Good for Rickey. It ought to have been unanimous. Bad on the Hall of Fame voters for adding another guy who isn't worthy of the Hall (I'm a small hall guy) but good for Rice.

I wish they would publish the names of the writers that didn't vote for Ricky. What is the rationale given in these instances where the decision should easily be unanimous? That Babe Ruth wasn't unanimously voted in? Ridiculous.

I don't follow the Hall close enough to know why, but I find it interesting that players 'gain momentum' as the years go on.

In 1995 Rice got just 30% of the total votes (and comically, the article linked talks about him being 'feared') and this year he was at 76.4%.  What happened that made 46% of voters change their mind from 1995, or the 4.2% more people that voted for him this year that didn't last year?  You would think that someone like Jim Rice would do worse the more information is presented about him. 

The least they could do is all get together and designate someone to be "that guy" instead of all deciding to be the martyr.

Gotta be "Rickey's Day" without a doubt - in my mind (such as it is) - the best lead off guy in history. When baseball is finally finished and played no more - Rickey could end up being the best "lead off" guy ever.  He was wonderful to watch.

Thanks for the memories Rickey. You were a joy to watch.

Jim Rice - you were a great player - (IMHO) not a HOFer - but who am I to quibble with my betters.  Jim, thank you for the memories, you too were a joy(ish) to watch.

Rice gets in while a more deserving player falls off the bottom due to lack of support.

Mark Grace need a better press agent.

Various reasons shift votes year to year.  Some voters stop voting, others start up.  Then you get those who put only a certain number of people on their ballot each year (some limit themselves to 1, others 1 hitter and 1 pitcher, others will vote for up to 5, etc.) despite the 10 open slots.  You also get those who flip year to year on certain standards - McGwire and the steroid issue added a fair number of votes for Rice as he is viewed as a 'non-steroid' guy. 

I'm betting along with many others that many Rice voters who weren't voting Dawson will now do so as he has a stronger case than Rice did.  Raines will do better next year too as Henderson ate away some of his support (best leadoff hitter ever vs #2 will do that).  If/when Blyleven gets in I'm betting on Morris getting a jump unless it takes long enough for the current crop of pitchers to get onto the ballot (Clemens in 4 years, Maddux in 5, Glavine could be in 5, Johnson, Martinez, and many others right behind them) who would all make Morris look like nothing special.  4 years from now we'll be getting a crowded ballot and anyone still on it then better watch out (Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa, Biggio).

Henderson or no Henderson, Raines' vote total remains shamefully low. I can't think of a wider disparity in HoF voting in my lifetime between a candidate's merit and the vote total.

Congratulations Rickey!  Easily my favourite non-Jay to watch over the years (not counting his brief, and oddly underwhelming stint with us as a rent-a-player).  And a great interview too.  I loved watching his annual, 'screw this, I can still play' mentality in the last few years of his career - and he still could. 

Tim Raines - 22.7%

Thank God I don't take those morons seriously or I'd be pissed right now.

Tim Raines - 22.7%
I think the wrong people have a vote! I can understand not making it but 22 freakin %??? Did only 20% of the voters watch baseball in the last 25 years or are 80% deceased and somebody is doing a proxy vote? ;)

The ballot is going to get mighty crowded in the next couple of years. There are 3 no doubt Hall of Famers left, Blyleven, Raines and Trammell.  Next year, Larkin and Alomar get added. With Dawson, Morris and Smith drawing a substantial portion of the vote, the odds are pretty good that at least one no-doubter will be missed by the BBWAA again.  It wouldn't shock me if 3 or 4 are...

When I did Larkin's Hall Watch 4 years ago I suggested that he was a great player who the writers were likely to miss.  Nothing that has happened since has changed my perspective. 

Speaking of future hall-of-famers, Kevin Ahrens is the subject of a short piece behind the subscription wall at Baseball America.  The gist of the article was that he showed a lot of improvement during the year that didn't show in the stats.  His defence improved vastly and he started to drive the ball more at the plate.  We'll see next year.

"He was one of the guys we talked about frequently in our meetings, how much he improved," Scott said.

In his BP chat, Will Carroll thinks that it's a "coinflip" whether Janssen, Clement and Maroth combined give the Jays 20 starts in 2009. That sounds reasonable to me, although I could see Janssen spending the year in the 'pen. Carroll also seems to like the Clement signing, calling it "reasonable risk with upside, at least in the short term."

Based on the sportswriters' chatter I've been reading, I'm not sure Roberto Alomar is such a shoo-in for the HOF as we might have once thought. His career fell off a cliff at age 34, he switched teams a lot at the end, he was done at 36, and didn't reach 3,000 hits.

While I'd love him in as a Blue Jay, I think it might take him 5+ years on the ballot to get there.

I can't see why there would be any controversy about Rickey Henderson not being a unanimous first-round selection to the Hall. I would have been stunned if he had been chosen unanimously, That, and not the failure of writers to select him unanimously, would be worthy of comment.

Here's a list of players who were not selected unanimously to the Hall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_by_date_of_induction All of them. Every player ever selected. If Tom Seaver goes in at 98%, Ted Williams at 93%, it's pretty sure that Rickey Henderson is not going to be the first ever unanimous selection. I like the exclusivity of the Hall. If they wanted to have a place where above-average players are chosen unanimously, they could model it on the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I can't see why there would be any controversy about Rickey Henderson not being a unanimous first-round selection to the Hall. I would have been stunned if he had been chosen unanimously, That, and not the failure of writers to select him unanimously, would be worthy of comment.

Are you really that dense?  This really speaks to the audacity of the people who can vote for the hall - I mean if they can come up with a valid reason for not voting Rickey or Cal Ripkin in, then I'm all ears, but really, they should have their votes removed.

Ugh, Jim Rice was a very good player, but clearly not a HOF one. I am positive Dawson will make it now as well which is even worse. What was his career OBP? .323? I love what Jayson Stark wrote" "Except for that pesky on-base percentage, this was a man who truly had it all:". So, besides being bad at the single most important stat in baseball, he was great?

Reaines will probably not get in because most of his career was played in Montreal. There is this massive disparity between the big markets  and the smaller markets. Notice the Sandberg versus Whitaker difference in voting. Also, like in MVP voting, there is a massive emphasis on HR, and RBI as well as the "felt like a HOFer" nonsense. Even as a kid as an NL Expos fan, I knew that Raines was the team's best player. 22%. Shameful.

Yet another ridiculous vote undertaken by our favourite group of "experts".

The HoF has long been dead to me. Long live the Hall of Merit!

Rice gets in while a more deserving player falls off the bottom due to lack of support.

Mark Grace need a better press agent.

rpriske: Do you post over at BTF as well?  I seem to remember a poster there strongly advocating Grace for the Hall, and your name rings a bell.

I just can't see how Grace is a HoFer.  He was a relatively light hitting [119 OPS+] player with limited defensive value because of his position, had an unimpressive peak and not nearly enough longevity to reach the big milestones [like 3000 hits].  If Grace is in the HoF, then so is John Olerud, Wally Joyner, Jack Clark, Will Clark, Joe Adock, Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez, Cecil Cooper, and the list goes on [and on...].

Ugh, Jim Rice was a very good player, but clearly not a HOF one. I am positive Dawson will make it now as well which is even worse. What was his career OBP? .323? I love what Jayson Stark wrote" "Except for that pesky on-base percentage, this was a man who truly had it all:". So, besides being bad at the single most important stat in baseball, he was great?

I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I still can see the argument for Dawson to be enshrined, although I'm mostly on the fence about it.  Dawson was an excellent defensive player at a premium position for a significant portion of his career.  He was mediocre at taking a walk,  but still managed to post a very good OPS+.  He was a very good baserunner and defensive player; he also had a lengthy career.  He may only be in the bottom thrid of the HoF, but he would not be close to the worst player inside.

Nolan, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez are both in the Hall of Merit, and got there easily. Both were significantly better offensive players than Grace (and the difference in Clark's case was huge); Hernandez was a significantly better fielder.  Olerud is not yet eligible for the Hall of Merit, but I imagine that he'll get a serious look.  He was also a significantly better hitter than Grace, and arguably a better fielder as well.

When you properly account for OBP and slug and take into account defence, Grace is ahead of Mickey Vernon/Cecil Cooper and behind Olerud among first baseman.  He was grievously underrated but still not really of Hall of Merit quality, in my opinion.

Nolan, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez are both in the Hall of Merit, and got there easily. Both were significantly better offensive players than Grace (and the difference in Clark's case was huge); Hernandez was a significantly better fielder.  Olerud is not yet eligible for the Hall of Merit, but I imagine that he'll get a serious look.  He was also a significantly better hitter than Grace, and arguably a better fielder as well.

When you properly account for OBP and slug and take into account defence, Grace is ahead of Mickey Vernon/Cecil Cooper and behind Olerud among first baseman.  He was grievously underrated but still not really of Hall of Merit quality, in my opinion.

Yeah, I should have been more clear in my post.  My  point was that there are MANY players that have resumes that similar to Grace - or much better - and who won't or can't get a sniff of the HoF.  If electing Rice lowers the bar for future electees - while I would not vote for him, he's not the worst player or outfielder in the HoF [hmm, damning with faint praise?] - then electing Grace opens the doos wide open for numerous hall-of-very-good players and makes deserving players who were passed, like Clark and Hernandez, seem even more egerious.

And as an aside, I love reading the HoM threads and have for a few years now.  However, I don't think I've ever posted in those threads: I find them somewhat intimidating. 

If you're talking Hall of Merit rather than Hall of Fame, I'd have Grace slightly ahead of Rice.  On a rate basis, their offence is almost exactly equal once you account for double plays.  Grace had a few more PAs, and (I think) added a little more defensive value than Rice, although that is certainly open to argument.

The floodgates with the selection of Rice are probably larger than for Grace.  The number of outfielders better than him and not in the Hall of Fame may exceed 50.  There are probably 10 slugging outfielders significantly ahead of him- Colavito, Howard, Indian Bob Johnson, and Luzinski. Then you have the guys who were at least comparable hitters and played significant periods in centerfield like Reggie Smith, Jimmy Wynn, Cesar Cedeno,  and Amos Otis.  And then there are the multi-dimensional players like Jose Cruz Sr.

"He (Dawson) was a very good baserunner and defensive player; he also had a lengthy career.  He may only be in the bottom thrid of the HoF, but he would not be close to the worst player inside."

No, he wouldn't be, but that's not the criteria that should be used. (Maybe I'd accept "not the worst player who wasn't friends with Frankie Frisch") As with Rice, letting Dawson it, should let a floodgate of players who are of similar value. I mean, Fred McGriff was a better a better hitter than either one of those two. Is there really a big difference between someone like Rice and Jack Clark or Dale Murphy? Albert Belle was much better in a shorter career. I don't see how Belle doesn't make in the HOF if Rice is in. The problem is that the HOF should be for the very best players, not for very good players.

It's worse than that, Glevin.  Jack Clark, Dale Murphy and Albert Belle were all considerably better ballplayers than Rice.  As were Bobby Bonds, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn and many others.

Whoops, sorry about the delayed double post.

If you're talking Hall of Merit rather than Hall of Fame, I'd have Grace slightly ahead of Rice.  On a rate basis, their offence is almost exactly equal once you account for double plays.  Grace had a few more PAs, and (I think) added a little more defensive value than Rice, although that is certainly open to argument.

Really?  I realize that OPS+ can be a somewhat crude and misleading stat, but can Grace's advantage in OBP - which  I understand is undervalued by OPS+ - and ability to stay out of the DP erase the 9 point difference between the two?  I hope this doesn't sound argumentative as I'm genuinely curious; I thought that there may only be a point or two swing in OPS+ due to the better on-base percentage.

Glevin: I agree that the HoF shouldn't be elected on a "lowest common denominater" system.  I just think that there's a shortage of centerfielders being elected recently [I believe only Kirby Puckett since 1980 or so]  and that Dawson's considerable strengths outwiegh his one negative.  As I said, I'm not adament that Dawson shoud get in, I just won't be nearly as disappointed as I was with Rice making it.

I just think that there's a shortage of centerfielders being elected recently [I believe only Kirby Puckett since 1980 or so]

That's true and I agree about the shortage, but to be completely accurate, there's a guy who played a lot of CF going in next summer -- Rickey played neearly 500 games there in his career and was the regular in center for the Yankees for two and a half seasons.

Fair or not, at best that makes him the third best CF to wear Bronx pinstripes regularly at least for a short while, And he is arguably the greatest LF ever to play the game for anyone, so I can see why we don't think of Rickey being Rickey in CF.

I don't see how Rickey can seriously be considred the best LF in baseball history.

Rickey was great, but Ted Williams was even better.

And so was Barry Bonds, for that matter.

OPS+ can, in extreme cases, be off by quite a bit due to the simple addition of OBP to S.  The appropriate ratio is 1.8 for OBP to 1 for slugging, as in the GPA formula.  Grace vs. Rice is an extreme case, with Grace having an OBP-heavy OPS and Rice having a slug-heavy OPS.  You can do a quick and dirty GPA+ (not scaled to 100) by the formula- player OBP/park-league average OBP * 1.8 + player Slug/park-league average slug.  Grace is by this more accurate measure of rate performance very close to Rice. 

I don't see how Rickey can seriously be considred the best LF in baseball history.

Thus my use of the word "arguably." Ted was the greatest hitter who ever lived, byt his own take anyway, and Rickey was the greatest base-stealer. Neither was great in the field, though Rickey didn't take practice swings during defensive half-innings in the field and Ted apparently did

Bonds, well, whole different set of "yeah buts ..."

See? "Arguably." Almost certainly Top 5, though hey, Babe Ruth played a lot of LF, too.

Player A vs. Jim Rice

Player A retired after 1986 and 7025 major league ab's. His 5 highest annual OPS+ scores were 165, 155, 151, 150 and 150. Jim Rice's 5 highest annual OPS+ scores were 157, 154, 147, 141 and 136. He retired after 8225 ab's in 1989.

Player A, won 1 MVP, 2WS, and was the only player in the pre-steroid era to hit 50 homeruns in 25 years.

Player A received 24 HOF votes in 1992, and came off after 1995 when he got 19 votes.

Now I'm not saying George Foster deserves to be in the HOF, but Jim Rice is there because of where he played, not how well he played. He had two or three very good seasons. His selection diminishes the Hall.