Jim Ed

Today we find out if one of the dominant sluggers of the late 70s and early 80s gets his place in Cooperstown.  Who can forget seeing Jim Ed shilling on the Saturday morning tube for that tasty Colonial bacon?  And snapping bats on check swings?  1978?  Bombs over the wall?  And GIDPs!  No matter what happens, we wish him the best of luck. We’re hoping he’s smiling later today – our (biased) take is that he’s borderline, but on the right side of the borderline.

9 comments… add one
  • It’s a no go for anybody..see my blog or Firebrand’s

    peter* January 10, 2006, 11:08 am
  • I was at Rice’s last game — which he skipped, presumably as a commentary on the Boston fans.
    It was a perfect Sunday afternoon, and we had seats out by left field. With one exception (below), there wasn’t a lot of excitement in the game, and the wave started rolling around — and around, and around the park.
    It was also Dewey’s last game, and he needed a rbi or two to make a hundred for what I think was the ninth year in a row. He reached a hundred, the fans had a good time in the sun, and the wave rolled.

    john yf January 10, 2006, 12:04 pm
  • It’s amazing to think we may see no candidates elected this year when there are SO MANY deserving of enshrinement: Goose, Bruce, Bert, Jack, Tommy, Donnie, Andre and the aforemnetioned Jim, among them.
    PS: A preemptive Bronx cheer to Buster Olney for leaving Blyleven off his ballot.

    YF January 10, 2006, 12:04 pm
  • I’m a bit young, so I never got a chance to watch Sutter. But I was talking to my friend’s dad, a big Cardinals fan, who said that Sutter was the only reliever he felt was on Mo’s level. He said he was never worried about the game once Sutter was in, like he never thinks its possible that Mariono will give up a lead. Anyone else have that feeling about Sutter, aged ones?

    Nick January 10, 2006, 12:22 pm
  • which he skipped, presumably as a commentary on the Boston fans
    Or, more likely, a commentary about Rice himself.

    SF January 10, 2006, 12:32 pm
  • And that would be more likely because?

    john yf January 10, 2006, 9:21 pm
  • Because Rice was pretty uninterested in attention his entire career, a superb player without the ego of, say, an A-Rod. He was also regarded as surly and unapproachable (in fact, he probably was somewhat surly and unapproachable). So this combination of not wanting attention combined with an animosity towards the fans and media in general may have led to this. I believe that this would have been true of Rice in any market, though Boston surely had a magnifying glass on him.
    I take offense with your generalist potshot at “Boston fans” (and correct me if I am misinterpreting). But in this case it seems like nothing but antagonistic prattle, both ill-informed and nasty.

    SF January 10, 2006, 9:50 pm
  • SF, I think it’s naive to suggest that Rice was not in some way also responding to certain fans, members of the press, and management. Specifically, Boston in the 80’s wasn’t the most comfortable place for blacks to play in. Howard Bryant’s book on the subject of race in Boston sports history details this complex issue. Rice’s introspection probably played a part in his apparent indifference, but, so did racism. It should be noted that Rice has done broadcast work on NESN, and that other players like Ellis Burks have also emrbaced the current franchise. That says a lot about how far Boston has come since the 80’s.

    Nick January 10, 2006, 10:24 pm
  • No, Nick, I am not naive. I grew up in Boston in the 70s and 80s so know full well about my hometown’s issues with race, black athletes, the whole deal. And Rice was surely a target of this, and that likely contributed to his insularity and surliness – it may have fed or legitimized the attitude of many peabrained and small-minded Bostonians. But it’s a gross generalization to make that the only reason for his temperament (heck, Boston fans showed no lack of love for Hendu, Baylor, Robert Parish, Tiny Archibald, Cornbread Maxwell, etc.) What I object to is John’s flamethrowing BS without expository or explanatory backup, this anecdotal crap about “hey I went to a game, Jim didn’t show, and what about those Boston fans“, as if that’s some sort of deep and insightful comment in the context of this subject/thread. Frankly, I am sick of responding to this type of unbacked up or out of context stuff that John seems to throw out here all the time. If he had made (what I think was supposed to be his) point about Boston’s fan history in just as many like words as you did, no more, he would have probably spurred on a decent debate. As it is, he’s done nothing but shown himself to be a flamethrower. Enough already.

    SF January 10, 2006, 11:50 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.