Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice elected to Hall of Fame

[SirFozzie]

Thanks goodness. Rickey was a shooin of course (I'd like to ask the 28 people who didn't vote for him why not), but I had real concerns that Jim wouldn't get in. He was the precursor of today's super strong sluggers.. (he was the only person that I've ever heard of who broke his bat by checking his swing)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Rickey Henderson sped his way into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot Monday, and Jim Rice made it in on his 15th and final try.

Henderson, baseball's career leader in runs scored and stolen bases, received 94.8 percent of the vote from the Baseball Writers' Association of America, well above the 75 percent needed.

Rice, among baseball's most feared hitters in the late 1970s and early 1980s, got 76.4 percent of the vote after falling just shy with 72.2 percent last year.

Henderson became the 44th player elected in his first year of eligibility. Rice was only the third elected by the BBWAA in his final year, joining Red Ruffing (1967) and Ralph Kiner (1975).

The pair will be inducted into the Hall during ceremonies on July 26 in Cooperstown, N.Y. They will be joined by former Yankees and Indians second baseman Joe Gordon, elected posthumously last month by the Veterans Committee.

Henderson was picked on 511 of 539 ballots and Rice was selected on 412, just more than the 405 needed.

Rice received only 29.8 percent of the vote in 1995, when he appeared on the ballot for the first time. He topped 50 percent for the first time in 2000 and reached 64.8 percent in 2006 -- the highest percentage for a player who wasn't elected in a later year was 63.4 by Gil Hodges in 1983, his final time on the ballot.

Andre Dawson fell 44 votes short with 67 percent. He was followed by Bert Blyleven (62.7 percent), Lee Smith (44.5), Jack Morris (44.0), Tommy John (31.7) and Tim Raines (22.6). John appeared on the ballot for the final time.

Mark McGwire, stigmatized by accusations he used performance-enhancing drugs, received 118 votes (21.9 percent) in his third year of eligibility, down from the 128 votes he got in each of his first two tries.

[MikeVic]

Go Rickey!!

[stevew]

Is palmerio still on the ballot? I really wonder if mcgwire will ever get in. Seems like his best shot would be to totally come clean? I think he belongs, but I can see why others don't.

[jeff061]

Finally, I don't have to listen to the never ending "Jim Rice's getting robbed cause he's an asshole to the press" talk around here.

[Subby]

Yay the Hall of Pretty Good gets another inductee!

[Atocep]

Tim Raines only got 22% of the vote.


I'm watching the coverage on ESPN/ESPNews and Tim Kurkjian said runs scored is the most underrated stat in baseball.

I'm sure everyone here will be surprised by this, but Steve Phillips' case for Jim Rice was "most feared hitter" and that was about it. For Rickey Henderson it was stolen bases, stolen bases stolen bases. I'm glad they had Keith Law and Joe Sheenan on to make him look like a dumbass.

[ISiddiqui]

@ Blyleven not getting in!

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

@ Blyleven not getting in!

+1

[Atocep]

I'd also like to add that while Steve Phillips was talking about Jim Rice I tried to switch over Sportscenter, but they had Joe Morgan and Peter Gammons talking about Rickey and Jim Rice. I really didn't know what to do at that point so I switched back to Steve Phillips and turned the volume down.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

@ Blyleven not getting in!

+2

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Tim Raines only got 22% of the vote.

Bangs head on desk.

[Subby]

As bad as letting Rice in is, what imbeciles leave Raines and Henderson off of their ballots? Aside from Corky, of course.

[albionmoonlight]

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

[Draft Dodger]

I'm looking forward to Henderson's speech.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

This annoys me more than anything. Either a guy is a HOF or he isn't. I could understand it more in the NFL when they say they are taking 4-8 players a year or whatever.

[Atocep]

I have to say, the Rickey stories never get old.

Steve Phillips said that he told Rickey he had won some team award for the Mets and was trying to see what he'd like as a gift. He asked for "one of those things Madden drives around".

Buster Olney told a story about Rickey calling up a team's GM once when he was a free agent and saying "on behalf of Rickey, I'd like to inform you that Rickey is available".

[RendeR]

Have to say that for once I don't have a real complaint with the inductees. Still a few people that ought to be there though.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by mckerney

+2

+3, f rice.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Why do people get more votes as time goes on?

If you thought the guy wasn't Hall worthy last year, then why are you voting him in this year?

In the case of Rice, he was extremely unpopular with writers (because he was a jerk). Those feelings cool off over time, old writers leave and new come in, etc.

[MikeVic]

Where's KSyrup to shit all over Rickey!

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is palmerio still on the ballot? I really wonder if mcgwire will ever get in. Seems like his best shot would be to totally come clean? I think he belongs, but I can see why others don't.

Palmero will not be eligible for another couple of years.

[Crapshoot]

The ignorance of the BBWAA is demonstrated once again - Tim Raines is far more of a HOF'er than Jim Rice will ever be. Hell, if Rice is in the HOF, lets add Dante Bichette (stole that quip from BP).

[Crapshoot]

Btw, anyone who voted against Rickey ought to have his ballot taken away. He's one of the 20 best players of all time; maybe 10 best.

[rowech]

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Btw, anyone who voted against Rickey ought to have his ballot taken away. He's one of the 20 best players of all time; maybe 10 best.

QFT

[korme]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

However, not in this era when we're constantly learning more about the steroid era, Rice's numbers look more impressive.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm fine with people not voting for a guy his first year. First year election being something special. If you're no in after two years...you don't get in. It's absolutely baffling to me that a guy just hangs around for 15 years with the exact same stats and then somehow gets in.

Whaa? That's idiotic. The qualifications don't change from year to year; a bunch of old geezers revelling in their self-importance is irrelevant to that. I do agree that 15 years is ridiculous; 5 seems fine to me.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by korme

However, not in this era when we're constantly learning more about the steroid era, Rice's numbers look more impressive.

Jim Rice had an OPS+ of 128, adjusting the band-box he played in. That's compared to his era, not anyone else. He was also awful defensively as a LF. He is not a HOF'er by any regard.

Simply comparison, Ellis Burks had an OPS+ of 126; is anyone calling for Burks in the HOF?

[Subby]

Better mustache than Burks.

[MikeVic]

[Mustang]

I'm ok with 15 years although, not with voting every year. After 15 years you can at least get some perspective of players vs the next generation that has just finished up. Although, probably should be more of a voting eligibility years 1 and 2, then at 5, 10 and 15 while increasing the cutoff %....

As for not getting in right away, baseball writers are a bunch of cranky bastards. You could have a guy hit 1,000 hrs with a career batting average of .400, took public drug tests and cured the sick at home games with his own sweat and he probably would only get 99.9% of the vote on the 1st ballot because he liked fish sticks and some writer in Nebraska doesn't trust anyone who likes fish sticks...

[JediKooter]

Damn, Dave Kingman didn't make it.

[Warhammer]

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

[MikeVic]

When's Julio Franco up for the HOF?

[SirFozzie]

2012 I think

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

Raines:

Tim Raines Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

123 OPS+ with 808 stolen bases and only 146 caught stealing (that's an 85% success rate over his career) and very good defense in 23 seasons.

Dawson:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml

119 OPS+ with Ok defense and, of course, no where near the SB (314 and 109 CS) in 21 seasons.

I think the amount and success rate of Raines' stolen bases should easily get him in over Dawson, who was basically a similar hitter, but more focused on power and Raines was more focused on getting on base (Dawson had a career OBP of .323).

[rowech]

Neyer's take on Dawson versus Raines...

Rob Neyer Blog - ESPN

[Buccaneer]

Did they vote anyone out yet?

No one gets 100%, it's one of those traditional things.

[Logan]

A stupid tradition.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the amount and success rate of Raines' stolen bases should easily get him in over Dawson, who was basically a similar hitter, but more focused on power and Raines was more focused on getting on base (Dawson had a career OBP of .323).

The thing with Raines and Dawson is more that Raines blunted his career with coke and Dawson's was blunted with knee trauma. I also think there's a lot of people who compare Raines and Henderson, find Henderson to be a better candidate, and then don't consider that maybe he's still enough better than the next guy (maybe it's Kenny Lofton?)...

[Buccaneer]

The 1936 Voting Results

Name Votes PCT 
Cobb, Ty 222 98.2% 
Ruth, Babe 215 95.1% 
Wagner, Honus 215 95.1% 
Mathewson, Christy 205 90.7% 
Johnson, Walter 189 83.6% 
Lajoie, Nap 146 64.6% 
Speaker, Tris 133 58.8% 
Young, Cy 111 49.1% 
Hornsby, Rogers 105 46.5% 
Cochrane, Mickey 80 35.4% 
Sisler, George 77 34.1% 
Collins, Eddie 60 26.5% 
Collins, Jimmy 58 25.7% 
Alexander, Grover 55 24.3% 
Gehrig, Lou 51 22.6% 
Bresnahan, Roger 47 20.8% 
Foxx, Jimmie 21 9.3% 
Terry, Bill 9 4% 
Kling, Johnny 8 3.5% 
Criger, Lou 7 3.1% 
Brown, Mordecai 6 2.7% 
Evers, Johnny 6 2.7% 
Chance, Frank 5 2.2% 
McGraw, John 4 1.8% 
Schalk, Ray 4 1.8% 
Simmons, Al 4 1.8% 
Bender, Chief 2 0.9% 
Jackson, Joe 2 0.9% 
Roush, Edd 2 0.9% 
Baker, Frank 1 0.4% 
Bradley, Bill 1 0.4% 
Clarke, Fred 1 0.4% 
Crawford, Sam 1 0.4% 
Daubert, Jake 1 0.4% 
Dean, Dizzy 1 0.4% 
Elberfeld, Kid 1 0.4% 
Gehringer, Charlie 1 0.4% 
Hartnett, Gabby 1 0.4% 
Mack, Connie 1 0.4% 
Marquard, Rube 1 0.4% 
Rucker, Nap 1 0.4% 
Vance, Dazzy 1 0.4% 

Back when it was truly the Hall of Fame. If you decry the "tradition" of votes not being 100%, then it would also make sense to be against always getting in on the first vote (for obvious candidates).

[molson]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

[Atocep]

I actually started wondering today, if Rickey Henderson never existed would Tim Raines be seen as a sure-think Hall of Famer? Well, maybe not sure thing, but I think he'd probably get in within the 1st 3-4 years on the ballot. As it stands now Raines' best bet is already with the veterans committee.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

You're reaching Colin Cowherd levels if you want to bring "fame" into play here.

Dawson won the most bullshit MVP award of my lifetime. Derek Jeter is a multi-time gold glove winner. Do we really want to use awards to judge a player's Hall of Fame candidacy?

[ISiddiqui]

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

So... then... Albert Belle? He was Top 3 in AL MVP voting for 3 years in a row.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So... then... Albert Belle? He was Top 3 in AL MVP voting for 3 years in a row.

I'm just using it as a guideline, I'm not advocating a cutoff (just like I wouldn't use a specific OPS+ number as a firm cutoff).

Belle absolutely had a HOF career going at age 30. He just fell off a cliff after that. If he was as likable as Kirby Puckett, he might have gotten in anyway. He was an elite slugger of his time, but his quality years were even smaller in number than Rice's.

There's lots of different perspectives on this. MVP voting tells us how often a guy was elite at the time he played, both in terms of actual performance, and the perception at the time. The perception isn't irrelevant. I think the HOF should be bias in favor of players who were on good teams, and were a huge deal in the public eye when the played. A guy on a HOF plaque should scream out "big deal" in the way Bert Blyleven just doesn't.

The HOF is museum/tourist attraction.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You're reaching Colin Cowherd levels if you want to bring "fame" into play here.

Dawson won the most bullshit MVP award of my lifetime. Derek Jeter is a multi-time gold glove winner. Do we really want to use awards to judge a player's Hall of Fame candidacy?

The most stupidest criteria is number of All-Stars. It's not as bad as the NFL but many players got be an "All-Star" due to popularity (i.e., on-field stats), guilt/nostalgia (old timers), injury replacements or ballot box stuffing.

[rowech]

Especially given the fact that each team must have one player representive.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The most stupidest criteria is number of All-Stars. It's not as bad as the NFL but many players got be an "All-Star" due to popularity (i.e., on-field stats), guilt/nostalgia (old timers), injury replacements or ballot box stuffing.

...or being the Pirates' token selection.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Belle absolutely had a HOF career going at age 30. He just fell off a cliff after that.

That isn't exactly correct with regards to Belle. He had great years at age 31 and 32. He fell off a cliff after that.

Like.... Jim Rice (though with Rice, it was after he turned 33)!

He was an elite slugger of his time, but his quality years were even smaller in number than Rice's.

Not true. I'd argue that Belle's quality years were greater than Rice, a great deal moreso.

I think the HOF should be bias in favor of players who were on good teams, and were a huge deal in the public eye when the played.

Why? Doesn't that basically make it bullshit to anyone who follows a smaller market team or a great player on a bad team?

A guy on a HOF plaque should scream out "big deal" in the way Bert Blyleven just doesn't.

I can't imagine someone who looks at what Blyleven did during his career and doesn't think that's a "big deal". I mean the guy is 5th all time in career strikeouts, after all. Isn't that something we love about Nolan Ryan so much? All the K's?

The HOF is museum/tourist attraction.

It's also supposed to honor baseball's best. Unless you are saying it should go the way of the BCS in how it is perceived.