But, I guess you could be saying,”What the hell do you expect, for this guy to carry the entire team on his back, when EVERYONE ELSE is absolutely dead weight, and win ball game after ball game BY HIMSELF, being NEAR PERFECT over the EXACT stretch where his teammates were smelling up the joint? Uhm…..yeah, thats EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING!!

Because thats EXACTLY what the MVP of the American League did in the year 1978, and I mean the REAL MVP,
Ron Guidry. (yeah, yeah, I know he won the CY. Well he should have won both, hands d0wn, no arguement.

And I think Rice would’ve caught up to Dawson’s total of 52 more HR’s in five extra years, even on a surgically repaired knee. So he needed to average just over 10 HRs for five more seasons to do that haha. Just a difference of opinion.

And hey, I’m not using a Red Sox bias here. Just because I support the fact he was barely inducted…haha. Do you think there are 415 Red Sox writers in the writer’s association? They all have come around on Rice after a lot of thought. One baseball writer I love is Jayson stark, and he provides his reasons for both Rice AND Dawson here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3818624

Theres not much more I can argue. You dont think his power totals are good because of today’s power-guys, but I think they are good BECAUSE of today’s power-guys on the juice…

Dawson is only one of three players with 400 HR and 300 SB alongside two other guys. Oh yeah, Barry Bonds (steroids pending) and Willie Mays.

If Rice had played 5 more seasons then he would have better overall stats than Dawson? I disagree.

Thanks to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Jim_Rice_1953

At the end of his career, Rice battled knee problems that needed surgery. He hit only 13 HR in 1987, got offseason surgery, then hit 15 HR in 1988. In his final, injury-plagued season, he hit 3 HR in 56 games.

So you’re telling me that Rice, who had 382 HR, could have caught up to Dawson’s 438 HR if he had played 5 more seasons? Something tells me that Rice’s knee would not have held up and his decreasing HR totals would not have been enough to surpass Dawson.

That goes for the rest of his stats. Rice would not have been given a full time starting job after everyone realized he was damaged goods. Even with a part time gig on a team, Rice could not have amassed enough stats to pass Andre Dawson.

The point of this whole argument is not the credentials of Andre Dawson. I am trying to make the point that although Jim Rice was a great player, he just doesn’t have the credentials to enter the Hall.

Maybe before the steroid era, the 382 HR would have been good enough. Now with today’s stats, Rice is 55th on the all time HR list whereas when he retired, he would have been in the top 15. We can’t forever judge a player’s career accomplishments on the playing conditions of the era in which they played but we must compare them to the current situation.

Hell, with the way things are going, 500 career HR may not be enoough to get in because we now have 24 players in the 500 club and soon to be 25 when Gary Sheffield joins it (currently stands at 499). So if Rice can’t even reach 400 HR, then there is no reason to let him in.

I am sorry that I am not being a bias Red Sox fan and automatically celebrating the induction of Jim Rice to the Hall of Fame. Someone has to plays devil’s advocate and make the case against Rice. I love Jim Rice and all he did for the Sox but he doesn’t deserve to be enshrined in Cooperstown. If he really, REALLY deserved it, then it wouldn’t have taken 15 years to get voted in.

Rice led the majors in outfield assists for a number of years, but Dawson was a better defensive player and was faster on the basepaths, I agree.

The reason Dawson has more HRs, RBIs, etc., is because he played five more seasons. If Rice played until he was 41 years old, he’d have better overall stats than Dawson.

Dawson had years with a .248 average, a .255 average, .252, .240, .253, etc etc etc. Rice was a better player if they were the same age and playing at the same time. Dawson has better total stats because he was an above-average (not great) player for 21 seasons.

C’mon pete, just look at the stats!

BUT…Dawson still has a few years left and will probably get into the Hall as well…and for the record, I think he should get in too.

Andre Dawson has better numbers than Rice.

438 HR, 1,591 RBI, 13 seasons with 20+ HR, Rookie of the Year in 1977, and NL MVP in 1987.

Not to mention that Dawson also had 314 stolen bases as compared to Rice’s 58.

Let’s also throw in Dawson’s eight Gold Gloves which further proves that he is a more complete player than Rice (who never won a Gold Glove).

Rice is cleary a lesser player than Dawson yet Rice got elected to the Hall and Dawson was left out.

If Andre Dawson couldn’t get in then there is no reason Rice should have.

The whole “he was dominant for a short period of time” argument can’t be applied to everyone. I mean, for example, when the time comes and Pedro Martinez is on the ballot, he should get in because he dominated not just for a short period of time, but he did it during the steroid era. Besides, with Rice, I don’t think we can call 16 seasons a short time.

What about Orlando Cepeda? I don’t think he deserved it either. But just because he got in, it doesn’t mean Rice should. Frankly, that just seems like whining to me.

In conclusion: Sympathy got Rice in.