And yet Rice failed to make the jump to 75 percent. Next year he'll have no chance because Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Harold Baines, and Mark McGwire (now there's a controversy in the making) will appear on the ballot for the first time.
Is Rice coming up short because of his terrible relationship with baseball writers during the time he played? Is this petty payback for years of churlishness? Would Rice be in the Hall of Fame if he'd been as media-friendly as, say, Kevin Millar?
Bill Madden of the New York Daily News, a baseball writer since 1972, does not vote for Rice. Asked if Rice's nasty relationship with the writers had anything to do with his vote, Madden said, ''Not with me. I voted for Eddie Murray, and nobody was more rude to me than him. I would hate to think that's the reason people don't vote for Jim Rice."
Back in Rice's home state of South Carolina, reporter Bob Gillespie of The State, said, ''Most people here say, 'He didn't get along with writers, so people are taking it out on him.' "
For the record (we're all about disclosure here at the 17 percent Globe), I voted for Rice. Again. But certainly the possibility exists that Rice's attitude is hurting him at the ballot box. Murray and Steve Carlton, legendary for their disdain of the media, both made it on the first round, but they were slam-dunks. Rice, on the other hand, falls significantly shy of being a no-brainer.
Listen to Madden:
''I've been on the bubble with him. In the final analysis, the lifetime home runs [382, significantly shy of Murray's 504] aren't there. He's a borderline candidate. There's no denying he was dangerous and feared. When you add it up, he was a middle-of-the-lineup slugger who didn't have 400 home runs. That haunts him more than anything. He needed a couple of more years. We're talking Hall of Fame here. I mean, Andre Dawson finished behind him and he hit 56 more home runs."
