Loading ...It appears that Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice have been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
It was Rice’s fifteenth and last time on the ballot. Now, I don’t think Rice is a Hall of Famer, but I’m not going to make that argument today. He certainly won’t be the worst player to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
What I find interesting is that Rice finally got 75% of the votes in this, his fifteenth time on the ballot. During the last fifteen years, Rice didn’t get a single additional hit or home run, didn’t catch a single fly ball or steal a base. His Hall of Fame case is exactly the same as it was the first time Rice was nominated. Actually, it could be argued that he has a worse case now than previously, with all the advances made in baseball analysis.
Yet, for some reason, he was deemed worthy this year after being deemed not worth fourteen previous times. That’s fascinating to me. Can anyone explain how Rice is now worthy of being in the HOF, when the same people had said he wasn’t worthy in the past?
Also, I’d like to know the names of people who voted for Rice this year, but hadn’t voted for him before. How can they justify that vote?
Oh well, I’m happy for Rice and, especially, for Henderson. Good for them.
For what it’s worth, former Reds Lee Smith, Dave Parker, Greg Vaughn, and Ron Gant fell short of election.
How come 5% didn’t vote for Henderson? I think it’s because deep down, sportswriters are assholes.
Some certainly personal feeling influence their objectivity. There is no doubt Henderson was a number one a**hole but he’s a Hall of Fame player regardless.
Tim Raines is getting completely screwed.
So is Blyleven for that matter, more so than Raines. Still, how Tim Raines lost votes is beyond mind numbing to me.
I don’t know that Henderson was that big of a jerk. I mean, he was certainly eccentric, but I don’t get the sense that his teammates hated him like I do with Bonds or even ARod from time to time. Mostly it just seems like they thought he was pretty amusing to have around. I could be way off base on this, but that’s just going off what I’ve read.
Doug is exactly right. Tim Raines is really getting jobbed here. That guy is a Hall of Famer.
I’m hopeful that Henderson’s election will help Raines in the long run. Maybe people will take a closer look at leadoff hitters and finally realize just how good Raines was.
Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking.
I want to know who the two were who voted for Jay Bell. I mean, c’mon, Jay Bell? He was a nice enough player I guess, but no way does he deserve votes over the others on that list.
Its probably wishful thinking Chad, because that would mean writers as a whole would actually give two craps about doing actual research into baseball, which they obviously don’t.
There are two things here that I don’t understand… One, you mentioned it, I don’t understand how some people for 14 years can think a person isn’t a Hall of Famer and then all of a sudden think he’s good enough. Secondly, I don’t understand why some people refuse to vote for obvious HOFers like Henderson, Cal Ripken, and Tony Gwynn. All three should have gone in with 100% vote.
I believe some sportswriters believe that no one is good enough to get in on the first ballot.
Why would they do research, Doug? They already watched the games.
Pretty much unrelated but it appears the Florida Marlins in their quest to lure more fans to the ball games are looking for pornstars to perform as cheerleaders if this picture is any proof:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/deadspin/2009/01/mermaids.jpg
I think it is the old if Babe Ruth wasn’t unanimous, no one should be in the voting. HOF voting is pretty much voodoo either way, I think the football hall is even more murky.
It is hard to argue with Rickey. He used to make me crazy, but I have come to kind of like some of his idiosyncratic way of looking at the world. There has never been a player exactly like him to be able to be so good for so long and probably won’t be again. (Eric Davis, it is too bad you could not have Rickey’s health…)
I saw Tim Raines play at his peak at Montreal a bunch. That guy was a terror on the base paths and nearly Rickey’s equal, albeit without quite the longevity.
Personally, I think Andre Dawson and Dave Parker were both better all around players than Jim Rice. Dawson and Parker were absolute witches out in right field in their prime. That throw that Parker made in the 79 Allstar game is still one of the best throws I have ever seen, it has stuck with me since I was 9.
Jim Rice had a bigger bat, but hey George Foster was about the best hitter in the NL for a couple of years too. Parker also had post season success winning a couple of World Series including hitting a double while the SF earth quake happened.
The thing I don’t think people are considering about Blyleven is that he played for years and years on bad clubs. If you are playing for the Twins and Indians for long stretches in the 70s and 80s at least until Kirby Puckett came around, your overall win loss record was not going to be that hot. Criminy I wish the guy would have been on the Reds in the 70s, the guy would have won 30 games.
It can be explained to a tiny degree by turnover in the BBWAA (i.e., the voting population of 2008 is somewhat different from the population in 1993). Of course, the changes in baseball analysis and writing would seem to make Rice LESS likely to be inducted, though I think there’s a 10 year membership requirement before you get to vote, so Rob Neyer isn’t voting yet.
The answer, unfortunately, is very obvious and pathetic: Sportswriters aren’t equal to the task of HOF gatekeeper. They vote based on whom they’ve heard of, petty grudges, and other nonsense.
Rickey, by the way, was quirky but hardly the toughest person reporters had to deal with. I’m pretty confident that nobody denied him a vote based on a clubhouse grudge.
Parker also had post season success winning a couple of World Series including hitting a double while the SF earth quake happened.
Actually the Parker double was from the night before. ABC was doing pregame and showing the Game 1 highlights when the quake hit.
Earl, I also think that Parker and Dawson were better all-around players than Rice… but I also remember them better and watched them more often because I’ve always been an NL guy.
Hal has a nice post on HOF voting: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/01/12/am_i_the_only_male.html
in my opinion, newswriters love to exercise their authority….as the saying goes, the pen is mighter than the sword, and writers love to exercise this “bully pulpit” when it comes to bestowing honors on others and having grandiose visions of their role.
So, in baseball, as another said, since only a few all-time greats were elected on their first ballot (that is, the first HOF ballot ever), they feel they are protecting this vintage history in not honoring first round honorees.
They also feel they have 15 years to elect someone, so they’re not in a hurry…
They also feel they can only vote for so many candidates, or fewer. Others feel the need to vote for five no matter what, or three, or whatever they feel is appropriate.
Others may not feel that some players like Jim Rice are definitely deserving, but kind of think they might…so they hope someone else will vote them in…then, on the 15th ballot, they feel Rice has waited long enough, so now that Rice would soon be ineligible, they transferred one of their votes from Raines to Rice, so that he would be elected…knowing they can vote for Raines again next year.
Henderson being elected will clear a path for Raines, I believe. It may take two more years (some electors won’t vote for lead off men two years in a row), but Raines should now get in since there won’t be a “split” vote for leadoff men now.
As for Rice…
I would vote for Rice over Dawson and Parker….Parker was an awesome player at his best, Dawson was better all-around than Rice, but I would havae pitched to Dawson before I would pitch to Rice in a big game.
In their prime, I would have pitched to Rice rather than Parker’s drug situation wasn’t pretty…many of us have forgotten this now, but the circumstances affected his game. He had some good years hitting in Cincinnati, but he wasn’t a right fielder anymore….
Oddly, and this probably applies to all things, we can’t objectively analyze greatness while living in the present. In the 70’s any HOF list would have started with Pete Rose and Steve Garvey….It takes a while to look back…in that sense, I admire some writers for not voting people in right away….5 years, in my opinion, isn’t enough time to evaluate everyone in the proper context of history.
Jim Rice gets in, Vada Pinson, with his 2757 hits, more doubles , triples, better all around ballplayer is not. Its totally rediculus!!
Today, Rickey Henderson, is the greatest of all time.
Dawsons should be in but also look where PARKER finished in the alltime leaders boards WHEN he retired. top 50 in many categories hits, hr, rbi, xbh, in a game which has seen thousands play it. Parker was an all star in three different decades and won two World Series. On top of that no PETE That museum of baseball is a joke. Though it was a short term PARKER FOR REDS HOF!!!!!
Pete doesn’t belong in the HOF.
Trammell only getting around 17% doesn’t bode well for Larkin, although I think Larkin was clearly a better player. But Trammell deserves better support than that, and I fear Larkin is going to get similar treatment.
Raines only getting 20 percent is mind-boggling. Sometimes I wonder if these writers rebel against players like Raines because he is widely praised by the so-called sabr-geeks.
There’s no way Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Rice is Top 50 in two categories — Sacrifice Flies (45) and Grounded into Double Plays (6). And that’s it. If Rice is good enough, then we’d better start clearing space for Harold Baines, Fred McGriff, Andres Galarraga, and Albert Belle.
While it’s a very inexact science to compare players across generations, it should be obviously clear to anyone outside of Beantown that Rice was not HoF material. For the past 14 years, the entire Red Sox Nation has rended their clothes and put on the sackcloth and ashes this time of year when their hero is not chosen. Finally, the BBWAA caved and voted in someone who, while a good player in his day, simply does not merit consideration for the Hall.
Had Rice played in Montreal for most of his career like Dawson and Raines, no one would be upset over him not making the Hall.
Larkin and Robbie Alomar are the only two legitimate candidates to add to the list for next year. They’re eerily similar, too.
Larkin – .295/.371/.444 in 2180 games, OPS+ 116
Robbie – .300/.371/.443 in 2379 games, OPS+ 116
Robbie was an amazing 2B with the glove, but Larkin played the more demanding position (and was great there). The only thing that hurts Larkin are his injuries. They should both make it. Also, Larkin has an MVP – Alomar doesn’t.
Also, laugh at Jay Bell if you must, but he was a more valuable player in his career than Jim Rice.
I personally don’t think Rice belongs in the HOF, but I don’t think Parker or Dawson do either.
However, I’m a big believer in the name of the organization….Hall of “Fame”, and except for a few years in Chicago, Dawson wasn’t famous…and the year he was famous he was overrated. Parker’s fame was torn down by the drug scandal
Rice was famed…or may be more famed to me since he played against the Reds…and, it was his “15th year” on the ballot.
Bill James Online did a vote of saber-geeks (I missed out…) and Rice didn’t get voted into the BJO “HALL” because the voters don’t/wouldn’t feel the same responsibility….”it’s his 15th year, we’re keepers of the hall, he may not get in”…etc.
Instead, many blame it on Bosox nation…
Well, good for Bosox nation…they’re doing the same thing that we would do, or sabermetricians are doing for Bert Blyleven, or whomever…they’re championing a cause.
I think there is an inherent small market bias against small market performers due to the sheer numbers involved…there’s more writers in big cities seeing players play there.
The 1920 New York Giants have too many players in the HOF…with good reason. The old Veterans’ Committee was compiled of 1920 Giants who were picked by writers from New York…complain as we may, human nature is included in all that we do.
So, Barry Larkin (and Alan Trammell, sorry Lou Whitaker) have to stay in the spotlight to get the attention.
Anyway…it’s not a Hall of Stats…it is a Hall of “Fame.” By definition of fame, by the way, Pete Rose does belong in, gambling or no gambling, since the Hall of Fame is/was to be independent of Major League Baseball, party to show impartiality…
By Hall of Fame, it doesn’t mean Vada Pinson gets in (sorry to some) for having 2757 hits….if Vada hadn’t faded at age 27 (talk about oddities…), he would have been a certified no doubter Hall of Famer. Somehow, he didn’t perform in what should have been his best three seasons and the Reds dealt into obscurity…(small market bias vs. Cleveland, KC, and Cincy).
However, if you’re famous you deserve to be there. I really don’t have a problem with that.
One day, I hope to visit the HOF…and I’ve got to say…what will be more fun…talking about Joe Carter’s 1445 rbi or his World Series home run? Which would matter more?
Alomar and Larkin should both make it. Neither will make it on first few tries.
Trammell is better than advertised; his value has been publicly split with Lou Whitaker, who also is better than advertised. The baseball public has had difficulty apprceciating them individually.
Think about the two best infields of the 70’s? The Reds (Perez-Morgan-Concepcion-Rose) and the Dodgers (Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey). Most sabermetricians would tell you that Perez did not belong in the HOF (lowest OBP currently in the Hall). They’ll say Rose (keeping it to performance) played too long (so, if he had retired earlier he would belong? What’s that rationale?) That Concepcion didn’t hit enough (has everyone forgotten how important shortstop play was during the 60s-70’s…fielders were selected to all-star teams then, not home run hitters), and that Morgan deserved the honor.
The entire Dodger infield has been abandoned…and, frankly, during his playing days, Garvey was considered a huge ambassador for the game, no matter what his post-playing days said about him..)
These teams’ sums seem to have been better than their parts…
So, when we tell stories to our kids…when they get excited about baseball…do they get wowed over fielding range? Over WHIP? Over BABIP? On pitches seen per at bat?
NO..all those things matter to winning, and that’s the priority…but, there’s more to fun than just winning, even if winning always brings fun….there needs to be room for the great stories, too.
I guess I mean a balance…Bumpus Jones throwing a no-hitter on the last game of 1892 and falling into the pit of failure is a great story, but he’s not a HOFer…Ozzie Smith, poor bat, great glove, ambassador, great backflips is…
Anyway…I got off Larkin/Alomar…I fear Larkin will have more trouble, but he shouldn’t…there are very few shortstops who could play at a stellar level past the age of 33…many Reds’ fans complained about him not playing enough games, but we were whining…very few, precious few, shortstops played at that level for that late into a career.
I strongly think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
I also think he’s a scumbag and deserves to be banned from holding any position within the game from now on.
But for what he did on the field – he absolutely should be in.
Pete Rose will eventually be in the Hall of Fame.
It won’t happen until after he’s dead, though.