Gossage in, No Rice!

[King Glorious]

Well, for me, it's not about just the numbers. It's more important to me how a player fares against his peers. As I mentioned earlier, if next year, the leading HR hitter in baseball finishes with only 10, nobody will be rushing to call it a great season. But if the runner up only comes up with four, it would show that the guy with 10 was completely dominant. That's what Rice was to me. If he had only one or two seasons, even three, where he was the best hitter in the game, that would be different. His stretch was long enough for me though, to be convinced that he earned his spot.

What I will say though is that while he would get my vote, Rice probably shouldn't be in the Hall. I know that sounds inconsistent but here's why. Just as in horse racing or any other hall of fame vote, I think that if a candidate has to be debated on this much, he shouldn't be in. I think the only entrants to any hall of fame should be candidates that there is no need for debate over. If a 75% level can't be reached the first time, that's it. When Gwynn and Ripken finished, there was no debate. When Alex Rodriguez finishes (assuming no steroid stuff comes out about him), there will be no debate. If there has to be debate and convincing to get to the required level of votes, chances are that you shouldn't be in.

Side note. Isn't it interesting that if the steroid stuff keeps Clemens and Bonds out, it would mean that arguably the best hitter (Rose), the best power hitter (Bonds) and the best pitcher (Clemens) in major league history.......would all NOT be in the hall?