What does help Rice is 6 top-five MVP finishes in 12 years. That reflects dominance and how you did reflective of your peers. It's better than a lot of players did who are in the Hall. Six top-fives in 12 years shows you were one of the best players in the league for a 12-year stretch.

There are cases for and against him. That is a case for...

In 1978 Jim Rice became the only batter to lead the majors in HR, triples, total bases, hits, and RBIs in one season. Jim Palmer was great against righty batters, but Rice owned Palmer. If one season (1950) can get Phil Rizzuto into the HOF along with Yogi's help, why not Rice?

Unfortunately, I don't see splits available for Chuck Klein (Baker Bowl) or Mel Ott (Polo Grounds). Both benefitted greatly from their respective home parks.

While Ott is a deserved Hall-of-Famer, Klein is a questionable one.

I just use Klein and Ott as examples of those who, like Rice, had significant home and away differences.

What does help Rice is 6 top-five MVP finishes in 12 years. That reflects dominance and how you did reflective of your peers.

In Rice's case, unfortunately, it reflects a lack of understanding on the part of the voters that gave him those top-5 MVP votes. His contribution was entirely offensive, as he was mediocre (at best) defensively and on the basepaths. He had 5 top-6 OPS+ seasons, and only 2 top-5s. He was "feared" by people who a) didn't understand OBP and b) didn't consider park effects.

He was my favorite player for a long time, but he isn't a Hall of Famer - he wasn't good enough for long enough.

Compare Rice to Cepeda and Tony Perez, both Hall of Famers, and how does he come out? I think favorably.

Hell, Ted Williams was mediocre (at best) defensively and on the basepaths. Of course, Ted's bat (and eye) made up for that.

BTW, I don't know if you read this, but Goose Gossage was recently interviewed. When asked who should go in the Hall (besides himself) he immediately said Rice. His reasoning? "He was the only hitter who I was afraid of" (or words to that effect). I believe the Goose would understand OBP and ballpark effects.

I have to add one last thing. When people discuss "good enough for long enough" I immediately think of Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax. I'm not saying either doesn't belong, but their runs of excellence obviously were short-term runs. You can only wonder what they could have done if not injured and where their careers could have led. Still, using them as examples, what exactly defines "Good Enough for Long Enough?"

Maybe the Goose needs a tutorial on OBP, or else he's just trying to pump up the quality of players he faced for his own HOF credentials. I looked up Rice's line against Gossage on Baseball Ref and it doesn't look good: .235, .235, .412 with 1 HR in 34 appearances.

As for Palmer, .218, .244, .575 with 9 HR but 24 Ks in 90 appearances.

Before I looked up these numbers, I had a favorable impression of Rice but these numbers look pretty Kingman-esque.

Jim Rice conservatively lost 75 homers because of the the green monster. The line shots to left that would have been homers in any other park were turned into singles at Fenway. An additional misconception Luis Tiant's numbers are equal to Jim Hunter's, but Tiant isn't in the Hall. Its either due to supidity or bias there is no third option.

When trying to see if someone should be in the Hall of Fame, comparing him to any random HoF'er isn't the best way to do it. Just because they are in the HoF doesn't mean that they should be the standard by which you judge future HoF'ers.

True, and citing the Scooter will get you nowhere. One great season did not get him in. His well placed friends did all the lifting.

Terrence,

Rice hit 208 HRs in Fenway, 174 on the road. So, "conservatively," the Green Monster gave far more than it took.

The candidacies of Rice/Dawson/Sutter are the last gasp of the old school, what people think they saw and what the avg/HR/RBI stats crew that refuse to let facts get in the way of their memories.

Rice was a great player. In my estimation, he falls just short of the HOF, mainly because his career was too short. Yes, he was a dominant hitter in his prime; but his prime didn't last long enough. And unlike Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax, his prime wasn't overwhelmingly spectacular. It was "only" great.

It's no shame to be barely on the outside of the Hall of Fame, just as it's no shame to finish second in the MVP balloting. In both cases, players and their fans often act like it's an insult to not quite win or get in. It's not an insult, not at all; it's just that the standards for HOF and MVP are extremely high, as they should be.

Dean's "spectacular prime" basically was three seasons. That's it. Just saying.

You don't argue that Rice should get in because someone else did. Rice was a terrific player for a good while. He was a durable, powerful hitter, and benefited tremendously by playing at Fenway, (just as pretty much everyone does).

He is not a Hall of Famer. He's just not, except that the same people who gave him so much respect in the MVP voting are HoF voters. These are the "I see it with my eyes" guys who ignore and/or denigrate any of the newer forms of statistical analysis that show quite logically that players like Rice are good but not great contributors to winning.

Rice'll get in while McGwire won't, just as Jack Morris will and Bert Blyleven won't. The good news is these HoF arguments won't end, which will give us something to write about. The bad news is that the poorly thought-out and antiquated voting process will continue to add pretty good players and exclude great players. The BBWAA needs to allow for many, many people to have a say in who is and isn't a Hall of Famer, like David, here, for instance.

Totally agree, John. Rice only looks like an acceptable HOFer when you compare him to the Hall's biggest mistakes. But that's a slippery slope -- if everyone as good as Rick Ferrell were admitted to Cooperstown, we'd have literally thousands of guys in the Hall.

No, the real basis for comparison for Rice is not Rizzuto or Klein or Perez or Dean. It is a typical Hall of Famer, an average Hall of Famer, and more specifically an average HOF leftfielder. By those measurements Rice does not fare too well.

It's the same slippery slope for Gossage too. Since Sutter is in, Gossage will be in and I'm not sure how great his numbers were. He was a two pitch pitcher who didn't "dominate" batters to the extent I remember (7.5 K per 9 innings).

What I think is most damning in Gossage's case is that all these sportswriters who blast the number crunchers now find merit in Gossage, when Gossage only finished 3rd once for the Cy Young at a time when sportswriters were definitely opening the door for relievers to get the award (Sutter in '79). These guys apparently didn't think they saw much (given whatever standard they wanted to use then) when Gossage was in his prime. Now, he's a HOF? It doesn't look any different for Rice.

I don't think being the 3rd reliever ever to win the award (which Sutter was in 1979) was "opening the door." There still is a prejudice against relievers winning the award today, even though it has happened more frequently. It usually takes a weak year by starters or an absolutely unbelievable year by a closer to consider a closer for the award.

According to Baseball Reference, for Jim Rice:

Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Over the average in 3 of 4 categories. The only thing with Baseball Reference's comparisons are that you really can't use them for various positions, like SS for example. When using it for pitchers, you can't use it for closers.

I advocate Rice, but can see the points of those who don't.