witnessing that amazing metamorphosis, I almost half expect to see what's left of the Philadelphia sportswriters start crusading for Richie / Dick Allen, or St. Louis writers telling us how underrated Garry Templeton was.
   13. SoSH U at work Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3303382)
You might be too kind in your description. Rather than stanoffish, a large percentage about what I've read about him during his playing career seems to portray him more as assholish.


Yep. Surly was as prominent an adjective as feared when describing Jim Ed (and really, they did say both). And he played at the height of the 25 cabs era in Boston, so the idea of how the guys of his era were just about winning harmoniously and going to the malt shop together after games is in conflict with the consensus view at the time.
   14. 185/456(GGC) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:30 PM (#3303383)
The transition from THAT to his current depiction of a player who caused grown men to swoon or soil themselves upon his mere entrance onto the field of play is one of the more astonishing image evolutions........


Dick Bresciani:Jim Rice::Rich Lederer:Bert Blyleven::Tom Tango:Tim Raines

The difference is that Bresciani has the writers' ears.
   15. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:31 PM (#3303384)
Rice was uniformly depicted as a money-grubbing, standoffish, somewhat lazy guy during his career.


He was depicted as a rude, abrasive jerk, but I don't remember him ever being depicted as lazy. He also got a lot of grief for the number of double plays he hit into. I remember Mike Barnicle suggesting Rice get 6-4-3 as a vanity license plate.
   16. JMPH Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM (#3303392)
I remember Mike Barnicle suggesting Rice get 6-4-3 as a vanity license plate.

Which is awesome, by the way.
   17. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM (#3303393)
Rice's competition would be:

- Tony Perez
- Kirby Puckett
- Dennis Eckersley


I still don't have a problem with the Puckett election. Basically, he (and Dawson) was about as good a CF (in terms of total value) as you were likely to find over the last 30 years. Without him, there would be a 30+ year gap in the selection of CFs by the BBWAA. It seems like teams have changed how they deploy talent to CF, so it only makes sense that the standard for what constitutes a Hall of Fame CF should change too.

Yeah, Puckett's definitely not inner circle, or a match for the previous CFs elected by the BBWAA (Cobb, Speaker, Dimaggio, Mantle, Mays, Snider), but there are very few players who are, and those guys don't get stuck in CF anymore. To me, Puckett comfortably fits in that second tier, with the assorted VC selections, as will Dawson, once he's elected.

EDIT: I also still don't understand the Perez selection. Well, I do understand it, but I really don't like it.
   18. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:35 PM (#3303394)
- Dennis Eckersley

That's a bridge too far. 197 wins, 390 saves, 2400 strikeouts. That's not embarrassing.
   19. JPWF13 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:37 PM (#3303396)
Rice is a HoFer......Was clearly the most dominant player in the League for many years. Opposing pitchers and managers quaked when he came up. Very similar to Albert Belle in so many ways. (It also couldn't be too easy being a black player in Boston.


Was clearly the most dominant hitter in the
American
League for
one
year. Opposing pitchers and managers
were relieved
when he came up
with Boggs on first
.

fixed
   20. Obama Bomaye Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:38 PM (#3303397)
Sutton was a joke. He re-defines the HOF from great players to good players that last long.

I'm not sure when the redefinition took place, but it was prior to Sutton. The HOF recognizes both great players AND great careers. You may be correct that it shouldn't.
   21. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3303408)
I also still don't understand the Perez selection. Well, I do understand it, but I really don't like it.


Perez's people did a very good job of promoting him, pointing out his huge RBI numbers, and subtly playing the race card by saying he wasn't as popular with the media as other great players because he didn't speak English well.

I still don't have a problem with the Puckett election. Basically, he (and Dawson) was about as good a CF (in terms of total value) as you were likely to find over the last 30 years. Without him, there would be a 30+ year gap in the selection of CFs by the BBWAA. It seems like teams have changed how they deploy talent to CF, so it only makes sense that the standard for what constitutes a Hall of Fame CF should change too.


On the one hand - Puckett's offensive numbers are very similar to Mattingly's, and his defensive value was much higher. Mattingly gets some support.

On the other, Puckett and Dawson really the best in that stretch? What about Jimmy Wynn (I know it will never happen) or Fred Lynn? Basically, Lynn's best two years were his rookie year and his fifth year, and he then had quite a long career, so people had plenty of time to forget how good he had been. That's why he's not in. I'm sure there are one or two others I'm forgetting, but both Wynn and Lynn are probably better than Puckett and Dawson. I don't have a problem with Puckett, though. Don Mattingly playing a good centerfield is good enough for me.
   22. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:52 PM (#3303410)
Post 15:

It was tied to the typical racial stereotype common even today as to how African-American players get by on talent versus hard work.

The comparison/contrast between Rice and Lynn by radio announcers back in the late 70's would likely get someone thinking about a suspension in today's environment. Rice standing in left field with his arms folded before a pitch versus Lynn crashing into a fence making a catch didn't help Jim's cause.

I don't know about elsewhere but it was almost a hallmark of Brewer TV coverage showing Jim standing in left field with his arms folded looking completely bored just before a pitch. They never showed him then breaking into the appropriate "get ready" stance of any outfielder.

I am sure Rice didn't do this on every pitch or even some of the time. But he did it enough that if you were a casual baseball fan between this and the constant double plays you thought Jim Rice was the laziest SOB around..........
   23. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 04:56 PM (#3303416)
I don't know how folks can discuss centerfielders of the last 30 years and not mention Dale Murphy or Brett Butler.
   24. JPWF13 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:00 PM (#3303418)
and he then had quite a long career,

where he missed 25-30 games every year:

Games player per year, 1980- end of career:
110
76 (strike year, still missing 30 games)
138
117
142
24
112
111
114
117
90
1980-88
9 years 1044 Games, 4259 PAs, 125 OPS+, 177 homers, 582 ribbies,
Let's say he played 1300 games(150 a year for 8, 100 games the strike year)
1044 extra PAs, 43 extra homers, 142 extra ribbies,

still wouldn't make it, but would be head and shoulders above Rice
   25. 185/456(GGC) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3303430)
I remember Mike Barnicle suggesting Rice get 6-4-3 as a vanity license plate.


He got that from George Carlin.
   26. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3303439)
I don't know how folks can discuss centerfielders of the last 30 years and not mention Dale Murphy or Brett Butler.


For me, Butler falls under the same category as Lynn (and Wynn) - on and off the ballot too quickly to even bother discussing in the context of BBWAA selections - and he's just got too many things working against him. There's the lack of a .300 average. There's the bad (relatively speaking) percentage basestealing. There's the total absence of power, the lack of a stellar defensive reputation, and the lack of MVP-quality seasons (as judged by the voters). Butler just doesn't work as a credible candidate.

Murphy, on the other hand, has the big peak, the gold gloves, and the complete skills package. He should really be in consideration for best eligible CF of the last 30 years.
   27. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:15 PM (#3303445)
I couldn't figure this out either, Harvey. But after witnessing that amazing metamorphosis, I almost half expect to see what's left of the Philadelphia sportswriters start crusading for Richie / Dick Allen

IIRC, Allen was greeted as the Prodigal Son Returneth during his second incarnation as a Phillie.
   28. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:23 PM (#3303457)
He got that from George Carlin.

Speaking of inner circle, small hall.

I guess that'd make Don Rickles a career guy, and Steven Wright a peak candidate, or something like that.
   29. Rally Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:23 PM (#3303458)
And if we go back 30 years, we can toss Catfish Hunter and Don Drysdale into the mix.


What's wrong with Drysdale? I've got him at 65.7 career WAR, and move that up to 69.7 considering his hitting. He's got 209 wins, 3400 innings, 121 ERA+.

Compare that to recent guys who probably won't get in but it seems like BTF/Hall of Merit support them, Kevin Brown and David Cone:

Brown 211 wins 127 ERA+ 3200 IP
Cone 194 wins 120 ERA+ 2900 IP

Though if you're a small hall guy, perhaps they all fall a bit below your standards.
   30. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:32 PM (#3303473)
What's wrong with Drysdale? I've got him at 65.7 career WAR, and move that up to 69.7 considering his hitting. He's got 209 wins, 3400 innings, 121 ERA+.


He was also the active leader in innings pitched at his time of retirement, and was in the top 50 or so in innings pitched and the 40 in games started. As many others have noted here before, people keep thinking that he had a short career because he packed so many innings into the years before his 32 birthday.
   31. Tricky Dick Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:35 PM (#3303481)
To me the most distasteful thing about Rice's remarks is that he chose to deliver those views to little leaguers. Say those things to your heart's content in other forums. But why say mean stuff like that to kids. Those kids probably scarcely know who Jim Rice is. But today's players are their baseball heroes, and he may have put down some kid's favorite player.
   32. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:39 PM (#3303489)
Murphy's GG: Is the CW still that those awards were due almost solely to his bat or have changes in how we regard defensive stats from that time upgraded his case?
   33. DanG Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:44 PM (#3303501)
Highest OPS+ 1963-2009, minimum 1000 G in CF and 7500 PA
.
Cnt Player            OPS+  RC   SB    PA  From  To
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+-----+----+----+
  
1 Ken Griffey        137 1977  184 11110 1989 2009 
  2 Jim Edmonds        132 1364   65  7708 1993 2008 
  3 Fred Lynn          129 1232   72  7923 1974 1990 
  4 Jimmy Wynn         128 1149  225  8010 1963 1977 
  5 Ellis Burks        126 1350  181  8176 1987 2004 
  6 Bernie Williams    125 1445  147  9053 1991 2006 
  7 Kirby Puckett      124 1201  134  7831 1984 1995 
  8 Cesar Cedeno       123 1144  550  8133 1970 1986 
  9 Dale Murphy        121 1308  161  9040 1976 1993 
 10 Chet Lemon         120 1077   58  7872 1975 1990 
 11 Andre Dawson       119 1518  314 10769 1976 1996 
 12 Robin Yount        115 1655  271 12249 1974 1993 
 13 Amos Otis          114 1114  341  8246 1967 1984 
 14 Andruw Jones       111 1146  143  7812 1996 2009 
 15 Brett Butler       110 1276  558  9545 1981 1997 
 16 Kenny Lofton       107 1386  622  9234 1991 2007 
   34. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:50 PM (#3303513)
What's wrong with Drysdale? I've got him at 65.7 career WAR, and move that up to 69.7 considering his hitting. He's got 209 wins, 3400 innings, 121 ERA+.

Compare that to recent guys who probably won't get in but it seems like BTF/Hall of Merit support them, Kevin Brown and David Cone:

Brown 211 wins 127 ERA+ 3200 IP
Cone 194 wins 120 ERA+ 2900 IP

Though if you're a small hall guy, perhaps they all fall a bit below your standards.


No, I think you're right. I was just thinking off the top of my head; I shouldn't equate Drysdale with Hunter.
   35. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:52 PM (#3303514)
Man, Cesar Cedeno had one oddball career.
   36. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:53 PM (#3303516)
Highest OPS+ 1963-2009, minimum 1000 G in CF and 7500 PA


Would it be possible to also get a list of the number of games each of the players actually played in CF?
   37. Srul Itza Posted: August 24, 2009 at 05:59 PM (#3303526)
Don Sutton threw 5,282 innings, 7th all time. He played 23 years, and never once missed his turn in the rotation, striking out 3,574 batters, which was 4th all time at the time of his retirement.

Those are amazing achievements, and he is well worthy of his place in the Hall of Fame.
   38. Srul Itza Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3303530)
I don't know about elsewhere but it was almost a hallmark of Brewer TV coverage showing Jim standing in left field with his arms folded looking completely bored just before a pitch.


Ted Williams used to spend his time in left practicing his swing.
   39. SoSH U at work Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:04 PM (#3303538)
Those are amazing achievements, and he is well worthy of his place in the Hall of Fame.


I agree. I think Sutton's kind of sustained excellence or even really goodness, if you want to call it that, is as difficult to achieve and as worthy of honor as a great peak type career.
   40. BDC Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:07 PM (#3303543)
Ted Williams used to spend his time in left practicing his swing

Maybe if Rice had done that, he'd have hit better than .298 lifetime :)
   41. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:09 PM (#3303547)
"Why Does Jim Rice Hate America?"

It's simple, really.

Jim Rice accomplished his aims through fear. Who else does that?

Terrorists.
   42. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:12 PM (#3303552)
Very similar to Albert Belle in so many ways.


That would be hall-of-famer Albert Belle, of course.
   43. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3303558)
I don't know how folks can discuss centerfielders of the last 30 years and not mention Dale Murphy or Brett Butler.


I forgot both of them. I knew I was forgetting someone. Murphy should be in the debate, but I'd take the total package of Puckett before the total package of Murphy. Butler shouldn't be in the debate. He was a good player, but I don't think he really did anything better than Kenny Lofton, and I'm not prepared to say Lofton is even worthy of consideration for being a Hall of Famer.
   44. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:17 PM (#3303563)

The transition from THAT to his current depiction of a player who caused grown men to swoon or soil themselves upon his mere entrance onto the field of play is one of the more astonishing image evolutions........

I couldn't figure this out either, Harvey. But after witnessing that amazing metamorphosis, I almost half expect to see what's left of the Philadelphia sportswriters start crusading for Richie / Dick Allen, or St. Louis writers telling us how underrated Garry Templeton was.


It really happened once Rice took a job doing post-game analysis at NESN. Rice's HoF effort had no traction for a while, but once Rice started hanging out with the media guys behind the scenes, suddenly there were all kinds of articles touting his candidacy. It's as simple as that.
   45. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:19 PM (#3303567)
Brett Butler was a unique player relative to his peers. He would have been more valuable in 1915.
   46. 185/456(GGC) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:27 PM (#3303579)
It really happened once Rice took a job doing post-game analysis at NESN. Rice's HoF effort had no traction for a while, but once Rice started hanging out with the media guys behind the scenes, suddenly there were all kinds of articles touting his candidacy. It's as simple as that.


I thought that it was Red Sox PR director Dick Bresciani campaigning for Rice, but anytime I mention that, all I get is crickets. Folks would rather talk about how Mike Greenwell is a more worthy candidate instead ;).
   47. bunyon Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:30 PM (#3303583)
Don Sutton threw 5,282 innings, 7th all time. He played 23 years, and never once missed his turn in the rotation, striking out 3,574 batters, which was 4th all time at the time of his retirement.

Those are amazing achievements, and he is well worthy of his place in the Hall of Fame.


I never get the Sutton-hate. One can value peak over career or career over peak but that shouldn't mean you completely ignore the one you don't favor.
   48. DanG Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:31 PM (#3303586)
Would it be possible to also get a list of the number of games each of the players actually played in CF?

Games for the players in #33
.
Cnt     Player              G    G in CF
+----  +----------------  +----  +----
   
1    Ken Griffey       2613    2145
   2    Jim Edmonds       1925    1716
   3    Fred Lynn         1969    1584
   4    Jimmy Wynn        1920    1182
   5    Ellis Burks       2000    1062
   6    Bernie Williams   2076    1856
   7    Kirby Puckett     1783    1432
   8    Cesar Cedeno      2006    1459
   9    Dale Murphy       2180    1041
  10    Chet Lemon        1988    1471
  11    Andre Dawson      2627    1027
  12    Robin Yount       2856    1150
  13    Amos Otis         1998    1826
  14    Andruw Jones      1910    1707
  15    Brett Butler      2213    1989
  16    Kenny Lofton      2103    1986 
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:33 PM (#3303591)
I thought that it was Red Sox PR director Dick Bresciani campaigning for Rice, but anytime I mention that, all I get is crickets. Folks would rather talk about how Mike Greenwell is a more worthy candidate instead ;).


CHB's position here is quite strange. For years, he admitted to voting for Rice, who he considered borderline, primarily because he disliked him so much that he didn't want people to say that his disdain was the only reason he didn't vote for him (in diving, this is known as the Reverse Bell with a Twist). But as the years went by, CHB seemed to become increasingly strident about Rice's bonafides and more dismissive of those who questioned his HoF worthiness. Maybe stat zombies became a better foil than surly sluggers.
   50. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3303595)
Brett Butler was a unique player relative to his peers. He would have been more valuable in 1915.


Well, he was a lot like Tim Raines, except that he threw well enough to play centerfield regularly and he had a lot less power and wasn't nearly as good a base stealer. He was a lot like Kenny Lofton in pretty much all ways except personality, and that Lofton was a better base stealer. I just can't see any argument for Butler over Raines, and I still don't see any major difference between him and Lofton, and the minor differences mostly favor Lofton.
   51. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 06:46 PM (#3303609)
I thought that it was Red Sox PR director Dick Bresciani campaigning for Rice, but anytime I mention that, all I get is crickets. Folks would rather talk about how Mike Greenwell is a more worthy candidate instead ;).


No, you're right that Bresciani did a lot of campaigning for Rice.

But the Red Sox really did come up with three other outfielders within a decade of when they came up with Rice who had better careers - Lynn, Evans, and Reggie Smith, plus they already had Yastrzemski. That, of course, is why you get these remarks from the Red Sox fans who don't understand why Bresciani lobbied so much for Rice. Maybe the quote from Ken Harrelson is correct, and Rice really was a nice guy and a great teammate who just had problems dealing with the media, and maybe that's why the front office types have been so good to him in his retirement. The Boston writers at the time were a tough bunch. Bill Lee had a way of toying with them for his own amusement so that they didn't make him angry, but Rice didn't have that sort of personality.
   52. dejarouehg Posted: August 24, 2009 at 07:46 PM (#3303688)
There's a disctinction between HoF talent and HoF'er. Mattingly, Guidry, Gooden, Cone, Saberhagen and Murphy had the talent, albeit for too a short time. Richie Allen and Andre Dawson clearly did and it's arguable whether they had enough numbers.

Sutton wasn't a HoF talent, but he compiled numbers, which is an accomplishment. How anyone distinguishes him from Blyleven is hard to understand.

Mickey Lolich had HoF talent as did McLain (for a very short time). At the top of their game, I'd take both over Sutton. Sam McDowell (if not for the alcohol) had HoF talent. At their peak, would you want them or Sutton pitching for you?

It's not fair to compare pitchers and hitters, but do you think Don Sutton was a better pitcher than Dale Murphy was as a player?

I'm not looking to pick on Sutton, but he never struck the sense of fear of a Marichal, Koufax, Drysdale, Seaver, Gibson, Carlton or Pedro. Jenkins won 20+ how many straight years? Though none of this might be fair if you don't believe in those standards.

If Sutton's in then Jack Morris has to get in.

A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.

Sutton v Lolich (remember what Lolich did against Gibson in the WS)
Sutton v Fernando
Sutton v Jack Morris
Sutton v Guidry
Sutton v Hershiser
Sutton v Cone
Sutton v. McNally/Cuellar

To be fair, I'd take Sutton well before Phil Niekro.
   53. BDC Posted: August 24, 2009 at 07:52 PM (#3303694)
Sutton also didn't have much of a name. Whitey Herzog tells the story of encouraging Charlie Finley to sign Sutton. Finley wasn't interested, because he liked his pitchers to be called Catfish or Blue Moon or something. "Tell Finley my nickname is #####face Sutton," said Sutton. No go. The Dodgers signed him instead.
   54. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 07:54 PM (#3303697)
There's a disctinction between HoF talent and HoF'er. Mattingly, Guidry, Gooden, Cone, Saberhagen and Murphy had the talent, albeit for too a short time.


I agree. Mattingly, Gooden, Cone and Rice are all good examples of players that were good for just too short a time. :-)
   55. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:01 PM (#3303710)
If Sutton's in then Jack Morris has to get in.


Because Morris performed worse for a shorter time?

Morris: 3824 IP, 105 ERA+, season high ERA+ of 127
Don Sutton: 5282 IP, 108 ERA+, season high at 161, with other seasons at 160, and 144.

To be his equal, Morris would have had to add 1400 innings, at a roughly 114 ERA+. In other words, he'd have to add basically add Ben Sheets' career (1428 IP, 116 ERA+).
   56. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:04 PM (#3303716)
If Sutton's in then Jack Morris has to get in.

A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


Well, the Cardinals made mincemeat of him in the World Series two weeks later, but some of us sure can remember this season-ending afternoon in Baltimore, when Sutton saved the Brewers' season by outpitching Jim Palmer with the AL East on the line. And prior to that afternoon, Palmer had lost but one game since Memorial Day.
   57. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3303719)
A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


At some point, unless you base the HOF only on peak value, this has to break down. Consider Mark Fidrych, for example. He had such a short career you couldn't possibly call him a HOFer, but he was so good for that short peak, that it's hard to think he's the minimum standard for the Hall. I certainly understand your point with Sutton, but this kind of single question can't work in all cases.
   58. JMPH Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3303721)
A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


There has to be a best non-HOFer. Using your method, if I understand it correctly, the best pitcher who isn't a HOFer would be the answer you'd select against every other non-HOFer, therefore, he'd be in. Then the next guy after him would get in the same way. And the guy after him. And so on. Your method uses induction to enshrine every single pitcher in baseball history.
   59. Rally Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:26 PM (#3303757)
I can't see Sutton as not a Hall of Famer. He sure doesn't have the peak that some others do, but if it was so easy to have such a long career of above average performance, then you'd have more people doing it besides him, Perry, and Niekro.

Sutton's peak ain't too bad either, from 1971-73 he averaged

18-10, 264 IP, 143 ERA+

Morris from 85-87 (his peak):
18-10 263 IP 125 ERA+

Fernando 84-86
16-12 267 125

Guidry 77-79
19-6 240 161

Hershiser 87-89
18-13 262 141

Cone 93-95 (strike hurts his best years)
15-9 218 143

Lolich 71-73
21-14 337 118

So Guidry had the best peak by rate, Lolich pitched way more than any of these other guys. Morris and Fernando were not as good, Cone and Hershiser about the same. Sutton's peak looks better by comparison. If he hadn't had such a long career, people might think more highly of the peak.
   60. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:29 PM (#3303760)
Sutton's peak looks better by comparison. If he hadn't had such a long career, people might think more highly of the peak.


Yes, a long, slow decline can hurt a guy's chances of the HOF if he doesn't hit certain milestones. Look at Tim Raines for an example.
   61. Dr. Vaux Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3303766)
Sutton has also become an excellent broadcaster, and had a long career doing that. That has nothing to do with his HOF case, of course, but he's more deserving of the Frick Award than Tony Kubek, last year's winner. (Not that he's particularly deserving of it until at least 20 other guys get it . . .)
   62. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3303767)
I'm not looking to pick on Sutton, but he never struck the sense of fear of a Marichal, Koufax, Drysdale, Seaver, Gibson, Carlton or Pedro. Jenkins won 20+ how many straight years? Though none of this might be fair if you don't believe in those standards.

If Sutton's in then Jack Morris has to get in.

A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


That has never been the standard, it is a ridiculously vague standard and the HOF suffers most when voters are provided vague guidance.

And regarding this specific comparison Don Sutton was miles ahead of Jack Morris. Setting aside the things these men COULD control while Sutton played in front of a bunch of converted outfielders and third basemen on his infield Jack Morris had the likes of Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammel roaming the middle of the diamond.

Don Sutton pitched 200 innings plus every year between 1966 and 1980. Took a break at the strike and then picked it right back up. Mr. Workhorse Jack Morris did that for half as long.

The notion that Morris was better than Sutton by any measure is silly............
   63. Rally Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3303772)
Maybe it's just the postseason, where Sutton struggled to put up a 3.68 ERA in 100 innings, while Morris dominated to the tune of 3.80 in 1992 innings.

One game does not a career make.
   64. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3303775)
A HoF'er should, by definition, be the answer you'd select if asked.....

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


By your definition.

I've never been much for these "who would you want in a single game" sorts of things. Unless we're deciding it's all right to elect John Paciorek, we have to be imposing some sort of career-length minimum, and the instant we're imposing a career-length minimum, then we're applying a value to career along with peak.

Career matters. The total value under the line is a factor, just as is the highest point of the line.
   65. Rally Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3303776)
Morris was no short career pitcher. He came up at 22, joined the rotation fulltime at 24 and pitched to 39, pitching over 240 innings 10 times. And Sutton still beats him by 1400 career innings.
   66. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3303781)

"Who would you want starting for you in a big game?," and the other choice wasn't a HoFer.


Anybody that chooses Morris as the answer to this question obviously isn't a Jays fan.

The logic here is mind-numbing.

He once pitched a phenominal big game -> He has the ability to pitch phenominal big games -> He should be expected to pitch well in big games -> He would pitch well if I chose him for my big game.

Dumb.
   67. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3303782)
Morris was no short career pitcher. He came up at 22, joined the rotation fulltime at 24 and pitched to 39, pitching over 240 innings 10 times. And Sutton still beats him by 1400 career innings.


Which is what makes Sutton really amazing. As noted above, in terms of quantity, the difference between Morris and Sutton is the career of Ben Sheets.
   68. dejarouehg Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:04 PM (#3303898)
Are Jim Kaat, Bert Blyleven and Tommy John amazing? No, but they are very good. (Granted, Sutton is better and he was very effective at an older age, especially when he perfected his spit-ball.)

If it's longevity that's the yardstick, then get rid of Koufax and Pedro when it's his turn.

If you want to credit him for his longevity, then you must also take into account that his longevity equated to an average season of 14 - 11. You can't claim the beneifts without taking the hits.

14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?

According to Baseball-Reference, he is 279th all-time in winning percentage!!! Get rid of pitchers from the 1800's and early 1900's and say he moves up 100 spots. (I have no idea if this is accurate or not.) Not over-whelming.

Not sure why you think the argument of who you would take in a big game is b.s. Seems to me if someone is a HOFer, then it should be a no-brainer (absent the 1 year wonder like a Fydrich).
If you took any of those examples from before and put in Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Jenkins...would you think twice?

That's the standard I think the HoF should merit; absolute dominance at your respective position for a reasonable period of time. 3B should be compared to 3B, i.e. Santo vs. whoever was playing 3B during his era.

Sutton vs. Morris - Sometimes stats don't tell the entire story, though I think you could make a winning case for both. If you are old enough to have seen them both play, then I think it's an easier call.
   69. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:13 PM (#3303908)
Post 68:

I have been watching major league baseball since 1938 and completely agree it's not a tough call.

Sutton by a country mile.
   70. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:16 PM (#3303912)
14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?


I think so.
   71. Srul Itza Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM (#3303913)
If it's longevity that's the yardstick, then get rid of Koufax and Pedro when it's his turn.


False dichotomy. Nobody here has said it has to be longevity or has to be peak. Both have their place. You are the only one insisting it has to be one or the other.

That's the standard I think the HoF should merit; absolute dominance at your respective position for a reasonable period of time.


You and no one else, except a few other "peak only" extremists. By the way, if Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig are playing at the same time, does that mean that only one goes in? How about Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays -- one in and the other out?

I think you could make a winning case for both.


So go ahead, make the case for Morris, with the shorter and less effective career. We're waiting.
   72. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:19 PM (#3303916)
If you want to credit him for his longevity, then you must also take into account that his longevity equated to an average season of 14 - 11. You can't claim the beneifts without taking the hits.

14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?


From age 24 to age 39, Don Sutton threw about as many innings as Morris did in his entire career, and ran up a record of 246-176, or 15-11 per season, with a 3.13 ERA (112 ERA+). I selected to start this at the age of 24, since that's the age Morris was when he got his first regular starting job in the majors. From the same age range, Jack Morris was 250-180, which translates to an average season of 15-11, with a 3.89 ERA (105 ERA+).

Jack Morris had the benefit of teammates who hit better when he was on the mound, making his W-L record better than it should have been. Don Sutton had the benefit of being a better pitcher.
   73. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:25 PM (#3303920)
If it's longevity that's the yardstick, then get rid of Koufax and Pedro when it's his turn.

Who said longevity is "the" yardstick?

It's one of multiple valid yardsticks. Things can and should be measured in several dimensions.

14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?

Well, yes. 14-11 for 20 years is pretty damn awe-inspiring, an exceptionally rare achievement.

Not sure why you think the argument of who you would take in a big game is b.s.

Because it oversimplifies a complex array of variables. By its nature, baseball isn't a single-game contest; seasons are long because the day-upon-day marathon aspect of the sport is part of its essential core, and playoffs are determined by a series of games because any single game between major league-quality teams is non-determinative.
   74. Srul Itza Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:26 PM (#3303924)
Don Sutton started 774 games, and never once missed his turn in the rotation -- that by itself is incredible.

Now, I could understand if he never once had an outstanding season, or if he did not have a peak, but the fact is that he had a fine 6 year peak from 1972 to 1977, when he averated 261 IP and an ERA of 2.80. Add that to his outstanding longevity and durability, and that is easily a Hall of Famer.
   75. Tom T Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM (#3303927)
14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?


14-11 for 20 years would be an astonishing performance. That means that in spite of frequent turnover behind you (including a couple probable free agent moves; also recall that it was incredibly unusual that the Dodger infield stuck around for so long...and they weren't even good...heck, not sure they were even average), you managed, consistently, to give up fewer runs than your opponents even though you don't have full control of runs allowed. That's dang impressive.

According to Baseball-Reference, he is 279th all-time in winning percentage!!!


Winning percentage is NOT wholly under his control!!!!!! The knee jerk response to THAT tired argument is Nolan Ryan, 1987...yeah, 10 unearned runs, but to be 8-16?

If you took any of those examples from before and put in Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Jenkins...would you think twice?


If you are going to go with the "who should pitch the big game" argument who are you going to take over Johnson? or Grove? (or maybe Paige?) As per the comment above, you either end up inducting all but the worst pitcher to the HoF *OR* you end up with only ONE pitcher in the HoF. Besides, even the most "dominant" pitchers got smacked around...maybe you want the guy who is dead consistent for that one game. We know that the player who exhibits a higher variance will, in fact, produce more wins than the guy who is steady at league average, but certainty has its value in a one-off situation.

That's the standard I think the HoF should merit; absolute dominance at your respective position for a reasonable period of time.


As for the absolute dominance issue...who goes in, Clemens or Maddux? Is Jeter then necessarily out of the HoF? You can have only one by your argument. Or perhaps none...I don't think you can rationally argue that Clemens or Maddux exhibited "absolute dominance" over his peers (including the other AND RJ AND Pedro, etc.) for a "reasonable" (3 years? 5 years? 10 years?) period of time.

Sutton vs. Morris - Sometimes stats don't tell the entire story, though I think you could make a winning case for both. If you are old enough to have seen them both play, then I think it's an easier call.


Yep, saw them both a number of times when on the Game of Week. I'd take Sutton, and by a mile. Doesn't hurt that he also had more K/9 (in a tougher environment to get Ks), fewer BB/9 and marginally fewer HR/9. Still, sounds like dominance to me.
   76. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:31 PM (#3303928)
Don Sutton started 774 games, and never once missed his turn in the rotation -- that by itself is incredible.

It sure is. It's one of the handful of most staggering factoids in the history of the game.
   77. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM (#3303932)
If you want to credit [Sutton] for his longevity, then you must also take into account that his longevity equated to an average season of 14 - 11. You can't claim the beneifts without taking the hits.
14 - 11 is not exactly awe-inspiring.........do it for 20 years and you're a stud?


Bob Gibson's average season: 15-10
Nolan Ryan: 12-11
Greg Maddux: 15-10
Randy Johnson: 14-8
Tom Seaver: 15-10
Steve Carlton: 14-10

This formula tells us approximately nothing.
   78. JPWF13 Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:40 PM (#3303936)
, but the fact is that he had a fine 6 year peak from 1972 to 1977, when he averated 261 IP and an ERA of 2.80.


Sutton's top 5 years by ERA+
161, 160, 144, 127, 126
Morris:
133, 127, 126, 124, 124

Sutton had a much better "peak" than Morris, in addition to pitching 1400 more innings
   79. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM (#3303939)
"He was a good player, but I don't think he really did anything better than Kenny Lofton, and I'm not prepared to say Lofton is even worthy of consideration for being a Hall of Famer."

I think you can make a reasonable case for Lofton. 2,400 career hits, six All-Star games, four Gold Gloves, 622 SB at 79.5% effectiveness. 105th all time in career runs created - that neighborhood's about 50% HOF, and the up-the-middle guys there who are out are mostly popular candidates like Lou Whitaker, Vada Pinson, Barry Larkin, and Ron Santo.

I think a comparison to Richie Ashburn is pretty interesting.
   80. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM (#3303941)
Bob Gibson's average season: 15-10
Nolan Ryan: 12-11
Greg Maddux: 15-10
Randy Johnson: 14-8
Tom Seaver: 15-10
Steve Carlton: 14-10

This formula tells us approximately nothing.


Jack Morris: 16-12

But I guess that's way more impressive than 14-11
   81. Who wants to know? Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:48 PM (#3303944)
I have a fairly strong preference for peak over longevity, but of course Don Sutton belongs in the Hall, even if his career doesn't fill me with the awe that Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez does.

And of course "who would you want to pitch one game" is a fundamentally flawed measure, for any number of reasons. Foremost among them: Which version of the pitcher am I choosing? His best day? His best season? His career average? His peak? How long does the peak have to be?

Until you address those questions, "who would you want to pitch one game" isn't even a flawed measure -- it's no measure at all. It's completely meaningless; a gussied up version of "I know it when I see it."

Anyway, for one game, I'll take Dwight Gooden 1985 over any incarnation of Steve Carlton you choose. And I'll probably win. Anyone want to put Gooden in the Hall ahead of Carlton?
   82. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM (#3303946)
Anyway, for one game, I'll take Dwight Gooden 1985 over any incarnation of Steve Carlton you choose. And I'll probably win.

I'll take Karl Spooner 1954, suckah.

I will DOMINATE.
   83. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 10:59 PM (#3303949)

I'll take Karl Spooner 1954, suckah.

I will DOMINATE.


Not against my team of 1963 John Pacioreks.
   84. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM (#3303950)
I'll take Karl Spooner 1954, suckah.

I will DOMINATE.


Not if I start nine Alvin Darks.
   85. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM (#3303953)
Not against my team of 1963 John Pacioreks.

In your dreams, sonny. My lineup of 1958 Chuck Lindstroms renders you helpless.
   86. Rally Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM (#3303958)
I'll take Carlton 1972 over Gooden 85. Carlton was accustomed to pitching more innings and I bet he keeps the scoreless tie longer into extra innings than Doc does.

14-11 over 20 years understates Sutton's greatness. For one, that's 280 wins, not over 300. And as pointed out above, includes partial years at the beginning or end of his career, and stated that way pretty much nobody is better than a 15 game winner.
   87. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:19 PM (#3303966)
Why do people accept "writers' depictions" of players?

Rice saved a child who was struck in the head by a line drive while sitting near the Red Sox dugout. Before anyone mocks this, #### off. The kid was brought to the hospital with a fractured skull, in critical condition. Rice's quick action (he jumped into the stands, picked up the kid, brought him to the Red Sox clubhouse via the dugout, where he was given medical attention before being brought to the hospital) saved the kids life. This isn't the M.O. of an A hole.
   88. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM (#3303981)
Rice saved a child who was struck in the head by a line drive while sitting near the Red Sox dugout. Before anyone mocks this, #### off. The kid was brought to the hospital with a fractured skull, in critical condition. Rice's quick action (he jumped into the stands, picked up the kid, brought him to the Red Sox clubhouse via the dugout, where he was given medical attention before being brought to the hospital) saved the kids life. This isn't the M.O. of an A hole.


It may not be the M.O. of a misanthrope, but probably not outside the range of possible responses for A holes.
   89. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:35 PM (#3303983)
Dave Stapleton is the real #######.
   90. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:40 PM (#3303989)
You have a different definition of A hole than I do, SoSH.
   91. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM (#3303993)
You have a different definition of A hole than I do, SoSH.


Do you equate "A Hole" with "sociopath?"
   92. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM (#3303998)
Pretty much, and that is what HW almost calls him ("standoffish, money grubbing"...stops short of "sociopath").
   93. Who wants to know? Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM (#3303999)
I'll take Carlton 1972 over Gooden 85. Carlton was accustomed to pitching more innings and I bet he keeps the scoreless tie longer into extra innings than Doc does.


Carlton threw 8 shutouts in 41 starts, compared to Gooden's 8 shutouts in 35 starts, so I like my odds.
   94. rr Posted: August 24, 2009 at 11:58 PM (#3304008)
Pretty much, and that is what HW almost calls him ("standoffish, money grubbing"...stops short of "sociopath").


I don't agree with this formulation at all. I think there are millions of people who have a lot of negative interpersonal traits that I might at times see as "a$$holes" who would try to save a kid who was hit in the head by a baseball. An example is Ted Williams. Williams was no doubt in many ways a cantankerous, prickly a$$hole. He was also a very brave man, a war hero, and did a lot for the Jimmy Fund. I think Teddy Ballgame takes the kid to the locker room, too.

I agree with you in that I wouldn't trust what Boston writers in the 1970s and 1980s said about him to tell me what kind of guy Jim Rice, but Rice over the last year or so has been quoted as saying many silly, obnoxious things.
   95. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM (#3304011)
Maybe, and maybe the definition of "A hole" is so broad it can include him. Not to me, though.
   96. Xpgdxbq Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:06 AM (#3304014)
Hell, I think I'm an #######, and I would save the kid.
   97. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM (#3304017)

Perez's people did a very good job of promoting him, pointing out his huge RBI numbers, and subtly playing the race card by saying he wasn't as popular with the media as other great players because he didn't speak English well.


I didn't know speaking a language was racial.
   98. SouthSideRyan Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM (#3304025)
Did a "writer" tell you that story Joe?
   99. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM (#3304036)
No, the victim and his father were on NESN. The father told it, tearfully. It was moving.
   100. The NeverEnding Torii (oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh) Posted: August 25, 2009 at 12:31 AM (#3304037)
Rice saved a child who was struck in the head by a line drive while sitting near the Red Sox dugout. Before anyone mocks this, #### off. The kid was brought to the hospital with a fractured skull, in critical condition. Rice's quick action (he jumped into the stands, picked up the kid, brought him to the Red Sox clubhouse via the dugout, where he was given medical attention before being brought to the hospital) saved the kids life. This isn't the M.O. of an A hole.


Ah, yes. The "Matt Dillon Crash" defense.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Sox Therapy2020 Vision
(8 - 12:35am, Dec 11)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogSome of baseball’s biggest stars are ready to change the game’s free-agency system – The Athletic
(9 - 12:12am, Dec 11)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees Have Reportedly Made $245MM Offer To Gerrit Cole
(21 - 12:06am, Dec 11)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAs he predicted, Mariners and GM Jerry Dipoto start MLB winter meetings quietly | The Seattle Times
(4 - 11:33pm, Dec 10)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(1410 - 11:32pm, Dec 10)
Last: calming him down with his 57i66135

NewsblogLou Whitaker snubbed from the Hall of Fame again
(135 - 10:59pm, Dec 10)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogPhillies to sign Didi Gregorius | MLB.com
(6 - 10:57pm, Dec 10)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDave Parker's larger-than-life legacy is one MLB fans should never forget
(38 - 9:56pm, Dec 10)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMLB to stop testing minor leaguers for marijuana as part of new drug agreement, report says
(26 - 9:35pm, Dec 10)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-10-2019
(28 - 9:27pm, Dec 10)
Last: salvomania

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2020
(42 - 9:26pm, Dec 10)
Last: darkvoid116

Hall of Merit2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(345 - 9:07pm, Dec 10)
Last: kcgard2

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(892 - 8:46pm, Dec 10)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2019)
(96 - 7:43pm, Dec 10)
Last: Cowboy Popup

NewsblogLate Globe writer Nick Cafardo wins baseball’s J.G. Spink Award - The Boston Globe
(1 - 5:01pm, Dec 10)
Last: Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K

Page rendered in 0.7007 seconds
46 querie(s) executed