Kirby Puckett is in the hall?:hihi:

Winning a Championship does not get you in the Hall SK70! If that were the criteria then we would have to throw out guys like Ted Williams, Ernie Banks, etc.

That last line was in regards to your comment about Perez being a winner and that Rice was not! Guess that makes Ted Williams, Ernie Banks and others losers too?

Kirby Puckett doesn't deserve to be in the hall. Williams and Banks were 10 times better than Rice or Perez. Maybe Perez is in because he was a winner and Rice never won.

Just had to review Pucketts "Hall of Fame" credentials??? I think he got in on the pity vote!!! His numbers are no where near HOF numbers......yet he is in and Rice is not!!!??? 1085 RBI....2305 Hits.....a .318 BA.....207 Homers???? He never won an MVP award??? Other than playing on a Championship team what did he ever do???? There is the travesty!

Again with the winning?? Is that what you believe a HOF'er is??? They are elected based on their individual career numbers and performance....not whether they won a championship or not!:hs: Nolan Ryan never won a championship.....I think we should rescind his HOF status! Oh sorry.....Ryan did win one...as a member of the 69 Mets....I think he was waterboy or something!

Again I didn't vote. I think maybe the voters voted for Perez because he was a winner and played on winning teams. I think that if a player is on the bubble they take that into consideration. Mattingly should be in since Puckett is in. You could make a case for alot of players that are in who shouldn't be. I don't think Rice, Perez, Puckett, Dave Parker,Phil Rizzuto, Billy Williams, Richie Ashburn deserve to be in either. I could name more but those are the ones that come to mind.

Your going to compare Rice to Nolan Ryan:rollem:

Jim Rice does not belong in the same sentence as:

- Mickey Mantle
- Ted Williams
- Ernie Banks

period. full stop. end of story:gorez:

if your a winner, that helps you get into the hall of fame. regardless of its correct or not.

ThomCat,

Did you ever think that maybe if Rice had a championship that he would already be in the hof?

I believe that Rice should be in the hall, but people comparing Rice to Mantle and Banks and Williams. :smash:

Do we really need to list the accomplishments of these 3 players vs. Jim Rice?

You're right Rice had 37 more hits in a 125 more AB's. 150 less Home runs, 400 less runs scored, less RBI's, less stolen bases and a lower slugging percentage. Rice was a very good player , just not a HOFer.

If Rice was on a World Series championship team in his career he probably would be in the HOF.

I probably attended 40 or more games a year from 75 to 77 and then not as many but regularly until about 1980 when tickets became hard to get and prices went way up. At that time , Rice was not even one of the biggest stars on the Red Sox. They had Lynn , Fisk , burleson , yastremski , Tiant , so many other guys who were that much better than Rice. Hell IMO even Dwight Evans was a better all around player.

I liked him cause he was a good hitter but just an average fielder and not a clutch hitter IMO. So , I'm not too surprised he is not in and think it could go either way as far as him ever getting in. .

That is a most ridiculous statement.....again you do think winning a championship is what merits inclusion in the HOF! I am pretty much done with this conversation.....SK70 and Wrikerjr....you guys are New Yawkers ain't cha?:uhuh:

[QUOTE=BigFish;553923]That is a most ridiculous statement.....again you do think winning a championship is what merits inclusion in the HOF!


It's the only reason Joe Namath is in the football hall of fame !!!
His career stats suck but he had a big mouth with his prediction and his team (Buddy Ryan's defense) won the most important super bowl !

It's a fact. If he won a championship or 2 he would probably be in. I am not saying it's right because I don't think he belongs in either way. Championship or not.

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;553939]
Exactly! Joe Namath was very overrated. Actually he really wasn't good just avearge.

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;553939]
He also gave the AFL instant credibility and put it on an equal footing with the old guard. Without the Jets' win, and that of the Chiefs the next year (and they were almost as big an underdog to the Vikes as the Jets were to the Colts), it's very unlikely that Pete Rozelle would have convinced the Steelers, Colts and Browns to switch over to the new AFC. You would not have the divisional structure you have today.

[QUOTE=Mike P;554009]
So that made him a hall of famer???

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;554025]His stats are as good as Aikman's. And he had a bigger impact on the game. The merger was agreed upon, but the structuring of the league wasn't settled. If the AFL hadn't shown it could compete with the big boys, the 9 AFL teams would have been scattered around the NFL divisions. The Pats wouldn't be playing in the AFC east--they'd be playing in the eastern division of the NFL, along with the Jets and Bills, joining the Giants, Eagles, Redskins, and whatever other original eastern division NFL team that would be left in that division. He allowed the AFL to retain its basic identity as the new AFC.

Just as an FYI--he threw for roughly the same number of yards, and slightly fewer TDs, as Stabler in a shorter career. Without a Warren Wells, or a Fred Bilitnikoff, or a Dave Casper to throw to. Don Maynard was a good receiver, but his other targets were guys like George Sauer Jr and Richard Caster. He never had a speed merchant WR to throw to. And he missed more than half of 4 seasons due to injuries. Imagine what he could have done with only one good knee, let alone two.

[QUOTE=Mike P;554056]
Aikman threw for over 5,000 more yards than Joe on a run oriented team. Aikman was also very accurate completing over 61% of his passes while Joe was around 50%. And I think Namath threw alot more INT's than TD's. Aikman is one of those guys who made the HOF on the fact that he has 3 rings.

SK70....now its a case where a guy has "too many" rings to be in the HOF???? Man o' man. :doh:

So Aikman is in only because he has 3 rings but his stats suck?!??!

Rice would be in if he had won a championship?!?!? Which in turn to you means he has the numbers but no "WIN"?!?!?

I asked are you from NY?:laugha:

Agreed, unfortunately it really does matter with voters.

I am a yankees fan and not afraid to admit it. I do believe that rice deserves to be in the hall, without question. Problem is that you (or others not really sure) compare him to mantle william banks are just crazy or don't really have a clue.

winning championships really does matter in certain instances, it is one of many factors.

If your a power hitter (in the pre-steroid era) and you do not have 500 home runs than you are not automatically in on your numbers, other things weigh in on people's votes. Not saying its correct or fair, just the way it is. Sometimes its championships, sometimes is bieng a clutch player, sometimes if your an ass the voters can be an ass.

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;554025]Yes

Re-read my posts..."I" did not compare Rice to Williams, Banks or especially Mantle.....as I do not think they are comparable stats wise at all! Its apples and watermelons but I do think they all belong in the same fruit stand!:laughs:

My comments on Williams, Banks was strictly in regards to SK70's comments about if they don't win, they don't belong in the HOF!

My bad. I agree they all belong in the hall!!!

Don't go putting words in my mouth. I said some people are in because they won. That's just the way it is. I stated Rice doesn't belong in whether he won or not. But if he did win he would probably be in. What don't you understand?

Obviously you don't understand. You must be from Bahstan.

[QUOTE=wrikerjr;554184]I am a yankees fan and not afraid to admit it. I do believe that rice deserves to be in the hall, without question. Problem is that you (or others not really sure) compare him to mantle william banks are just crazy or don't really have a clue.



:rotfl:You're a YANKEE FAN, get the farque outta here!!! Being a Sox fan myself, I undestand dissapointment. Not making it year after year will cause a bitterness and resentment that has to manifest itself somewhere. It doesn't make one a bad person!!!:pop: Okay, Last time, I, for one, never compared Rice to Mantle. Mantle was a much better all around ball player without question. I simply stated that a number of the offensive numbers were similar. As for the top of the all-time list of ballplayers there are only four: Ted Williams (lost 4 prime years to defending his country) Lou Gerig (career cut tragically short), Babe Ruth and Henry Aaron. All the rest are looking up and from a looooong way down. Period, end of story. Peace & Love :wid: :grins: :cheers:............ P.S. I love this %$%$%$%$e!!!

OK i will leave then.

[QUOTE=Mike P;554056]
I don't think Aikman should have gone in also!
He's another one like Bob Griese who is in because of the teams success and a GREAT running game.
Both did more to not loose games and neither had to carry the team on their back!
My opinion,
The hall of fame should be for the greatest players, not pretty good players!

It's not the hall of pretty good as someone has said

we will see how you guys feel when some of your pretty good pats are in the hall of fame, because they were on a dynasty.

Funny thing--I'll bet you that Rice gets more support for Cooperstown from the NY media than from Boston's.