It has been an extra special Christmas season for Dan. He can repeatedly blather on about two topics, Roger and Roids; and Rice and the Hall of Fame.
Today it is a combination of the two.
I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. Too many mediocre or stinker seasons ('80-'81; '87-'89), too short of a career, and an unimpressive defensive reputation. But Dan will say anything and throw out any stat to support Rice's campaign.
He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.
That statement says it all. He was feared, he had three very good seasons. But that is it. Jim Rice may have been the dominant slugger of the late '70s, but when do players get into the Hall based on three seasons? Mike Schmidt was the dominant slugger over Rice's career.
Dan tops it all off by stating that Rice "knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs."
1) If Dan thinks that Rice was a better hitter than Boggs, he has lost all credibility regarding baseball analysis.
2) The argument "If player A is in the Hall, than Player B should be" is tremendously weak and would lead to absurd results. Every player needs to be considered individually and not against the worst selections in the Hall.
Dan ends with more Roger bashing. Yawn.