PDA

View Full Version : Jim Rice: "To me, I think I played when men were men,"



flutie22
03-04-04, 10:29 AM
http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=569

smr15
03-04-04, 11:41 AM
I always liked Jim Rice... Fred Lynn, ....and Dwight Evans.... how could you not?

Those were great teams for both Boston and NY in the late 70's.
Fun times.

Irabu's Son
03-04-04, 11:51 AM
I agree with Rice on all accounts. Great article. Thanks for posting.

Bub
03-04-04, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by smr15
I always liked Jim Rice... Fred Lynn, ....and Dwight Evans.... how could you not? I hear ya. However, you hated having to face them back-to-back-to-back. I particularly liked Lynn....a very graceful player.

ny
03-04-04, 12:08 PM
i still dont know how rice got the mvp over gator in 78. i mean how can you give a mvp award to anyone on a team that choked as bad as the sox did that year. doesnt matter anyway gator got the ring and thats all that counts.

NDBoston
03-04-04, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by ny
i still dont know how rice got the mvp over gator in 78. i mean how can you give a mvp award to anyone on a team that choked as bad as the sox did that year. doesnt matter anyway gator got the ring and thats all that counts.

I would like to ask George King the same question about Pedro Martinez

cubswin
03-04-04, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by ny
i still dont know how rice got the mvp over gator in 78. i mean how can you give a mvp award to anyone on a team that choked as bad as the sox did that year. doesnt matter anyway gator got the ring and thats all that counts.


probably had something to do w/Rice having the most productive year at the plate since Babe Ruth and Guidry getting the Cy

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by NDBoston


I would like to ask George King the same question about Pedro Martinez


A little research shows that Pedro had a much better case against Pudge compared to Gator's vs. Rice.

Pudge 1999 (HR/RBI/Total Bases/OPS+)
35/113/335/120
Rice 1978
46/139/406/158

Pedro 1999 (W/L, ERA+)
23-4, 213, 245
Gator 1978
25-3, 273, 208

Rice - Gator .. close call, but you can certainly make an arguement that Rice was deserving.

Pedro - Pudge ... no contest, Pedro was robbed... Thanks George King!

Irabu's Son
03-04-04, 01:04 PM
After looking up the stats, one would have to give it to Gator. That's one of the best pitching seasons I have ever seen. I mean come on.. <b>25-3</b>, 1.74, 248 K in 274 IP. Wow.

Take a look at the voting:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1978.shtml#ALmvp

Irabu's Son
03-04-04, 01:06 PM
oh and after looking at the fabled 1999 votings, neither Petey nor Pudge should have won it. In fact, Pudge wasn't even the MVP of his team...

AL MVP in 1999 should have gone to Raphy Palmiero, by far.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1978.shtml#ALmvp

flutie22
03-04-04, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son


AL MVP in 1999 should have gone to Raphy Palmiero, by far.



im speechless

Irabu's Son
03-04-04, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son
oh and after looking at the fabled 1999 votings, neither Petey nor Pudge should have won it. In fact, Pudge wasn't even the MVP of his team...

AL MVP in 1999 should have gone to Raphy Palmiero, by far.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1978.shtml#ALmvp

Okay.. I changed my mind. Manny. How could a guy who hits .333 with 44 HR and <b>165</b> RBI not get the MVP??

penguin4
03-04-04, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son

AL MVP in 1999 should have gone to Raphy Palmiero, by far.

Yeah, so instead they gave him AL Gold Glove :rolleyes:. [Yes, I'm a still bitter Tino fan....]

flutie22
03-04-04, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son


Okay.. I changed my mind. Manny. How could a guy who hits .333 with 44 HR and <b>165</b> RBI not get the MVP??

right manny

Irabu's Son
03-04-04, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by penguin4

Yeah, so instead they gave him AL Gold Glove :rolleyes:. [Yes, I'm a still bitter Tino fan....]

Yeah, the GG was a joke.

flutie22
03-04-04, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by flutie22


right manny

he was more deserving than raffy thats all i was goin to say

cubswin
03-04-04, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son
After looking up the stats, one would have to give it to Gator. That's one of the best pitching seasons I have ever seen. I mean come on.. <b>25-3</b>, 1.74, 248 K in 274 IP. Wow.

Take a look at the voting:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1978.shtml#ALmvp


maybe you would, "one" wouldn't.

Did you bother looking at Rice's stats?

Here's an exercise: compare Rice's #s w/the #3,4 and 5. The compare Guidry's to Mike Caldwell's. Whose #s reflect a bigger difference?

Also, re Guidry -- one of the best pitching seasons? Sure. But better than Gibson a decade before? Gooden and Clemens 8 yrs later? Pedro '99?

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son
After looking up the stats, one would have to give it to Gator. That's one of the best pitching seasons I have ever seen. I mean come on.. <b>25-3</b>, 1.74, 248 K in 274 IP. Wow.

Take a look at the voting:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1978.shtml#ALmvp

Rice's season was easily as dominating. Read my post.

smr15
03-04-04, 01:26 PM
It f'ing amazes me that what started out as a thread to share something Rice has said, followed by admiring posts of some Sox players of that era,... has now become a "let's slam the Yankee players / Red Sox got robbed" post-fest.

Isn't there ever a time where a Red Sox fan on this website can leave things be?
Ever?

It's so damn tedious, guys.

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son
oh and after looking at the fabled 1999 votings, neither Petey nor Pudge should have won it. In fact, Pudge wasn't even the MVP of his team...

Well .. Pedro's '99 season was considerably better than Gator's '78.

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by smr15
It f'ing amazes me that what started out as a thread to share something Rice has said, followed by admiring posts of some Sox players of that era,... has now become a "let's slam the Yankee players / Red Sox got robbed" post-fest.

Isn't there ever a time where a Red Sox fan on this website can leave things be?
Ever?

It's so darn tedious, guys.


looks like poster "ny" got the ball rolling. (and i'm guessing he's not a sox fan)

smr15
03-04-04, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by hugelongtermdeal

looks like poster "ny" got the ball rolling. (and i'm guessing he's not a sox fan)
You're right... I missed that... (all those teeny-tiny small letters)

I stand corrected.

ojo
03-04-04, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by hugelongtermdeal


Well .. Pedro's '99 season was considerably better than Gator's '78.

you HONESTLY believe this?

yeah, 16 complete games to pedro's 5.
9 shutouts, to pedro's 1.

274 IP to pedro's 213.

.186 opp avg to pedro's .200 opp avg.


pedro did one thing better than guidry - strike out more batters. big deal. guidry was a HORSE that year. pedro, in his BEST YEAR, cannot be considered a true horse when he only shuts out 1 team, and finishes a meager 5 games.

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by ojo


you HONESTLY believe this?

yeah, 16 complete games to pedro's 5.
9 shutouts, to pedro's 1.

274 IP to pedro's 213.

.186 opp avg to pedro's .200 opp avg.


pedro did one thing better than guidry - strike out more batters. big deal. guidry was a HORSE that year. pedro, in his BEST YEAR, cannot be considered a true horse when he only shuts out 1 team, and finishes a meager 5 games.


Yes, honestly I do ...

complete games/ IP/ shutouts -- different era
ERA+ is the important number to look at here -- and it isn't even close.

ojo
03-04-04, 02:24 PM
the man missed SIX starts. the reality is this:

had pedro pitched in an era where he was expected to complete games, he'd probably be announcing games for telemundo at his age now.

cubswin
03-04-04, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by smr15
It f'ing amazes me that what started out as a thread to share something Rice has said, followed by admiring posts of some Sox players of that era,... has now become a "let's slam the Yankee players / Red Sox got robbed" post-fest.

Isn't there ever a time where a Red Sox fan on this website can leave things be?
Ever?

It's so darn tedious, guys.


actually, it was a pro-Yankee "slam" of a Sox player that got this going. (although I don't think any player has actually been slammed here.) maybe Yankees fans shouldn't turn everything into Yankees/Sox. (but you're not obsessed...)

[edit: I see that you acknowledged that ny got it going.]

cubswin
03-04-04, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by ojo
the man missed SIX starts. the reality is this:

had pedro pitched in an era where he was expected to complete games, he'd probably be announcing games for telemundo at his age now.

actually, just like I think it's ridiculous to compare players from the past to the present, it's impossible to say how Pedro would have fared in '78. Maybe he would have been so dominant that 9 innings every time out would have been easy...

the only way to compare their years, as far as I know, is to compare their respecive performances to those of their peers in each year. How did Pedro compare against the average pitcher? against the other top 10? what about guidry?

hugelongtermdeal
03-04-04, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by cubswin
How did Pedro compare against the average pitcher? against the other top 10? what about guidry?

I believe, by definition, ERA+ covers this.

Nettles dfw
03-05-04, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by hugelongtermdeal
I believe, by definition, ERA+ covers this. But for an MVP discussion you can't ignore counting stats, imho. Guidry's 274 IP to Pedro's 213 makes Guidry more valuable to the team.

Nettles dfw
03-05-04, 08:58 PM
Since I might have a natural "anti-Rice" bias, I might be quick to dismiss the article. However, to be fair if the article was discussing how the perception of Mattingly or Nettles was going to be undervalued by comparison to recent stats I would strongly agree.

Nettles dfw
03-05-04, 09:00 PM
Oh... and by the way... Jeter for 1999 MVP!

flutie22
03-05-04, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
But for an MVP discussion you can't ignore counting stats, imho. Guidry's 274 IP to Pedro's 213 makes Guidry more valuable to the team.

the MVP award is the most valuable player in the league not the team.

Nettles dfw
03-05-04, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by flutie22


the MVP award is the most valuable player in the league not the team. Semantics.
My point was that counting stats matter for selecting a MVP. I don't think ERA+ by itself can be used to select the MVP.

cubswin
03-05-04, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
But for an MVP discussion you can't ignore counting stats, imho. Guidry's 274 IP to Pedro's 213 makes Guidry more valuable to the team.


which goes back to the problem of comparing eras. Comparing guidry's IP toa pitcher today is like comparing a player's HR totals today to Rice in '78 -- apples and oranges ...

Nettles dfw
03-06-04, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by cubswin



which goes back to the problem of comparing eras. Comparing guidry's IP toa pitcher today is like comparing a player's HR totals today to Rice in '78 -- apples and oranges ... I agree it is difficult to compare era's.
However
1) I think that individual Starting pitchers in the 60's and 70's were more valuable to their teams because they pitched a greater % of their team's innings. In the context of a league MVP Award, where a pitcher is "competing" against a batter, I think it is a little easier to build a case for a pitcher of the 60's and 70's.

2) I think Pedro's total innings need to be at least factored in when discussing his performance in the MVP (& Cy Young) votes.

And in the "if anyone cares" department... I was surprised to see that Guidry only finished 7th in the league in innings in '78 - I think Baltimore and KC were still in a four man rotation.

cubswin
03-06-04, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
I agree it is difficult to compare era's.
However
1) I think that individual Starting pitchers in the 60's and 70's were more valuable to their teams because they pitched a greater % of their team's innings. In the context of a league MVP Award, where a pitcher is "competing" against a batter, I think it is a little easier to build a case for a pitcher of the 60's and 70's.

2) I think Pedro's total innings need to be at least factored in when discussing his performance in the MVP (& Cy Young) votes.

And in the "if anyone cares" department... I was surprised to see that Guidry only finished 7th in the league in innings in '78 - I think Baltimore and KC were still in a four man rotation.


agree w/2. and perhaps w/1 -- the factor you mentioned may be offset by the fact that there were more good pitchers per team, so no single pitcher was necessarily as valuable to a team as a great one is today.

Anyway, I still think that's fairly clear that the awards outcome in '78 pretty clearly was correct: Guidry Cy, Rice MVP

NYYFAN
03-06-04, 08:27 AM
Jim please return the MVP to Ron Guidry....

Larry Mahnken
03-06-04, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
Oh... and by the way... Jeter for 1999 MVP!

Absolutely. Jeter was the most valuable player in the American League in 1999, and probably in all of baseball. I'm surprised that this crowd doesn't think that.

Bluesexy's daddy
03-06-04, 02:30 PM
Nice article. I'll tell you another reason that as a YANKEES fan I like Jim Rice. I saw him play one of his worst games one night in YANKEE stadium. The poor guy just wasn't "on". He droped a ball out of his glove after catching it cleanly without having to move a step. He made two bad reads on easily catchable fly balls and helped the YANKEES win that night. The normaly awesome Rice had a bad night at the plate. He seemed to be blind that night. Even as a young YANKEES fan I had to feel sorry for him because I knew he was much better than that.

After the game he was patiently signing autographgs. When he signed my program I realized that his face was swollen and he was sweating in the cool late night air. I had a sweatshirt on and wished I had a jacket. The guy obviously should have been home in bed! He was obviously feverish but there he was being very polite to everyone (mostly YANKEES fans) and smiling and signing autographs. Somebody in the crowd made a rude comment about his game. Some of the other fans were a bit embaressed by the comment but Rice just chuckled and kept smiling. Even as a diehard YANKEES fan I had to like the guy. I wondered why some people considered him to be unfriendly. I was still going to wish him strike outs every time he faced a YANKEES pitcher but I had to respect him.

Today there would be dozens of media reports on the players health if he seemed to be ill. We would be treated to medical opinions from a vast array of commentators that never passed a HS biology class. Not back then. There was no mention of it in the Daily News the following morning. But it all made an impression on me that I would not forget.

As for awards debates. I don't realy care one way or the other. Jim Rice was a great player and the Sox fans loved him so what the hell does it even matter how the media rated him?

Dooley Womack
03-06-04, 02:46 PM
Jim Rice is as coherent on TV as Bill Russel (of the Celts) was. Which isn't saying much.

cubswin
03-06-04, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Dooley Womack
Jim Rice is as coherent on TV as Bill Russel (of the Celts) was. Which isn't saying much.

Dooley, who cares -- about either's TV capabilities? Rice was probably the best hitter of his era. Russell was arguably the best player of all time. IMO, that's all that matters.

Dooley Womack
03-06-04, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by cubswin


Dooley, who cares -- about either's TV capabilities? Rice was probably the best hitter of his era. Russell was arguably the best player of all time. IMO, that's all that matters.

Was just commenting on this thread, pretty much saying who cares what Jim Rice thinks. I don't even think he himself knows what he thinks, based on what I've seen on his abilities on TV. He's always confused and most of what comes out of his mouth either doesn't make sense or is cliche-filled. That's where I was going with my post.

cubswin
03-06-04, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Dooley Womack


Was just commenting on this thread, pretty much saying who cares what Jim Rice thinks. I don't even think he himself knows what he thinks, based on what I've seen on his abilities on TV. He's always confused and most of what comes out of his mouth either doesn't make sense or is cliche-filled. That's where I was going with my post.


fair enough

Monkeyman
03-06-04, 06:34 PM
I hate pitchers getting MVP awards, and considering the award, according to the rule book, calls for offensive value, I don't see how they are actually eligible. However, thats not the point, Boston fans can't bitch, because in 78 the reason given for Rice over Guidry by many writers was simply that the award wasn't for a pitcher. However, they were singing a different tune in 86 when they gave it to Clemens over Mattingly. The IP in weren't drastically different: Guidry was 7th, Pedro was tied for 8th. For me, in 99, it should have been Manny Ramirez. He produced the most offense for the best offensive team in the league. But, tragically, I don't get a vote. I think they should specify that the CY is for pitchers, and the MVP is hitters, because other wise why have the CY? Also, change it to the Walter Johnson award, because he was about eleventy billion times better. And how about we change MVP to Babe Ruth award?

cubswin
03-06-04, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Monkeyman
I hate pitchers getting MVP awards, and considering the award, according to the rule book, calls for offensive value, I don't see how they are actually eligible. However, thats not the point, Boston fans can't bitch, because in 78 the reason given for Rice over Guidry by many writers was simply that the award wasn't for a pitcher. However, they were singing a different tune in 86 when they gave it to Clemens over Mattingly. The IP in weren't drastically different: Guidry was 7th, Pedro was tied for 8th. For me, in 99, it should have been Manny Ramirez. He produced the most offense for the best offensive team in the league. But, tragically, I don't get a vote. I think they should specify that the CY is for pitchers, and the MVP is hitters, because other wise why have the CY? Also, change it to the Walter Johnson award, because he was about eleventy billion times better. And how about we change MVP to Babe Ruth award?


I generally agree with you re Cy v. MVP. I am OK w/a pitcher getting it if there is a truly outstanding pitcher in a year when no batter clearly rises among the rest. In '78, Guidry was outstanding, but so was Rice. In 1986, Mattingly was great, but so were other hitters: Puckett, etc., I think. He probably had a better year than them, but he wasn't head-and-shoulders above. Clemens, on the other hand, was simply dominant. So I can see the argument for Mattingly, but that is the kind of year I can also see Clemens getting it. (At the time I thought it was clear-cut for Clemens, but I was a 16-year old fan who had followed Clemens since his Texas days, so I may have been a little biased :) )

Irabu's Son
03-08-04, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by cubswin



maybe you would, "one" wouldn't.

Did you bother looking at Rice's stats?

Here's an exercise: compare Rice's #s w/the #3,4 and 5. The compare Guidry's to Mike Caldwell's. Whose #s reflect a bigger difference?

Also, re Guidry -- one of the best pitching seasons? Sure. But better than Gibson a decade before? Gooden and Clemens 8 yrs later? Pedro '99?

Sorry, I had to bring this back to this post because I was away all weekend and couldn't defend my thoughts in this part of the discussion.

I'm not one to make biases on stats based on what year the fellas played in. So I have no problem saying that Rice's .315/46/139 year is almost nothing compared to Manny's .333/44/165 season in which Manny had <b>ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE</b> less at-bats than Rice.

In fact, I'm sorry to say, but the Rice stats don't impress me because I've grown up in this era where .315/46/139 is really just an all-star caliber year and not an MVP type season (comparable to, say Albert Belle in 1998: .328/49/152.. and I'll add that he finished ninth in the MVP vote with no first place votes).

However, we almost never see pitching stats like Gator had in 1978, so I suppose maybe that's why his numbers jumped out at me. From the 90's to 2003, we hardly ever see anyone pitch 250 innings, or win over 22 games, or have a 90% winning percentage. And if tie goes to the runner, I'm giving the MVP to Gator because his team won the pennant. Despite my ideas of not wanting to give pitchers MVP awards.

Not saying one is right or wrong, just wanted to add why I thought Guidry was deserving. And I understand it has a lot to do with my perception based on what we see in the game today.

NYYFAN
03-08-04, 10:56 AM
Ronnie's record was a major reason for a great 14 game come back and he won the playoff game against Boston as well...

His VALUE was unbelievable...

hugelongtermdeal
03-08-04, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son


Sorry, I had to bring this back to this post because I was away all weekend and couldn't defend my thoughts in this part of the discussion.

I'm not one to make biases on stats based on what year the fellas played in. So I have no problem saying that Rice's .315/46/139 year is almost nothing compared to Manny's .333/44/165 season in which Manny had <b>ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE</b> less at-bats than Rice.

In fact, I'm sorry to say, but the Rice stats don't impress me because I've grown up in this era where .315/46/139 is really just an all-star caliber year and not an MVP type season (comparable to, say Albert Belle in 1998: .328/49/152.. and I'll add that he finished ninth in the MVP vote with no first place votes).

However, we almost never see pitching stats like Gator had in 1978, so I suppose maybe that's why his numbers jumped out at me. From the 90's to 2003, we hardly ever see anyone pitch 250 innings, or win over 22 games, or have a 90% winning percentage. And if tie goes to the runner, I'm giving the MVP to Gator because his team won the pennant. Despite my ideas of not wanting to give pitchers MVP awards.

Not saying one is right or wrong, just wanted to add why I thought Guidry was deserving. And I understand it has a lot to do with my perception based on what we see in the game today.


Since you recognize that you have a bias, why can't you factor it into your thinking?

Of course Rice's stats look pedestrian compared to today's juiced up sluggers ... but take a minute to look at how he compared to his peers in 1978, and you'll realize just how dominant he was. By the same token, Guidry's stats look gaudy compared to today's pitchers ... still great, but not quite is dominant when put into the proper 1978 perspective.

yankees7
03-08-04, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Dooley Womack
Jim Rice is as coherent on TV as Bill Russel (of the Celts) was. Which isn't saying much.

:lol: I was thinking Moses Malone.

cubswin
03-08-04, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son


Sorry, I had to bring this back to this post because I was away all weekend and couldn't defend my thoughts in this part of the discussion.

I'm not one to make biases on stats based on what year the fellas played in. So I have no problem saying that Rice's .315/46/139 year is almost nothing compared to Manny's .333/44/165 season in which Manny had <b>ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE</b> less at-bats than Rice.
...



I think you hit it right on the head -- you're comparing different eras. That helps Guidry and hinders Rice in the comparison. Plus, when comparing their performance in that year, it's simply irrelevant that Todd Helton puts up monster stats, etc...

As I said in my first post, I ask that you try the following exercise: compare Rice's #s w/the #3,4 and 5. The compare Guidry's to Mike Caldwell's. Whose #s reflect a bigger difference?

cubswin
03-08-04, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by yankees7


:lol: I was thinking Moses Malone.


"fo, fo, fo..."

Irabu's Son
03-09-04, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by cubswin




I think you hit it right on the head -- you're comparing different eras. That helps Guidry and hinders Rice in the comparison. Plus, when comparing their performance in that year, it's simply irrelevant that Todd Helton puts up monster stats, etc...

As I said in my first post, I ask that you try the following exercise: compare Rice's #s w/the #3,4 and 5. The compare Guidry's to Mike Caldwell's. Whose #s reflect a bigger difference?

I suppose. But don't talk to me like I'm a kid.

ojo
03-09-04, 11:03 AM
that's absurd.

you compare #s to the overall average, not to the 2nd or 3rd players in said categories.

cubswin
03-09-04, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son


I suppose. But don't talk to me like I'm a kid.


I think you misinterpreted -- there was nothing condescending meant in my post.

cubswin
03-09-04, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by ojo
that's absurd.

you compare #s to the overall average, not to the 2nd or 3rd players in said categories.


Actually, it's not absurd. Both players are going to be far above the average, so that comparison likely won't reveal anything about their relative performances. However, Rice was head and shoulders above every other batter. Guidry was to a lesser extent -- the immortal Mike Caldwell actually posted numbers that were closer to Guidry than any batter was to Rice; I think another pitcher did so, also. If the argument is that Guidrydeserved both the Cy and the MVP, having 1 (or 2) other pitchers anywhere near his performance seriously weakens the argument, IMO. (Obviously, this is not a scientific or foolproof exercise -- but I think it's a useful way of looking at things in this kind of a circumstance.)