Somehow, 5.2% of the voters didn't think Rickey Henderson -- certainly one of the 20 greatest players ever -- wasn't deserving?

http://www.baseballwriters.org/awards/HOF/2009_HOF.html


As for Jim Rice, somehow his vote total soared since he first appeared on the ballot 14 years ago. Oh, that Boston media. An undeserving choice. (And can your lineup-driven, Fenway-aided RBI totals, Sox fans.)

I don't understand how nobody has ever been a unanimous selection for the HOF. The more I read about Rice, the more I agree he is a borderline selection at best. And I'm bummed that Blyleven didn't get in yet again.

I agree on Blyleven. But Tim Raines' low vote total is even more ridiculous.

Rice was one of Boston's stars and most important players of the 1970s and 1980s. He won the league MVP in 1978, led in home runs three times, in RBIs twice, and total bases four times, without recourse to steroids. He was THE impact player on the Red Sox for a decade, and certainly more of an impact player than Hall of Famer "Longevity" Yastrzemski, who settled into mediocrity after the 1970 season and coasted the rest of the way till retirement. Rice should have been elected years ago. Had he hung around with his bad eyesight and managed to hit 8 more homers to reach 400, he would have been.

Blyleven had one standout season, in 1984, and lost way too many games. He barely exceeds .500. He also never won a single Cy Young or MVP award. The only distinction is the strikeouts and racking up 287 wins over 22 years, which averages out to 14 wins a season, but he also averaged 12 losses. Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Raines was a fine player but not one of the best. His main distinction was stolen bases, especially early in his career. He played for 23 years, which is worthy of praise, but not of Hall of Fame election.

Why wasn't Lee Smith elected? The man was the leader in saves with 478 not too long ago, and is still 3rd all time.

Love the dinosaur statistics, don'tcha? Re Rice, HR (because of the Fenway advantage) & RBI (because it's a team-dependent stat) titles are meaningless -- though not as meaningless as citing a writers' award (MVP) as justification for another (HOF). As for "w/out recourse to steroids" -- unprovable.

Rice wasn't even as good a player as his teammate Dwight Evans. Rice's career as a hitter is right on a par with Albert Belle, who will never sniff the Hall.

As for Blyleven, pitchers don't win and lose games; teams do. Bert's best year might've been 1973 with the Twins, when he threw 325 innings, had a 2.52 ERA, but went 20-17, which was not his fault, but his light-hitting teammates'.

"Raines' main distinction was stolen bases" -- wrong. (SB totals are overrated; even Rickey's are.) Raines' stolen base PERCENTAGE, the important stat, is .847 the second-best EVER behind Carlos Beltran (who has many fewer attempts). Rock scored 100 runs or more 6 times, and had a career OBP of .385, just 16 pts below Henderson's, and was in the top 5 in the NL in 6 of 7 seasons from 1983-89.

Keith Law's case for Raines:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/column...&id=3825493


Re Lee Smith: Saves are a junk stat. They aren't even defined the same across the decades.

Not a cub fan, but Andre Dawson's stats were better than Rice....

Dawson's career "counting stats" are more Hall-like cuz he played longer, but his .323 OBP is too low for my taste.