Skip to content

Great Moments in Hypocrisy: Jim Rice Edition

Jan 14, 2013, 8:30 AM EDT

Jim Rice

There is nothing sadder — in any walk of life, not just baseball — than hearing older people claim that the kids today just don’t do things the right way and how back in my day it was better and all of that jazz.

Such a stance simultaneously suggests narcissism, arrogance, ignorance and pessimism. “Only I and my friends did things properly,” such people are saying. They’re also saying, however, that they pay no attention to new developments in the world and that, inevitably, things will always grow worse over time rather than better, which runs directly counter to most developments in human history.  And more than anything, such statements always — always — reflect more poorly on the person uttering them than they reflect on those whom he or she is deriding.

With that in mind, I give you Jim Rice:

“The game is still the same (but) the players have changed. There are no fundamentals in the game anymore.  That’s why I really enjoyed the game was because of the fundamentals. We had to do fundamentals. If you didn’t know the fundamentals, you weren’t playing … I don’t want to [get back in the dugout] because guys are not subject to change.  If you went back to giving guys one- or two-year contracts, it’s a different story. When you give guys five-, six-, seven-, 10-year contracts, they don’t have to change. Their money is in the bank. And if the thing doesn’t go right, who do they blame?”

Just so you know, Jim Rice (a) is sixth all-time in grounding into double plays, having led his league four straight years in his prime; (b) was a poor defensive player; and (c) most damningly to his above comments, once signed a seven-year contract, making him the highest-paid player with the longest contract in all of the game at the time.

Why the interviewer for that article didn’t ask Jim why it was OK for him to have poor fundamentals and receive long-term contracts but it’s not OK for players today to do so is beyond me. For that matter, I’m baffled why he didn’t even ask Rice to offer some evidence regarding how fundamentals are lacking in today’s players.  To the contrary, I suspect that if we were able to quantify such things, today’s players would be found to be far more athletic and fundamentally-sound than players of the 70s.

Not that I’d expect Rice to realize how foolish he sounds.  He’s just the latest person to claim that the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.  Funny how it never seems to actually get there.

116 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. mrfloydpink - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM

    I bet he didn’t play against many Hall of Fame players, either.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      This guy ripped Jeter for no reason, made some stupid comments that was ridiculous.
      Just another Boston douche if you ask me.

  2. darthicarus - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    Things were different back in Mr. Rice’s day. Those double-plays were because the defense was better fundamentally (he couldn’t help it), hitters back then hit the ball harder due to their sound fundamentals (not his fault his defense couldn’t keep up), and factor in negative inflation that contract he signed would only be like 6 months in today’s structure.

  3. lazlosother - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:41 AM

    Back in my day, no one made comments like Mr. Rice’s.

    • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

      I suppose he thinks his NESN commentary (if you can call it that) is top-notch as well. Bad commentator, bad HOF choice. Only reason he go in was because there was a fricking lobby for him late in his career. It’s been said here before, but Dwight Evans is MUCH more deserving of the Hall.

  4. saints97 - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:44 AM

    Yeah, Jim Rice and his teammates always had proper fundamentals. They always stayed down on ground balls. They never let them go between their legs.

    How’s that lonely ring finger, Jim?

    • proudlycanadian - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM

      You mean to say that the Red Sox did not win the World Series when Jim Rice was playing for them? Who knew?

      • saints97 - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM

        They would have with better fundamentals.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        They would have won in 1978 with a better manager.

  5. aceshigh11 - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:46 AM

    WOW. Just WOW.

    The 7-year contract he signed is what really gets me in relation to what he said. The lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy there is simply ASTOUNDING.

  6. unclemosesgreen - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM

    The next time Jim Ed makes sense talking will be the first. As a commentator – he’s not very good.

    But how dare you demean his left field defense? He wasn’t fast, but he was a master at playing balls off the Monstah. 137 outfield assists. Twice that many doubles turned into singles (according to me and my naked eye, saber that.) Not to mention his most important assist of all, when that little kid got hit with a foul ball and Jim Rice carried him out of the stands to get immediate medical attention from the Red Sox team doctors. Kid was bleeding out – Jim Ed very well might have saved his life.

    Home run hitters hit into double plays, that happens. It doesn’t mean they have bad fundamentals. But just so you know, he should be in the Hall of Fame. Calling him out as a grumpy old man is fair, dumping on him as a player or person is unfair. Painting all grumpy old men as narcissistic, arrogant and ignorant is way over the top. Pessimistic I’ll give you.

    • proudlycanadian - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      You do not have to be old to be grumpy. Just look at Craig. That is part of his “charm”.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM

      Derek Jeter went into the stands after a ball and won a bunch of undeserved Gold Gloves for it.

      What does that have to do with your comment? I assumed after the anecdote about the kid we were just sharing stories about ballplayers going into the stands for things.

      Rod Beck once went into the stands for a double chili cheeseburger……probably.

    • markfrednubble - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      unclemosesgreen, did you actually see Rice play live? I am a Red Sox lifer and watched his entire career very closely. Rice was about as far from being a fundamentally sound, complete player as anyone enshrined in Cooperstown. He was a really bad left fielder, period. He got this charitable label late in his career for being a good left fielder in Fenway. The truth is that Fenway LF is the easiest OF position in the majors and anyone who plays it for a while can look good judging the wall’s bounces and making the short throw to second. Most of those assists were due to bad baserunning by opponents unfamiliar with how close the wall is. Rice was horrendous judging line drives, very immobile, and would have been forced to DH early in his career if he played almost anywhere else.

      The double play achievements do indeed explain some things about Rice as a hitter. He was impatient and hit a ton of ground balls in clutch situations. Watching him, this seemed chronic. The truth is, he could be pitched to. Today his lack of pitch selection would be ridiculed now that most fans understand the importance of pitch counts and OBP.

      He was also a really bad baserunner, more than just slow. Station to station. Rarely did he round a base with purpose.

      Rice was tremendously gifted, a great mistake hitter, incredibly strong, and hit the ball the other way with authority. The epitome of “see the ball, hit the ball,” the polar opposite of the Ted Williams approach. Not a Hall of Famer

  7. woodenulykteneau - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:53 AM

    *Sigh* Blaming a guy for hitting into a lot of double plays is the same as praising him for getting a lot of RBIs for the exact same reason: they’re a byproduct of having a lot guys on base in front of him. Unless you’re a hermaphrodite, you can’t have it both ways.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

      “they’re a byproduct of having a lot guys on base in front of him”

      …and of hitting the ball hard on the ground and being really slow. It’s more of a byproduct of that, actually.

      I don’t know how many players were getting on in front of Billy Butler in 2010 (3rd highest total in a season)…

      • woodenulykteneau - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM

        “and being really slow.”

        Well, it’s not like he ever led the league in triples or anything like that.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

        …and Yadier Molina stole 12 bases in 15 attempts this year.

        Rice became a double play machine in his late 20s and early 30s. Nobody would accuse him of being a baseburner in those (or any) year.

  8. unclemosesgreen - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    Most feared hitter of his time!!

    • thekcubrats - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:13 AM

      Most feared (bulls)hitter of his time!!

  9. danaking - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM

    The players above Rice on the all-time GIDP list are Cal Ripken, Ivan Rodriguez, Henry Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray (tied with Rice). Not a group that lacks fundamentals. Players who hit the ball hard in the middle of the order with a lot of men on base are going to hit into a lot of double plays.

    I read Christy Mathewson’s wonderful book, Pitching in a Pinch, last week. Players said the same things about the younger players coming up in 1912 and they say today. Always have. Always will. That’s not on Rice. It’s human nature.

    That extended contract comment was pretty stupid, though.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

      Alright…I’m seeing a whole lot of excuses for Jim Rice’s double plays here, a lot “but he can’t help it” and “anyone with that many players on base would hit into that many double plays”. Well, this isn’t true.

      Percent of PAs with runners on base in which Jim Rice hit into double plays compared similiar power hitters of his era:

      Jim Rice: 6.8%
      Eddie Murray: 5.0%
      Mike Schmidt: 3.2%
      Reggie Jackson: 3.3%
      Dave Winfield: 5.3%
      Cal Ripken: 5.8 %
      Dwight Evans: 4.5 %
      George Foster: 4.9%
      Andre Dawson: 4.1%
      Gary Carter: 4.2 %
      Carlton Fisk: 4.4%
      Don Baylor: 4.3%
      Dave Parker: 4.3%
      Greg Luzinski: 3.9%

      etc, etc, etc. Over and over again, we see that with runners on, Jim Rice was much more likely to ground into a double play than his contemporaries. This was a negative aspect of his offense.

      He was a hell of a hitter, but the double plays were more than being a product of his environment.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

        Cal Ripken, Ivan Rodriguez, Henry Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray (tied with Rice):

        Ripken: 5.8%
        Ivan Rodiriguez 7% (with a 106 career OPS+. Do you really want to start comparing his bat to a guy whose going to the hall because of his defensive prowess as a catcher?)
        Dave Winfield: 5.3%
        Eddie Murray: 5.0% (who “tied” with Rice with over 3,700 more PAs)

        Carl Yastrzemski: 4.9%

        So, all of them accept for an sold but not spectacular hitter catcher grounded into double plays at a far lower rate than Jim Rice.

      • markfrednubble - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        kirk, those numbers reinforce my memory of watching Rice play. I dare any ardent Sox fan who watched this era to say Rice’s propensity to hit double-play balls with the game on the line didn’t drive them nuts.

      • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 14, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        So Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken, Dave Winfield and Mike Schmidt had bad fundamentals as well right?

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        “So Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken, Dave Winfield and Mike Schmidt had bad fundamentals as well right?”

        And the award for “Completely Misunderstanding Data Right In Front Of His Face” goes to…

  10. Paul White - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    Yeah Craig, I’m going to agree with a couple of people above. It’s perfectly fine to blast Rice for his comments. They are silly and indefensible. But if you’re going to do so, be accurate. According to bbref, Rice was 24 fielding runs above average. According to Fangraphs he was 22 runs above average. And the double play issue is entirely context driven. Rice’s years of leading the league in GIDPs also coincided with him leading the lead in DP opportunities by large margins because he batted behind Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans. Rice never led the league in DP rate, and was never particularly close.

    So blast away at Rice, he’s earned it. Just choose your criticisms better.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM

      As I understand it — sorry, I don’t have proof — left field in Fenway wrecks havoc with defensive statistics. I would doubt any numbers that show him to be above average.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        “Q: On average, how many runs does Manny Ramirez‘s defense cost the Red Sox? Is there some special adjustment that must be made to evaluate left fielder defensive stats in Fenway?
        A: Defensive stats for a left fielder in Fenway are misleading, yes. The small area always makes our left fielder’s range appear more limited than it is.”

        From Bill James Q&A on Freakonomics

        It’s probable that Rice’s defensive stats are skewed, but skewed to make it appear that he was a worse defensive left fielder than he actually was.

    • rayburns - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

      Shhh, don’t bother Craig with facts…

      He’s trying to make a point and facts just confuse the issue…

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:42 AM

      Hey Paul,

      “Rice’s years of leading the league in GIDPs also coincided with him leading the lead in DP opportunities by large margins because he batted behind Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans.”

      Just comparing the DP rates with men on base, Rice was still far and above that of his contemporaries.

    • Mark - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

      Jim Rice played 14 or so full seasons in the majors. So for him to have saved 22 runs over his career, that means he was worth about 1.5 defensive runs per year. I don’t think UZR goes back to when Rice is playing, meaning that he’s being evaluated with an even less reliable defensive metric. So when you consider the fact he was worth 1.5 runs per year, it’s pretty fair to say that he was at best a neutral defender.

      I certainly wouldn’t call him a good defensive player, especially when you consider that he was a negative defender in at least 6 seasons. Poor might be too harsh, but he certainly wasn’t a good defender either.

  11. randygnyc - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:06 AM

    Typical Red Sox hypocrite, full of Sh!t.

    • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      Even urban dictionary doesn’t have “Shexclamationpointt”.

  12. barrywhererufrom - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    no red Sox fan here..but I remember rice as a great hitter. nobody would say he was a great fielder. I don’t think rice got paid the big money for that. remember that rice did play in the major leagues unlike many people who posted here. he played at a time where players were in the minors for a long time. they played on their teams because of their defense. I think it’s kind of short sighted to dismiss his comments as being hypocritical. if names like belanger..dent..Burleson..Smith..campenaris ring a bell like buddy you know what rice speaks of..

  13. 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    Those Red Sox teams that I grew up with (I was born in 1975, Rice’s rookie year) had terrible fundamentals. Lousy baserunning, lousy defense. I’m really not sure what Rice is talking about. Dwight Evans was a fine all-around player. Ellis Burks. Wade Boggs. Marty Barrett was pretty good. Maybe I’m forgetting someone (I don’t really remember Glenn Hoffman all that well, for example). But whatever else their strengths — hitting homers, mostly — those teams played ugly baseball. Tony Armas, I think, had an OBP below 300 while hitting 35 homers. And he was bad enough defensively that the Red Sox traded for Dave Henderson. Meanwhile, they’d sign 90-year old DHs (Tony Perez, Jack Clark, Tom Brunanski) whose best years were in the rear-view mirror.

    Jim Rice played for one of the stupidest franchises ever. And to think some people blamed a curse.

    • bmh9500 - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM

      nitpicking, but Brunansky was 29 when he went to Boston…

      • 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        Wow. I had no idea.

        Check out how he aged, though: I’ll stand by the idea that his best days were behind him. Though he did give us one very good memory, so there’s that.

  14. wpjohnson - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    Rice, like Dawson, is a good example of why the voters need to be more selectiv3e in electing members to the Hall of Fame. Neither, along with many others, deserves to be there.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:10 PM

      More thoughtful? Yes. But it doesn’t mean they should let fewer people in. For example, they should have elected Tim Raines instead of either of them.

  15. paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    Why is it that guys that are among the worst players elected by the BBWAA (e.g. Dawson, Rice, Gossage) are the guys that tend to spout non-sense? Is there an inherent knowledge that they really are among the worst to make it in so they feel a need to try to prop up their generation in general in an attempt to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

    I realize that some clear-cut HOF players have a tendency to say these same sorts of silly things (e.g. Brett, Schmidt) from time to time, but the tendency seems to be more common among the least deserving. I mean, you don’t see Luis Sojo spouting non-sense, do you?

  16. yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM

    Actually, young people are far more prone to declaring their era is superior. The big difference is older people have the first hand experience to compare different periods of time and properly contextualize them.

    Still laughing at the responses these retired players get when they decide to do a little trolling.

    • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Properly contextualizing eras is not a strength of any generation. I get “the world was better back in my day emails from my dad on a regular basis”…well, yeah, if you think being openly racist, homophobic, and misogynistic is inherently better…he is right. I love my dad, but he is not without fault, and he sure as hell doesn’t appreciate improvements that have occurred with successive generations, which just makes him “normal”.

      When doing any such comparison, every generation accentuates the things that were better (in their opinion) during their generation while ignoring the things that were worse.

      • barrywhererufrom - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

        if you think today is better because of your iPad you haven’t been paying attention to the news lately

      • yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        paperlions – Jan 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        “well, yeah, if you think being openly racist, homophobic, and misogynistic is inherently better”


        A veritable army of strawmen in this comment.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        Except for the fact that previous generations were more homophobic, more racist, and more misogynistic. There is really no basis for thinking that people are just as racist/homophobic/misogynistic as they used to be….and as a white guy, if you keep your mouth shut, you would be surprised how often other white guys say hateful shit about everyone that isn’t a white guy.

      • yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        Except for the fact that racism/homophobia/misogynism aren’t pertinent to this particular discussion. Nor are they pertinent to many conversations regarding different eras. If you want to bask in how very enlightened we are now (and we still have miles to go) feel free to do so. Attempting to use that attitude as a blanket assessment that everything is superior now is patently unfair.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM

        What they are pertinent to is how generations view themselves. They always accentuate the positive and ignore the negative. You can’t say the previous generation was better because they had a better work ethic or less of a sense of entitlement and just ignore the fact that they were intolerant racist, homophobic womanizers. Which is what people of that generation would (and do) do….just like a younger generation would play up their strengths (e.g. greater integration of cultures, less prejudiced against groups) while ignoring their weaknesses (e.g. generally poor work ethic, short attention span, etc.)

        No generation is honest when it evaluates itself or compares itself to other generations.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

        The sad news for you, paper, is that in your old age, younger people will make similar assessments about you with total conviction.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        I AM NOT OLD! I am young, and hip, and cool, and stuff.

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        Speaking as someone who grew up while obviously black (still am, too) in the 70’s and 80’s in rural Canada, I would not want to, EVER, go back to those days. Open racism, misguided public policy, poorer healthcare, higher crime rates, and a general acceptance that “this is the way it is BOY: better learn to deal with it”. You can fucking keep the “olden days”.

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:40 PM

        And ‘Lions, dude, we old. We so old you can tell north on us from the moss on our wrinkled asses.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM


      • yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM

        Cur, I’m relieved to learn we now live in an era that no longer has “misguided public policies”.

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:09 PM

        mulie: you point me to the current policy on removing aboriginal children from their parents and sending them to live in group homes far from all that they knew. Point me also to the current policy on restricting immigration to those of European descent ONLY. How about the one restricting where certain ethnic groups can live. THAT’S what I’m talking about. Current public policy ISN’T perfect, but its a damn sight better than it used to be. And thank Dog for that.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Damn, kitty likes to scratch!

        I didn’t say you were old NOW, paper. I said in your old age (in the future). Geez.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:13 PM

        I have a younger sister that is a grandmother (her eldest grandchild is 18 months old)… maybe I am old, I’m certainly old enough to be someone grandfather.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        My step-brother became a grampa last week, and let me tell you, I will be wearing that OUT.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM

        I tried. My sister LOVES being called Grandma and being a Grandma.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM

        Not right. 😉

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM

        PS I can point you to some things that previous generations did better than we do. Just fyi. It doesn’t always get all better.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Nope, but it does always change. Asking for things to improve without other things getting worse is probably being greedy. If we can just stay above the break-even point, I think we’ll be doing fairly well.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 12:26 AM

        Sometimes there’s just unintended consequences too.

  17. thebadguyswon - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    This guy is in the Hall and Pete Rose isnt. This is why the HOF is irrelevant.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM


      Obviously Pete Rose should be in the hall on the merits of his statistical record, no one is arguing that. Personally, I think he should be in the Hall anyway. But the reasons for his exclusion are obviously extremely different than the reasons virtually any other player is excluded, so let’s please not bring him up *every single time* the hall of fame is mentioned.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM

        My understanding is that Pete Rose didn’t draw as many intentional walks as Rice did. That’s why he’s out.

  18. mungman69 - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Ball players play so much more than they Jim Rice’s day. They play and practice all winter long. In Jim Rice’s day players used to sit home all winter, stare out the window and wait for spring.

    • abaird2012 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      No, they would sell sporting goods or used cars.

    • louhudson23 - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      Modern players are in better shape.Bigger,stronger and faster(although apparently not in nearly as good shape as just a few short years ago)….and there have always been players who were less fundamentally sound than others,but I do believe that the fewer teams(jobs) ,lack of guaranteed contracts(as well as the many decades of the reserve clause) created a much greater need to play the game better and do the little things better in decades past .Unlike the days of one year deals with no salary structure and no guarantees ,which made each and every year a contract year, one decent major league contract in today’s game can be all anyone needs to get a great start in life and managing to bounce around a few years can make one quite wealthy .And there is little doubt the juicing years severely decreased the importance of defense, base running and fundamentally productive offense and in fundamental baseball in general. Huge amounts of time are spent in batting cages and video analysis ,including during a game. That is time not spent on fundamentals and just plain study of the game of baseball.There is little doubt as to the status of the modern batting cage/computer analyzed and produced “stroke” as a thing of beauty nor of the hard work(chemically induced and otherwise) put in by so many of today’s players ,but in today’s stat based game,only the very best teams play a truly good brand of baseball,(however fast,strong and smooth they all are),the rest has far too little to do with playing the game well or winning games and far too much to do with individual number production . Bad baseball has always been bad baseball,and there have always been bad baseball players….but the understanding of the game by yesterdays greats was far and away above the understanding of most of today’s players. Modern players in general put in the work on the money generating numbers created in the batting cage. All the rest simply isn’t a part of today’s game anymore than off season jobs are. Although as the ballparks continue to enlarge every off season(apparently) and the players get weaker and not stronger (apparently)we will see the continued drop off in offense(who knew?) and see the return of defense and base running and holding runners to singles and hitting cutoff men and just plain old playing the game make a return in importance.Baseball is so much better than Home Run Derby n’est pas?

  19. historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    Dang, it drives me batshit how sanctimonious people get on here about their worldview being normative without any historical sense of it. Lordy.

    • yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM

      Why do we need history anyway? Everything is better now. If you don’t believe me, just look at the reactions to Craig’s pandering. I’ll give him this much, he knows his audience. Even if he still doesn’t know when a bunch of old jocks are trolling him.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM

        What? Old people don’t troll. They’re all old and kind and drooly.

      • yahmule - Jan 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM

        But what about when we yell at kids to stay off our lawn?

        What, all old people don’t yell that? That’s simply the thing people from the most selfish and self absorbed generation ever say when they want to dismiss an older person’s opinion?

  20. hushbrother - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    For what it’s worth, Rice wasn’t that bad a defensive player. He played the Wall very well and had a strong arm.

    It seems to be “write posts attacking marginal Hall of Famers” week around here.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      Well, there is a correlation with “posts attacking marginal hall of famers” and “interviews in which marginal hall of famers talk about how much more awesome they are than everyone else”.

  21. bolweevils2 - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    You just say there is nothing sadder than old people saying things were better in the old days because you aren’t old yet. Wait until you are, and you’ll say it too, just like the rest of us.

    Which doesn’t prove your not right of course.

  22. djpostl - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

    Can we add “back in his day writers didn’t vote clowns like him into the HoF either”?

  23. Tick - Jan 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    The medical term for this affliction is Joemorganitis.

  24. thegreatstoneface - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM

    jim rice lacks self awareness? shocking…

  25. braddavery - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM

    “And today in BBHOFers Smear Campaign Talk…”

    • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      So because they are HoFers we should accept whatever drivel they say? You do realize they were elected to the HoF for baseball abilities not mental ones, right? Blindly taking their statements as some sort of gospel = religion and that might be good enough for you m’boy but some of us live in the real world and have clear memories of watching these guys actually play AND currently listen to them provide some of the most godawful baseball commentary in the modern era.

      • braddavery - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        I didn’t say or imply any of that nonsense you just made up. It’s pretty clear that my statement is about how much negative press HOFers have been receiving on HBT as of late.

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM

        Well if they didn’t say stupid shit, we wouldn’t be pointing out that they said stupid shit, now would we? This is the main reason why you are an epic fail at analysis, Brad: you can’t tell cause from effect at all. Have a good day. I’m not wasting any more of life trying to make sense out of your drivel.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 12:29 AM

        I could just see you adjusting your monocle when I read that.

    • braddavery - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      I don’t think HTB is here for creating articles every time some HOFer says something stupid, is it. It comes across as a smear campaign and it’s getting annoying. And please, continue attacking me personally as you are the one it makes look bad.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2538)
  2. B. Crawford (2365)
  3. Y. Puig (2316)
  4. G. Springer (2124)
  5. D. Wright (2043)
  1. J. Hamilton (2026)
  2. J. Fernandez (2009)
  3. H. Ramirez (1937)
  4. D. Span (1934)
  5. C. Correa (1922)