Almost Famous

How Jim Rice has a Hall plaque

WARNING: This is going to be a true soapbox rant.

He gets to sign baseballs like this now: Jim Rice, HOF 2009. So how did he become “famous” enough for Cooperstown?

I must admit, I’m probably not the one to comment on this. I was born after his period of star-worthy play. I started collecting baseball cards just after he retired. I didn’t start hearing about him until a few years ago, when I started actively reading the blogosphere. You could argue I’m colored by a sabermetric bias.

The story’s been told a thousand times. The arguments made for and against Jim Rice are so numerous they’d take up more pages than the complete Oxford English Dictionary. His annual vote percentages from 1995 to Monday were (in order): 29.8%, 35.3%, 37.6%, 42.9%, 29.4%, 51.5%, 57.9%, 55.1%, 52.5%, 54.5%, 59.5%, 64.8%, 63.5%, 72.2%, 76.4%. Did you notice that jump? Joe Poz clued me in on that one, which was the 2000 ballot. Granted, 1999 had a bunch of baseball luminaries named Brett, Yount, Ryan, and Fisk on the ballot. So what was it that made Jim famous? His stats? His reputation?

I don’t think Jim Rice is in for anything he did on the field. Rather, he became famous because of something off the field that made his name a household one to baseball fans: blogs. Particularly, sabermetric blogs. That’s right: those who have been screeding against the man’s election are the ones probably most responsible for it.

Let’s think about Hollywood for a second. After all, awards season is now in full swing. Who are the most recognized and famous names? We could list the likes of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Miley Cyrus, and Tom Cruise. But the real reason they have the notoriety they have is they are CONSTANTLY talked about.

The same principle applies here to Rice. For the last few years, he’s been constantly talked about with regards the Hall of Fame election. You’d think they’d name the process after him next year because of it. Here’s the cycle as I see it: the analysts pour over the ballot, examining it in umpteen ways to determine who they think should be elected. Most of these arguments are sound and could be easily used in a class on logic. The commentators with wide-reaching soapboxes (like the Eastern Sports Programming Network) use them to suggest who they’re considering on the ballot. Almost naturally, the sabermetricians howl over those names with which they disagree. The soapboxers then come back with the same arguments they had before, plus a few more numbers just to throw out there. (I don’t care about 1975-1986 unless it’s on a headstone). Meanwhile, those in the electorate who still have votes but aren’t participating in the discourse notice this discussion. Come time for them to fill out their ballots, they recognize the name and vote in favor of enshrinement.

Baseball fans, that’s how Jim Rice was enshrined. I just hope they add this line at the end of his plaque:

Center of one of the most epic debates over how to judge a ballplayer’s career, in the process leading to the creation of numerous methods for ranking ballplayers against their era and the history of baseball.

Ok, so it’s a little long. But it’s sure better than saying what he did from 1975-1986.