Designated HitterDecember 15, 2005
Pride and Prejudice
By Jeff Peek

It's not that I'm looking for a reason to change my mind about my National Baseball Hall of Fame selections (because I'm not). But fan reaction -- or the lack thereof -- has helped me realize that I made the right decision by a) not voting for Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith or Jim Rice, and b) continuing to vote for Bert Blyleven after leaving him off my first ballot.

In three years since becoming a Hall of Fame voter, I have not received one e-mail, letter or phone call in support of Sutter, Smith or Rice -- not one. And it's not like I've kept my opinions a secret.

Within 48 hours of going public with my first ballot in 2003, however, I was contacted by a hearty group of Blyleven supporters who made such an impressive case for his inclusion that I vowed then that Blyleven would get my vote every year until he made it to Cooperstown.

That support has not waned.

Make whatever derogatory remark you want -- Blyleven's numbers are based on longevity, he never won a Cy Young Award, he was known for his curveball and nothing more -- the case is strong and clear cut.

Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Forget his name for a moment. Most Hall of Fame voters who are down on Blyleven will turn off their hearing aids at the least mention of him anyway. Just answer this question honestly: If I told you that only one pitcher in the history of baseball (Nolan Ryan) ranks higher than "Pitcher X" in all three of the following categories -- wins, strikeouts and shutouts -- would you put "Pitcher X" in the Hall of Fame?

If you answered "no," then it's time to reserve your room in the psychiatric ward.

I am convinced that Hall of Fame voters don't vote for Bert Blyleven because his name is Bert Blyleven. What other legitimate reason can there be? Every other argument is secondary to the facts.

Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, Don Sutton, Early Wynn and Phil Niekro are all in the Hall of Fame, and their average stats are nearly identical to Blyleven's. In the Dutchman's 4,970 innings (that's four innings more than the group average), he allowed 91 more hits and 30 more earned runs, but he struck out 438 more batters, allowed 107 fewer walks and coughed up four fewer home runs -- which is ironic because one of the big knocks on Blyleven is he allowed too many round-trippers.

So you're going to deny a guy enshrinement because he gave up one more hit every 55 innings and one more earned run every 166 innings than those other eight Hall of Famers did (on average)?

That's weak -- and unfair.

Throw in the fact that Blyleven won two World Series championships with the 1979 Pirates and 1987 Twins while fashioning a 5-1 W-L record and a 2.47 ERA in postseason play and the case is even more clear.

It's time for Hall of Fame voters to put their stubborness aside and swallow their pride. If you didn't vote for Blyleven in the past, you've been making a mistake.

I know. I made the same one.

But only once.

Jeff Peek writes for the Traverse City (Mich.) Record-Eagle and has been a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America (Detroit chapter) for 13 years. He drives farther to cover his team, the Detroit Tigers, than any other member of the BBWAA -- 240 miles, each way. This is his third year as voter for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Additional reader comments and retorts at Baseball Primer.]


It's a shame that Blyleven has been ignored for so long. His stats certainly speak for him. A lack of Cy Young awards should not take away from his amazing accomplishments. I applaud your efforts towards getting him into the hall of fame.

VOTE FOR GOOSE!!! I grew up watching him before the "closer for one inning" rule appeared- He belongs- He was dominant

It is encouraging to hear from someone who actually votes for Blyleven. I am not old enough to have seen Blyleven when he was pitching at a Hall of Fame level, but it is still easy for me to see that he deserves to be enshrined in Cooperstown. Good work Jeff.

The ONLY reason that I can see that Blyleven isn't a no-brainer pick is that he didn't get 300 wins. I don't know where to find the stats, but it would be interesting to know how many games Blyleven left in the 7th inning on with a lead that got blown by his pen. Additionally, how many of the 240+ complete games did he loose 1-0, 2-1? My gut tells me that statistically, that's where the difference is.

Let's use the same argument for the batting triple crown categories. Only the following short list of players exceeded "Player X" in home runs, RBI, and batting average:

Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Foxx, Mays, Bonds, Ott, Ted Williams, Mantle, Frank Thomas

Who is "Player X"? Jim Rice. Now you can stop saying his supporters havn't been heard from.

Blyleven won 15 games by the score of 1-0. He ranks third all-time, behind Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson. His first two wins with the Rangers in 1976 were ten-inning, complete-game 1-0 shutouts.

Bert also lost a lot of games by scores of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, etc. It has been documented that his run support was below average. From 1971-77, Blyleven's ERA was never worse than 3.00. Yet, his win-loss record stood at 122-113.

In 1980, Blyleven allowed more than three runs only twice in his first ten starts, yet his record stood at 0-4 when he shut out the New York Mets on the last day in May.

The idea of needing to win 300 games to make the HOF is silly. There are dozens of pitchers -- including well-known oldtimers Mordecai Brown (239), Bob Feller (266), Carl Hubbell (253), and Joe McGinnity (246); greats from the '50s and '60s like Jim Bunning (224), Don Drysdale (209), Whitey Ford (236), Bob Gibson (251), Sandy Koufax (165), Juan Marichal (243), and Robin Roberts (286); and many of Blyleven's contemporaries over the first half of his career like Catfish Hunter (224), Fergie Jenkins (284), and Jim Palmer (268) -- in Cooperstown who not only failed to win 300 but didn't even win as often as Blyleven.

Blyleven won 287 games. That is good for 24th all-time and 17th since 1900. There are 60 pitchers in the HOF. His wins (or lack thereof) certainly shouldn't disqualify him from getting elected. He has the numbers. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have the votes.

Having one player in front of you (Ryan, in Blyleven's case) is a lot different than having 12 guys in front of you, in Rice's case.

The fact that, in over 1000 career games outside of Fenway, Rice only put up a .780 OPS is all I need to know that he's totally undeserving of enshrinement. If he'd played in Cleveland, or Detroit, or Philly, or practically anywhere else, he'd have disappeared off the ballot after one year.

Cool beans, a real live HOF voter.

After Blyleven is elected (which hopefully is real soon), we need to work on Gossage. Sutter may be in the top 10 relievers of all time, but Gossage is in the top 5, so Goose has to go first.

P.S. I would say Rice has at least 10 hitters ahead of him, including an outfielder teammate.

Let me make my point more bluntly. Claiming that Blyleven is deserving of the Hall of Fame based on the fact that only Nolan Ryan is better than him in three cherry-picked categories is NOT a valid basis for him being elected. I used the Rice example to illustrate that.

Don't get me wrong, I think Blyleven deserves to be elected. I just think Peek's argument is a bad one. I could use it to say that only a short list of Hall of Famers have matched or exceeded Luis Tiant's career totals in wins, strikeouts and ERA, and I would be completely correct. That doesn't justify Tiant's election.

By going down that path, suddenly it's fair game to list a bunch of important stats in which Blyleven doesn't compare well and use them as justification for leaving him off the ballot. "Hey, his career ERA is 3.31 and that's not even in the top-100. Neither is his career ERA+, or his career WHIP. My God, how can I vote for this bum?" It creates an easy out for people who are already predisposed not to vote for him. The strength of his case is the totality of his career, not a few isolated stats.

On Rice, I have never understood the theory of arguing that he shouldn't be elected because other, more deserving guys also got the shaft. Hey, I think Dwight Evans should have been elected, too. He's better than at least a third of the right fielders already in the Hall of Fame. But simply because Evans got the shaft doesn't mean Rice should get it, too. Compare him to the guys already enshrined at his position. After all, they represent the standard that the Hall has set, by setting up the voting process, and endorsing all of the elections that have been made. It's their standard, not mine, so it only seems fair to judge him by that standard. If he's better than enough of his HOF predecessors, elect him. If not, then leave him out.

I believe, on that basis, that a valid argument could be made that Rice deserves to be elected. For instance, his career EQA of .298, which is adjusted for ballparks and eras, is smack in the middle of the 18 current left fielders in the Hall. Or, alternatively, look at Win Shares, find his totals wanting when compared to Hall of Famers, and choose not to support him.

But to argue that we should keep out Rice simply because voters made previous mistakes on Evans, Minnie Minoso, and a few others, strikes me as blatantly unfair.

I think Blyleven might deserve it based on his DIPS performmance. I have a site on this at

I don't claim that my DIPS method is the best or exactly right. But he ranks fairly high career wise. I know there is a lot to scroll through at this site, but I think we don't need to compare him to someone in the Hall already. I think he compares well to pitchers in general.

I also have rankings for players based on Win Shares per plate appearance and Total Player Rating per plate appearance. They are at

You can see where Jim Rice ranks

Take a look at where Jim Rice ranks among his peers, during the time he played. 1st or 2nd in almost all key offensive stats. Check out the last page of this document:

Jim Rice deserves to be in the Baseball Hall Of Fame.Rice ranks 1st in many offensive stats among his peers during the time he played.-Hits,RBI,Home Runs,Slugging,extra base hits,etc. Rice was the only player during the 1974 through 1997 era to average .300 with 30 homers.-He also did this in three different increments during this time frame.Rice is also the only player in major league history to have 3 years in a row of at least 35 home runs and 200 hits.Pretty amazing stuff! That's dominating an era.(HOF criteria I believe).Rice was also a better leftfielder than most people give him credit for.From 75 through 85 he led the majors in assists.Peter Gammons has said that Rice should have won a gold glove in 83.Some people say that Rice didn't achieve certain milestone stats.I believe that if Rice played in the era of steroids,corked bats,juiced balls,short porches and expansion pitching,his stats would be significantly more padded than his already impressive numbers-and he wouldn't have needed steroids to do it!-Rice's peers always thought he was the stongest guy around.Also,if Kirby Puckett and Orlando Cepeda are in,you have to put Rice in.I have no problems with Puckett or Cepeda but HOF voters clearly gave Puckett a break due to his eye problem.Should Rice be penalized for his career ending a little short due to sight,elbow and knee problems that occured at virtually the same time? Also Rice and Gil Hodges have received the most HOF votes without getting elected.In fact,Rice received more votes than Gary Carter in two different years and Carter's in! I don't get it. People that aren't totally familiar with Rice need to go back and really study his career before passing judgement.Please visit the Jim Rice for Hall Of Fame website for more information. Jim Rice deserves his rightful place in the Hall Of Fame. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Garrett Squires

Jim Rice ranks 417th among all players in Win Shares per plate appearance. He is 197th among outfielders. Players included in the study had either at least 5000 (PAs) or at least 141 WS or both through the 2001 season.

He is 58th in TPR per plate appearance amongst outfielders with 7500+ PAs. 139th overall.

I don't think we should be looking at HRs, RBIs, etc. We need to look at stats that look at the entire contribution a player makes (like WS and TPR) from hitting, fielding, etc. A guy could have a high HR and RBI total, but that does not mean he was good. If he played in a good park and alot of guys got on base for him, he may not have been that good.

Rice, for example, got a big plus from Fenway. His AVG/OBP/SLG at home was .320/.374/.546. On the road it was .277/.330/.459. From Retrosheet.

The ranking below shows the top hitters in offensive winning percentage (OWP) for all players with 5000+ PAs from 1974-89 (it covers Rice's career). It's a Bill James stat that projects what a team's winning percentage would be if each offensive player was cloned to that player and the team had an average pitching staff. Since I am using it from the Lee Sinins Sabermetric Encyclopedia, it is adjusted for park effects. Rice ranks 33rd.

1 Wade Boggs .737
2 Rickey Henderson .708
3 Tim Raines .708
4 Joe Morgan .704
5 Mike Schmidt .698
6 George Brett .693
7 Rod Carew .683
8 Eddie Murray .673
9 Jack Clark .661
10 Ken Singleton .656
11 Keith Hernandez .649
12 Reggie Jackson .647
13 Dave Winfield .640
14 Greg Luzinski .636
15 Fred Lynn .633
16 Dwight Evans .628
17 Paul Molitor .627
18 Jose Cruz .626
19 Bobby Grich .618
20 Hal McRae .616
21 George Foster .615
22 Mike Hargrove .609
23 Richie Zisk .604
24 Jason Thompson .601
25 Al Oliver .600
26 Toby Harrah .600
27 Cecil Cooper .600
28 Brian Downing .599
29 Ken Griffey Sr. .598
30 Robin Yount .598
31 Dale Murphy .593
32 Andre Thornton .593
33 Jim Rice .593

OK, we've gone all Jim Rice, all the time.

Top 25, best 7 seasons, AL 1973 to 2005:

1. The Big Hurt
2. A-Rod
3. Griffey Jr.
4. Manny
5. Joey Belle
6. Jason Giambi
7. Edgar Martinez
8. Dewey Evans
9. Thome
10. Rickey Henderson
11. Raffy Palmeiro
12. Carlos Delgado
13. Brett
14. Rice
15. Boggs
16. Molitor
17. Murray
18. Reggie
19. Juan Gone
20. Roberto Alomar
21. Yount
22. Carew
23. Mo Vaughn
24. Bernie Williams
25. Donnie Baseball

This is based on offense only, environment adjusted, multiple run estimate.

Anyway, Rice is real good sure, but there are quite a few better. I won't be upset if he goes in or doesn't go in, and he used to be my favorite player too.

[Editor's note: the comments in parentheses after Palmeiro and Alomar have been deleted]

What is "multiple run estimate?" Is it like something Lee Sinins uses called RCAA? Here is how he defines it:

RCAA--Runs created above average. This is my own creation. It's the difference between a player's RC total and the total for an average player who used the same amount of his team's outs. A negative RCAA indicates a below average player in this category.

Rice is always going to look worse using Win Shares as the measurement in lieu of other measurements, because Win Shares puts extra weight on the two types of outs Rice made a lot of - strikeouts and double plays.

The assessment that those types of outs are more damaging than others is incomplete. I have seen some work done on strikeouts, particularly with runners on base, being more damaging than other outs, but I've never seen anything that validates that double plays are more damaging to run scoring and winning than other types of outs.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. In Rice's four bad years for GIDPs, 1982 thru 1985, the Red Sox were 286-253 in games in which Rice didn't ground into a double play. They were 54-54 in games in which he did. There is no significant statistical difference between those two winning percentages. There is, however, a statistically significant difference in the club's winning percentage in games when Rice faced at least one DP situation as opposed to never facing one. When Rice faced at least one DP situation in a game, the Red Sox's winning percentaqe was .572. When he faced none, that percentage dropped to .489. That's a significant difference, statistically and otherwise, and it points to the opposite conclusion most people usually draw about Rice. Namely, that it was a GOOD thing for the Red Sox to have Jim Rice in a double play situation.

In fact, the more double play situations the team put Jim Rice in, the more runs they scored. In 1984, Rice's record-breaking year for tallying GIDPs, the club scored 4.63 R/G when Rice faced zero DP situations. That number stayed essentially flat (4.59) if he faced just one situation. But if he faced two DP situations, they scored 5.6 R/G, and they scored 5.8 when he faced three DP situations, and 7.7 when he was in four DP situations in the same game. That trend holds for his entire career.

In short, there really isn't any evidence that Rice's GIDP totals hurt the team, and in fact it clearly helped them to put him in those situations, but James' formula for Win Shares not only docks everyone for their GIDP totals, it actually counts against them TWICE. First, he adds extra outs to their out totals for each GIDP, then he subtracts an extra time reaching base for each GIDP, on the theory that the hitter elimintated another runner and that should count against him. That's a double whammy in the Runs Created calculation for Win Shares, but I can't find any statistical evidence that proves a GIDP is a bad thing for run creation or wins.

One mistake, the list above is not park adjusted, only league normalized.

Multiple run estimate: basically I use the jar of jellybeans theory, and get estimates of the runs the player created from the four best sources I know, that each attack the problem from a different angle:

Runs scored, RBI, RC (technical formula), and XR (my personal favortie)

P.S. In most formulas strikeouts will barely register, and a douple play is not a worse type of out, it's 2 outs. However GDP is hugely batting order position dependent, and my use of RBI balances that nicely. (Someone like Jim Rice hit into a ton of DP, but also got all those RBI, in large part to his batting order position)

In response to Paul White above: it's possible that I'm oversimplifying here, and I also have no statistical backing to this argument or anything, but isn't it possible (if not likely) that the reason the Red Sox fared better in games where Rice faced double-play situations versus games in which he didn't be due to the fact that, despite the general negativity of a double play, the fact that the situation would come up at all is a reflection of the fact that OTHER Red Sox players are at least getting base?

To me, it seems this might explain why there is little difference in runs scored per game between zero or one GIDP/game, as one GIDP situation per game doesn't necessarily mean there were many runners on base; however, if Rice is facing two, three or especially four situations per game, it becomes obvious that the runs/game would also go up, as THE REST OF THE TEAM is clearly doing a better job putting themselves in a position to score runs.

Before your data could even be considered as remotely significant, i think it would be of necessity to see how other players' ratios change in this same manner and see if Rice's is honestly any better (if not a lot worse). A quick hypothesis says he won't come out looking any better.

I'm not saying that Rice wasn't a valuable player, or that we haven't in some way overestimated the negative impact of a GIDP, but it just seems to me that your argument is suspect and illogical. But if i'm wrong, please, let me know.

I still want a Rice supporter to tell me why a player who so clearly performed far below HoF standards in games outside of Fenway (career .789 ops at Fenway, .920 at Fenway) should be regarded as if the park influence doesn't matter.

Rice's road OPS is equivalent to a 106 OPS+ over the course of his career. Not bad, the equivalent of contempories like Dan Ford of the Twins, and Claudell Washington of the White Sox. Claudell had a career around the same length as Rice... I wonder if, had Claudell played in Boston, and Rice was based in Oakland and Comiskey, etc., we'd be hearing an outcry of support for Claudell to be enshrined in the HoF?

Jeffrey B. - I'm sure you're correct, other players probably have similar distributions. But that's my point - why is extra negative weight placed on the batter who hits into the double plays if DP situations generally are good for the team? The Red Sox regularly led the league in GIDPs in the same year they would lead the league in runs scored. I have yet to see any statistical evidence that would support the conclusion that a player should have extra negative weight placed on his productivity based upon double plays.

And even if such evidence did exist, why base that weight on raw totals instead of ratios? All other stats that are dependent upon teammates, like runs and RBI, are excluded from the Win Shares calculation. Why not DPs as well? You can't hit into one unless a teammate put you in a position to do so, and Jim Rice regularly faced more DP situations - by enormous margins - than any other player in baseball due to the players batting in front of him and the Red Sox station-to-station style of play. It seems illogical to refuse to give him credit for large RBI totals but then discredit him for large DP totals when both are functions of the players hitting in front of him.

Rice never led the league in DP rate, but he is regularly criticized for leading the league in total GIDPs four straight years. Well, that stat goes out the window when you recognize that while Rice may have led the league in 1983 with 31 DPs, Dave Winfield tallied 30 double plays in 48 fewer opportunities. He faced 156 DP opportunities, while Rice faced 204. Had he faced the same number of DP situations as Rice, Winfield would have totaled 39 double plays. Likewise, in 1982, Rice led the AL with 29 GIDPs in 162 DP situations. Meanwhile, John Wathan faced only 101 DP opportunities but hit into 26 double plays, a rate that would have seen him hit into 42 double plays had he faced the same number of opportunities as Rice.

Or how about Rice's record-setting year of 1984, when he tallied 36 GIDPs, a mark that still stands? Why is it never mentioned that those 36 DPs came in 203 DP situations, a rate of 17.7%, while Ken Singleton racked up 20 GIDPs in just 98 opportunities, a rate of over 20%?

Given those kinds of numbers, doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous that Rice's Win Shares calculations would be penalized more than Winfield's or Wathan's or Singleton's? Particularly since there is scant evidence that those DPs actually hurt the team's chances of scoring or winning?

Salvomania - Raw OPS splits are adjusted for in stats like WARP3, EQA, and TPR. In all cases, Rice's score places him above several HOFers at his position.

EQA - Rice's mark is .298. Of the eighteen left fielders already in the Hall of Fame, eight are better than Rice, eight are woorse, and two are tied.

WARP3 - Rice's mark of 89.6 is ahead of 8 of the eighteen current left fielder in the Hall.

TPR - This is dated a bit because I don't have the most current edition of Total Baseball in front of me, but last time I checked, Rice had a mark of 26.4, which is higher than half of the current left fielders already in the Hall.

All of those numbers account for ballpark advantages and league scoring, and in each case, Rice ranks higher than a significant number of the current left field group in the Hall. He wouldn't be the best left fielder in the Hall of Fame, but when he can reasonably lay claim to being better than about half the group already there, why shouldn't he be elected? As I've said before, it's not his fault that the Bob Johnsons, Minnie Minosos and Sherry Magees of the world were passed over. The Hall has set the standards by approving the elections that have been made. To judge Rice against anything but those standards isn't fair.

You could also look at it this way; Say that 18 is the proper number of left fielders who should be in the Hall of Fame. That's the numner that are currently there (excluding Negro Leaguers). Now let's assume that career WARP3 score was the stat used to determine which 18 players would fill those slots.

Looking only at the players currently eligible, 13 of the current 18 Hall of Famers would get to keep their spots. The five who would drop out are: Joe Kelley (84.4), Lou Brock (82.4), Ralph Kiner (72.4), Heinie Manush (62.3), and Chick Hafey (49.0). The five guys who would replace them would be Brian Downing (93.4), Bob Johnson (91.6), Jim Rice (89.6), Jimmy Sheckard (89.1), and Jose Cruz (88.7). Rice would be #13 on the list, ahead of the five current Hall of Famers who dropped out, plus three other current Hall of Famers who got to keep their spots - Goose Goslin (89.3), Zack Wheat (89.5), and Joe Medwick (87.7). (FYI - In his first year of eligibility, Albert Belle would have a case for becoming #19 in the Hall, with a career score of 88.5. Guys like Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, and Tim Raines would easily qualify, bringing the list to 22 in the future.)

You could do the same exercise with TPR and get similar results. Now, if the Hall has determined that 18 guys, to date, are worthy at that position, and Rice has one of the 18 best scores, to date, why shouldn't he be elected? Because the voters screwed up on Downing and Johnson?

I am tired of hearing about how many double plays Jim Rice hit into. The bottom line is Jim Rice had Wade Boggs, "The Human Tourtise" hitting in front of him. Boggs got on base 300 times a year. This presented many opportunities for Rice to hit into double plays. Also, Dwight Evans, who was another very slow runner would bat in front of Rice at times and he also would walk 100 times per year. For these reasons, Rice is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to avoiding GDIP's.

Wayne has a point. Here is a table showing the number of times Rice GIDP and his ranking in the AL:

1975  AL  T5TH    19
1976  AL  T5TH    18
1977  AL  5TH     21
1981  AL  T7TH    14
1982  AL  1ST     29
1983  AL  T1ST    31
1984  AL  1ST     36
1985  AL  1ST     35
1986  AL  T6TH    19
1987  AL  3RD     22
1988  AL  T8TH    18

Boggs' rookie year was in 1982. Rice placed in the top seven four times before Boggs and then led the league in each of Wade's first four seasons.

My head is spinning now...You know,I can appreciate all these stats both for and against Rice but I think we need to get back to the basics.I'm no expert but i've spent a good deal of time sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and watching Baseball.I think I can call a Hall of Famer when I see'em.-Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer in my book.

Hey. I got nothing against Jim Rice. But this article is about Bert Blyleven. There is NO QUESTION of Blyleven being a Hall of Famer -- or, rather, if there is, as this article (and so many others) have pointed out, then that question should be asked of other current Hall of Famers. Didn't win 300 games? Neither did Catfish Hunter, Don Drysdale, Fergie Jenkins or Bob Feller. Didn't win a Cy Young? Neither did Nolan Ryan (98.8% first ballot) or Don Sutton. Blyleven's omission from the Hall of Fame is much, much, MUCH more egregious than the omission of Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter or Dale Murphy or Lee Smith or Andre Dawson or others who probably "should" be in Cooperstown.

Well put, Jason.

Dominant for a significant period of time= Hall of Famer. Thats Albert Belle...and he wasn't juiced up like Mcguire (or he'd lasted longer and have simliar career numbers. His attitude should not matter, though it did cost him an MVP

Jim Rice belongs in the hall of fame for sure. I don't think it is fair however to compare the eighties players to the mid-nineties players as far as stats go. For instance, Eddie Murray had an incredible run from 1980 to 1985 piling up a ton of mvp votes, more than any other player for those years, yet his stats don't compare to Raffy's, who didn't get near the votes that Murray received. Anyway, Jim Rice was a very dominant player for at least 12 years and that should be enough. It was enough for Koufax, Dimaggio, Sandberg and Sutter......I hate saying this but if Rice were white or a media darling he'd be a sure bet to get in. I'm white by the way. Jim Rice in his prime didn't have to take a back seat to no one and that right there should be all there is to it.