2009 MLB Hall of Fame ... who gets in????

[blueline]

Monday January 12th is the day we will find out who the newest addition(s) to Cooperstown will be.

Rickey Henderson leads the list of 23 players eligible to be inducted into Cooperstown.

Here is the complete list:

Harold Baines
†Jay Bell
Bert Blyleven
†David Cone
Andre Dawson
†Ron Gant
†Mark Grace
†Rickey Henderson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
†Jesse Orosco
Dave Parker
†Dan Plesac
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
†Greg Vaughn
†Mo Vaughn
†Matt Williams

My picks are Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice on his 15th and final appearance on the ballot. I know there has always been some debate on whether or not Rice is/was worthy, but he fell only 16 votes shy last year. If history is any indication, Rice could well make up the difference this time. No player has ever received as high a percentage as Rice did last year without eventually becoming a Hall of Famer. He gets in.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Sorry, but Jim Rice does not deserve to be in. Or if he does, it opens the door to a LOT of borderline HoFers.

His home/road splits are a joke - and we all know Fenway is a hitters' paradise. His effective career was too short. (And if we look at it that way, Don Mattingly should be in too.) He was a terrible defensive player (he played one third of his games at DH) and didn't steal bases. He had a couple of monster seasons, but the fact that he played at Fenway somewhat waters that down too. If that's the case, then Larry Walker should be a shoo-in for the Hall too, even if he played for 9.5 seasons at Coors.

(You're such a homer blueline! )

Rickey is the only sure thing. And as my argument in the other thread went, I only want the very best of the best in the Hall.

But I would seriously look at and give consideration to Jim Ed Rice (and Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker), Bert Blyleven (since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins - when you look at it that way... wow), Jack Morris (best big-game pitcher I've seen), Andre Dawson (a superior all-around player to Rice), Tim Raines (basically Rickey with a shorter career and less homers), Mark McGwire (583 bombs), Lee Smith (until very recently the all-time saves leader) and Alan Trammell (before there was Cal Ripken, A-Rod, etc., there was Trammell - he could do it all.)

 

[blueline]

Sorry, but Jim Rice does not deserve to be in. Or if he does, it opens the door to a LOT of borderline HoFers.

His home/road splits are a joke - and we all know Fenway is a hitters' paradise. His effective career was too short. (And if we look at it that way, Don Mattingly should be in too.) He was a terrible defensive player (he played one third of his games at DH) and didn't steal bases. He had a couple of monster seasons, but the fact that he played at Fenway somewhat waters that down too. If that's the case, then Larry Walker should be a shoo-in for the Hall too, even if he played for 9.5 seasons at Coors.

(You're such a homer blueline! )

Rickey is the only sure thing. And as my argument in the other thread went, I only want the very best of the best in the Hall.

But I would seriously look at and give consideration to Jim Ed Rice (and Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker), Bert Blyleven (since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins - when you look at it that way... wow), Jack Morris (best big-game pitcher I've seen), Andre Dawson (a superior all-around player to Rice), Tim Raines (basically Rickey with a shorter career and less homers), Mark McGwire (583 bombs), Lee Smith (until very recently the all-time saves leader) and Alan Trammell (before there was Cal Ripken, A-Rod, etc., there was Trammell - he could do it all.)

And we all know that ONLY the very best get inducted every year. Rice is a borderline case, no question. However, there are many other borderline HOFers in Cooperstown. Being on a ballot for several years, to me, means you are borderline. Otherwise, why did it take so many years to reach 75% of the votes. It has been said, more than once and by people other than a guy posting on terb in full Red Sox gear, that Rice was the most feared right-hand hitter of his time.

I think we had this same discussion last year. I look at it this way.

Tony Perez is in. Jim Rice gets in. Very comparable numbers in less seasons in MLB. Perez won a WS, Rice didn't. If Rice had a WS ring, he would have been in before his 15th year on the ballot. When Rice retired in 1989, he was one of only 13 players with eight or more seasons of 20 homers and 100 RBIs. The others were Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, DiMaggio, Killebrew, Musial, Ott, Schmidt, (Ted) Williams, and Banks.

Surely he can get 16 more votes this time around. I'd like to see the 'Hawk' get in, but he needs to gain a few more votes as well. He was at something like 64% last year.

 

[MuffinMuncher]

My list:

Henderson, Dawson and Blyleven should be in. Blyleven's stats compared to pitchers of his time were unreal, and his win/loss total is skewed by the fact that he played the bulk of his career for bad teams.

Rice, Raines, Morris and Smith are borderline. Each has a significant negative to offset the positive. Rice was the dominant hitter for the 10 years at the peak of his career, but he was also limited in his skill set. Raines is hurt by obscurity of playing in Montreal for so long and comparisons to Henderson. Morris had a 3.90 career ERA. Smith is probably the one of the bunch that most deserves to get in, but the voters are notoriously tough on relief pitchers.

The rest are good but not great players. If there was an Honorable Mention section of the Hall, they'd go there.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

My list:

Henderson, Dawson and Blyleven should be in. Blyleven's stats compared to pitchers of his time were unreal, and his win/loss total is skewed by the fact that he played the bulk of his career for bad teams.

Rice, Raines, Morris and Smith are borderline. Each has a significant negative to offset the positive. Rice was the dominant hitter for the 10 years at the peak of his career, but he was also limited in his skill set. Raines is hurt by obscurity of playing in Montreal for so long and comparisons to Henderson. Morris had a 3.90 career ERA. Smith is probably the one of the bunch that most deserves to get in, but the voters are notoriously tough on relief pitchers.

The rest are good but not great players. If there was an Honorable Mention section of the Hall, they'd go there.

For Raines, is that really a fair argument? Does that make him borderline or is it just uneducated bias by the BBWAA, you know?

 

[blueline]

For Raines, is that really a fair argument? Does that make him borderline or is it just uneducated bias by the BBWAA, you know?

I like Raines as well, but is it possible his use of cocaine has hurt his chances? Or at least caused some writers to keep him out for now.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

And we all know that ONLY the very best get inducted every year. Rice is a borderline case, no question. However, there are many other borderline HOFers in Cooperstown. Being on a ballot for several years, to me, means you are borderline. Otherwise, why did it take so many years to reach 75% of the votes. It has been said, more than once and by people other than a guy posting on terb in full Red Sox gear, that Rice was the most feared right-hand hitter of his time.

I think we had this same discussion last year. I look at it this way.

Tony Perez is in. Jim Rice gets in. Very comparable numbers in less seasons in MLB. Perez won a WS, Rice didn't. If Rice had a WS ring, he would have been in before his 15th year on the ballot. When Rice retired in 1989, he was one of only 13 players with eight or more seasons of 20 homers and 100 RBIs. The others were Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, DiMaggio, Killebrew, Musial, Ott, Schmidt, (Ted) Williams, and Banks.

Surely he can get 16 more votes this time around. I'd like to see the 'Hawk' get in, but he needs to gain a few more votes as well. He was at something like 64% last year.

Sorry, I don't buy the Jim Rice was the most feared A.L. right-handed hitter of his time argument (because there were far more feared right-handed hitters in the N.L. at the time.) I also dislike the Player A, B and C are in and Player D is similar, so he should be in too - it just waters the Hall down, especially since so many of the early entrants were in because of their relationships with the media and powers-that-be. I'm no stat-head (I believe in what I see and feel and use numbers for proof), but the reasoning behind those two positions seems flawed - it's a desperate argument and an informal fallacy.

Honestly, if Rice were so feared, wouldn't he have way more intentional walks, a la Barry Bonds, etc.? Jim Ed had 77 IBBs in his career.

I agree that there are plenty of borderline HoFers that are in, but that doesn't mean that they all deserve to be there or that we should continue to allow them in. Let the Veterans' Committee take care of it. If enough HoF players and his peers, etc., feel Jim Ed that he was in fact the "most feared" and belongs in Cooperstown, then by all means, they know better than you, me and the BBWAA.

I think a big part of the problem is the 15-years-on-the-ballot thing. If someone's a Hall of Famer, he should be in within the first couple of years (say 5) and not this drawn-out process that allows for weaker HoF candidate years and P.R. campaigns that tend to benefit the major-markets and players on famous teams more.

Not trying to be mean, but Jim Rice is too close a player to Pat Burrell for me to think of him as Cooperstown-worthy.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Not sure about the source, or how they collect them, but here is a tracker for all public HoF ballots:

BBWAA Hall of Fame Ballot Counter: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/newsblog/

 

[blueline]

C-F let me ask you this.

Had Rice been on a world series winner, does he get in? Some people seem to use that as an argument for keeping him out.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

C-F let me ask you this.

Had Rice been on a world series winner, does he get in? Some people seem to use that as an argument for keeping him out.

Only if he were a superstar in the playoffs too. There are lots of guys with WS rings that were just along for the ride... and that includes Rickey's ring with Toronto! (Although Henderson had a very good, but not great postseason career outside of 1993.)

It's too small of a sample to really matter, but in the 3 postseason series Rice played in, he was well below average:

.225/.313/.366 BA/OBP/SLG with 2 HRs and 7 RBI in 71 AB.

If Boston had won a World Series and Jim Ed had these kinds of numbers, should that help his cause?


So blueline, let me ask you: do you hold it against Jim Rice that the BoSox only made the postseason twice in his career?
True HoF guys like Pujols, Bonds, Frank Thomas, etc., seem to be able to will their teams to the post-season with little protection in the lineup.

 

[blueline]

It's too small of a sample to really matter, but in the 3 postseason series Rice played in, he was well below average:

I wouldn't say that. Consider that he was injured during the 1975 series, arguably one of the greatest WS of our time. That Reds team was powerful and had Rice played, I like the chances of him contributing to another win. That was the year him and Lynn came up and either one could have been ROY and/or MVP.

In the 1986 World Series Rice batted .333 with a .455 on-base percentage.

If you want to talk about post season disappointments, Ted Williams heads that list.

So blueline, let me ask you: do you hold it against Jim Rice that the BoSox only made the postseason twice in his career?

Three times, but who's counting.

No, I don't hold it against him. I don't hold any one single player responsible for a teams' shortcomings. As I said, they took the Big Red Machine to seven games in 1975, without him. In 1986, well they were within one freaking out of winning. It had nothing to do with him alone. Not his fault the bullpen let the team down. Buckner aside, the late inning pitching had as much to do with it. Bob Stanley always comes to mind. Did he lose the game all by himself - no.

Lots of great players have never won a championship and I don't think we can point to them as being the sole reason. Yaz was outstanding in 1967 but never won one, Teddy stunk it up and never won one. IMO it doesn't make them any less of a player than those who did play on championship teams.

 

[blueline]

Only if he
True HoF guys like Pujols, Bonds, Frank Thomas, etc., seem to be able to will their teams to the post-season with little protection in the lineup.

Well last time I checked, Bonds had no WS rings and his numbers in the post season were far from great. Do you blame him for his team not winning? Do you blame him alone for losing to the Braves when Sid Bream scored from 2B?

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I wouldn't say that. Consider that he was injured during the 1975 series, arguably one of the greatest WS of our time. That Reds team was powerful and had Rice played, I like the chances of him contributing to another win. That was the year him and Lynn came up and either one could have been ROY and/or MVP.

In the 1986 World Series Rice batted .333 with a .455 on-base percentage.

If you want to talk about post season disappointments, Ted Williams heads that list.

Three times, but who's counting.

No, I don't hold it against him. I don't hold any one single player responsible for a teams' shortcomings. As I said, they took the Big Red Machine to seven games in 1975, without him. In 1986, well they were within one freaking out of winning. It had nothing to do with him alone. Not his fault the bullpen let the team down. Buckner aside, the late inning pitching had as much to do with it. Bob Stanley always comes to mind. Did he lose the game all by himself - no.

Lots of great players have never won a championship and I don't think we can point to them as being the sole reason. Yaz was outstanding in 1967 but never won one, Teddy stunk it up and never won one. IMO it doesn't make them any less of a player than those who did play on championship teams.

So he played in two postseasons and made it to three but was too injured to play as a rookie.

But everything you posted was my point. Who cares if he has a ring or not? Pat Borders was the starting catcher on a World Series champion, and he's not even a consideration for Cooperstown so it's not all that important, you know? Now Joe Carter... to me, he is basically a Jim Rice / Tony Perez clone. Really good, borderline HoFer - except one who DID rise to the moment in the postseason. But still not quite Cooperstown material.

For me, the Jim Rice argument comes down to this: was he one of the greatest players of all time and was he dominant in his era? To me, the answer to the first question is a resounding no and his dominance was far too abbreviated to be HoF material.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Well last time I checked, Bonds had no WS rings and his numbers in the post season were far from great. Do you blame him for his team not winning? Do you blame him alone for losing to the Braves when Sid Bream scored from 2B?

That's just the argument of a pro-Rice advocate and virulently anti-Bonds hater.

See above (and below) for my thoughts on the postseason.

Listen, I'm the first to mock the "throw" to try and get Sid Bream trying to score from second, but Barry Bonds is one of the 5 best players of all time. He practically single-handedly kept the Giants in postseason contention year after year and WAS the "most feared" hitter of the past 50 years.

I partly blame him for not getting the Pirates (a good team) to the next level, but his career numbers give him the benefit of the doubt.

My point is that for a borderline player like Jim Rice, postseason appearances and accomplishments should count to help put them over the top. Rice's numbers in two of the three series he played in don't help his cause.

 

[blueline]

Jim Rice / Tony Perez

Which is my argument. What makes Perez a HOFer that doesn't make Rice a HOFer. I know you don't like to compare players who are in vs. who is not but you have to consider it. Rice had better numbers.

Rice
16 seasons
Avg. .298
162 Game Avg 30 HR/season and 113 RBI
1 MVP and top 5 in five other seasons
8 time all-star
0 WS championships

Perez
22 seasons
Avg. .279
162 Game Avg 22 HR/season and 96 RBI
0 MVP awards and top 5 in voting only once
7 time all-star
2 WS championships

I would just like to be able to get into the heads of the writers and figure out why Perez and not Rice. Is it championships? Longevity? The fact that Rice was surly and did not get along particularly well with the media? 75% obviously thought Perez was worthy so looking at the numbers why wouldn't they think Rice was worthy?

Anyways, we can debate this all day and come up with the same answers.........lol. I would think that he gets in because he was so close last year. This being his final year on the ballot, I think some will take a good long look at him and give him the extra 16 he needs.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Tony Perez had all the former members of the Big Red Machine (including several HoFers) doing a permanent, non-stop P.R. campaign for him.

(Also, keep in mind that Perez's his last 6 seasons were in a part-time role, so his per-season numbers are altered. Plus he was a much better fielder than Rice. But he's still not a HoFer.)

He's another reason why I'd like to see a reduction in the number of years on the ballot - Perez got in in year 14. He's either a Hall of Famer or he's not - it shouldn't take 14 years (actually 19 when you consider the 5-year wait period) to figure it out.

 

[Rockslinger]

Here is a trivia question. Who got the most HOF votes ever? Hint: Nobody got 100% but I seem to recall some got in the 98% range.

 

[blueline]

For me, the Jim Rice argument comes down to this: was he one of the greatest players of all time and was he dominant in his era? To me, the answer to the first question is a resounding no and his dominance was far too abbreviated to be HoF material.

Again, there are players in the HOF that don't meet your criteria. We can argue all day about players such as:

Bill Mazeroski, Tony Perez, Don Sutton, Bruce Sutter, Kirby Puckett (nice player for 12 seasons, Rice's numbers certainly very comparable), Gary Carter, to name a few. Nice players - yes. Among the greatest of all-time - very debatable in all cases. Dominant in their era? No more than Rice was IMO.

But if they are in, then I ask again - why not Rice? I say it's championships, or lack of in Rice's case. All of the players I mentioned have a WS ring, except Sutton. He has longevity on his side along with having reached the magic numbers of 300 and 3000.

 

[blueline]

He's another reason why I'd like to see a reduction in the number of years on the ballot - Perez got in in year 14. He's either a Hall of Famer or he's not - it shouldn't take 14 years (actually 19 when you consider the 5-year wait period) to figure it out.

Well I agree with that.

 

[Rockslinger]

Perez got in in year 14. He's either a Hall of Famer or he's not - it shouldn't take 14 years to figure it out.

Do they still have the Veteran's Committee?