Despite being occasionally one of the more vocal members here, I feel that there is a bubble of 100 or so candidates (50 in, 50 out) that are pretty difficult to separate. I believe, and this may be difficult for some of my learned colleagues to agree with, that there are subjective components to the voting, that there is an art as well as a science to a player's record. How much did I like having this guy in the game for 15 years? This is a slippery slope, I grant.

Anyhow, the problem with jp's ballot is not Rice. Ironically, I have been arguing with VAL about Rice--VAL has been arguing for Rice and not voting for him, while I have been arguing against Rice and voting for him. Which shows you ... something I am sure.

The problem with jp's ballot is Ripken and Gwynn. I guess when you have been working on this thread for TWO YEARS its annoying when people come on and start throwing up protest ballots or try to make a point. If you don't think Ripken belongs in the Hall, fine, but please don't exclude him as some sort of Rice protest. It harms the process.

2007

Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Tony Gwynn
Fred Lynn
Mark McGwire
Dan Quisenberry
Cal Ripken, Jr

2007 Ballot
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Tony Gwynn
Tommy John
Mark McGwire
Jim Rice
Cal Ripken

I'm a big Hal Baines fan, but I don't see it. In his early years, pre-1986, he was a great hitter and a very good RF. Those were some HoF-track seasons. The move to DH, though, meant he no longer brought defensive value to his team (not consistantly, anyway), and the batting numbers don't seem to make up for it. He was a helluva player, no question. I think Molitor provides a decent baseline for what a full-time DH should produce at minimum (and looking ahead, Edgar Martinez). Hal never quite reached that production.

I'm into the Rice camp, again. VAL got me.

If you vote for Henke, why not John Wetteland?

VAL also got me on that last argument for Rollie Fingers, the number of AS games. I found that convincing. Unfortunately, I didn't read it until after the ballots were tallied. Anyway, by that measure and my own ideas about RPs, I think Lee Smith is on the outside looking in.

As for 1B, I see going Clark ahead Mattingly. Doing a rough SLG% adjustment for post-1992, as VAL suggests, puts them pretty equal in that department, within 10 points or less, Clark still ahead.

Best 5 WARP3:
Mattingly: 12.7, 11.7, 10.2, 9.1, 7.4 = 51.1
Clark: 13.3, 11.6, 10.5, 8.9, 8.4 = 52.7
Mattingly added another 38 WARP3 in 8 seasons, Clark another 54.6WARP3 in 11 seasons.

Cy Morong has Clark pegged at 25.89 Win Shares per 648PA, Mattingly 22.07WS/648PA. Morong also has Clark #11 in weighing total Win Shares with Win Shares per PA. Mattingly down at 31, below guys we barely even considered, e.g. Boog Powell.

On a side note, looking at 1B made me regret not supporting Norm Cash. I was pretty strenously against him, as I recall, when I shouldn't have been.

I'm another one who's been in the non-Rice voting block, so I'll chime in.

Although you can look at Rice's numbers lots of different ways, I've more or less taken my position thanks (or no thanks) to his standing in Runs Created Above Average and Runs Created Above Position, which I find in the Sabermetric Encyclopedia.

I made a list of the SoSH Hall of Fame left fielders (minus Stan Musial and Harry Stovey, since they played more time at other positions), plus Jim Rice.

RCAP is the player's runs created above an average player at the same position, over the timeframe of the player's career.



RCAP tracks pretty well with the SoSH Hall choices. The only eligible player with more than 250 RCAP, who is not in, is Joe Kelley. The only players in, with less than 250, are Howard, (a borderline mistake, IMO), Brock (whose SB are not measured here) and Minoso (who has mitigating career conditions).

If Rice, with 155, were directly behind Minoso and Howard, I could see an argument for him. But what's not in the table is the 10 eligible players between Goose Goslin, at 257, and Rice, at 155. They include: Riggs Stephenson, Augie Galan, Jeff Heath, Rico Carty, Greg Luzinski, Chick Hafey, Kirk Gibson, Sid Gordon, Roy White and Jose Cruz. All of these men were more or equally productive, compared to their peers, as Jim Rice. This is without even discussing present-day players.

If Rice had something to suggest him besides the raw numbers, I could be convinced to feel differently. But he wasn't a great fielder, he wasn't a base-stealer, he didn't have stupendous post-season performances. There's no reason not to judge him by his numbers. And his numbers just aren't that good.

Rice is the case, to me, that illustrates how difficult this argument can get.

If he's included, you're justifying some weak inclusions from the past and strengthening the case for many of the steroid jockeys who dominated the last 15 years who have incredible numbers by comparison. And if he's not included, you're setting what may be too high a standard with regard to peak performance and comparisons to players within the same era.

2007 Ballot

Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Jim Ed Rice
Bruce Sutter
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken JUNIOR.

I hope we do the 2008 ballot next, and then 2009, 2010, etc, until we're up to 2012 and trying to guess who's retiring in 2007!

2007 Ballot

Tony Gwynn
Tom Henke
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken Jr.
Bruce Sutter

I'm "pretty new" as far as not voting for a long time .. but I was one of the original voters way back when as KevinMorton1991 .. way back in the early, early voting. I just recently found my way back to the site. Thank you.

A "real life" voter submitted a BLANK ballot for the 2007 class. He didn't vote for Gwynn or Ripken. He didn't vote for ANYONE. His reasoning? He says he can't be sure WHO was taking steroids in this era. How is a real HOF vote of NOBODY allowed but we wouldn't allow someone to vote for just Jim Rice??

I hope we have better standards for our voters than the "real" Hall does. I am serious about that.

If I ran the "real" election, I would remove priviledges from anyone who votes for any other reason other than the qualifications of the candidate. This is difficult to prove, of course, but if someone brags about withholding votes as some sort of protest or statement, I'd take his ballot away. If you don't think Ripken deserves it, well I guess that's your right.

The point isnt that he only voted for Jim Rice. Like I said, you can vote for anyone. As far as I can tell, his reasoning of "Gwynn and Ripken wouldn't want to go in with out Rice" is nonsense, and when pushed for an argument supporting his ballot, he whined and then said that he was being picked on.

I think every regular voter has been pushed for the reasoning for his votes. There is very little evidence supporting leaving off sure-fire HOF'ers like Ripken/Gywnn for Rice, so if someone does push you...argue the vote, not just whine.

OK, I promised myself I wouldn't do this after apologizing but here goes. Since this is your thread and you have spent a lot of time and effort on it, it is totally within your rights to set the groundrules as you see fit. Personally, of course I think that Gwynn and Ripken are deserving but I don't feel good about anyone getting in on the first ballot. And, of course, I think Rice is deserving. I didn't supply my rationale because no one else did with their votes and I was a little taken aback that only I was singled out in a rather hostile way to justify my vote. Additionally, my comment below my vote was a "gasp" joke. Though it had seemed OK based on all the other posts that I had read in this thread to make attempts at humor, it is obvious that I misread the situation, at least as far as I was concerned.

Please, feel free to give me your address and I will send you my firstborn if that's what it takes to get you to drop the subject and the personal attacks long after I have apologized to you and everyone else.

I know you're trying to quit the thread, but can you elaborate on the above? I'm not being facetious or sarcastic, I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Somehow you think this is somehow a personal thing, when it really isn't. Someone asked about procedure in the thread, and since you were the last example, I used you to explain. Everyone else in the thread has had votes questioned. There are very few that complain about being singled out...usually, they explain their reasoning.

This isn't my thread. This is a SoSH thread that has been going for two years. The only reason I responded to you and HighHeat was that I was the first one to notice that your respective motivations didn't matchup with what the thread has been about for two years.

This wouldn't even been an issue, if you said "Of all the people eligible for our Hall, Jim Rice is the only one that deserves to be in," and then backed it up. If you don't think Gywnn or Ripken deserve to be in on this ballot, then explain why.

Playing the victim doesn't help anything along. If you want to do it more, do it somewhere else. If you want to answer questions about your ballot, then stick around.

I'm opening myself up here and, frankly, this will be my last post in this thread - but, since you asked a reasonable question, it's only polite that I respond. Here goes:

- Historically, the bar for first year inductees had been extremely high. The list of non-first year inductees includes names like Ott, Dean, Fox, Grove, Hornsby, Young, Speaker, Drysdale, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Berra, Ford, Lemon, Marichal, Fisk, etc. Therefore, I personally feel that there is an extremely high hurdle that needs to be met to be a first year inductee.

- Recently, it has seemed like the additions to the Hall have been very largely slanted towards first-year inductees. You can say this happens for a couple reasons. First, you can argue that you know a hall of famer when you see one so it makes sense that someone would get in on the first ballot because, if they weren't good enough the first year, why should they be in any subsequent year. However, I feel that this also leads to a bit of a stigma being attached to someone who didn't make it in on their first year of eligibility. So, you may get screwed based on who you are lucky or unlucky enough to be going up against on your first year or two on the ballot. Second, I feel that first year eligible guys have a little bit of sheen, particularly due to the recency of folks' memories about them (so long as they weren't jerks) - particularly when the people who are doing the voting are fans. I guess you can argue that this doesn't happen if you just let the statistics decide, but it is obvious that you can prove any side of an argument that you want to based on what statistics you choose to look at and how you choose to interpret them. So, ingoing biases still play a major role in where you let the statistics lead you. Most people I know, however well intentioned, start with a gut feeling and then try to prove it with statistics, rather than the other way around.

Those are my reasons and many people may not like them, but there they are. As much as we want all of our choices to be based on pure logic, sometimes they are based somewhat on emotion and I guess I may be more guilty of that than everyone else on this thread. I do appreciate, though, the open-mindedness you showed me in your question so thank you.

Finally, I am sorry for seeming like I was whining but, once again, I was taken aback by the fact that I was the only person who was expected to add a rationale with my vote that "of all the people eligible for our Hall, player X is the only one that deserves to be in." Since I hadn't seen any type of rationale at all on any of the other ballots - either for whom they chose or for whom they did not, I didn't think it was required. Frankly, even if I was able to somehow figure out that this was a unique requirement for my ballot, I wouldn't have had the time to supply a side-by-side comparative analysis of over 30 players to justify why my choices, and only my choices, deserved to be in.

Once again, good luck guys - I am frankly in awe of the analyses that I have seen here and the passion that you all demonstrate around the subject. Again, my apologies.

I was a voter way, way back in the early days. I guess I feel like I knew more about people who died well before I was born than more contemporary players. Anyway, I am rising from the dead to vote again before the thread's voting (assumingly) will shut down for a while.

Cal Ripken, Jr.
Tony Gwynn
Will Clark
Andre Dawson

I am sorry, Rice supporters. I just don't think he's quite good enough. I have to admit that my Clark vote was partially emotional, but I think it's clear he had better numbers. Plus, he was Will the Thrill!!

I also want to make it clear that I am not voting for McGwire out of any sort of anti-steroids protest. I think while there is fault with many regarding what happened with steroids in baseball, the players are the only ones that can be "punished" by withholding Hall of Fame berths or other such penalties. Of course the players are the ones who were taking the drugs, but there are a whole lot of layers to the story. It's not black and white. Regardless, if McGwire were a better all-around hitter, runner or fielder, I might have considered him more seriously. I think he was too one-dimensional to vote into the Hall of Fame.

Welcome back, GG. You are not the only one who feels more comfortable with the historical players - it's a whole different beast trying to be objective with guys who you watched, loved, hated, etc ... it's really hard to separate the bias ...

I'd buy your argument about one-dimensionality if we hadn't already elected a whole slew of one-dimensional guys before him, though, like Howard, Killebrew, Kiner etc ... some of those guys make McGwire seem like Jim Thorpe ...

I think we should and will get a grip on the steroid era, but a few guys, like McGwire, Bonds and maybe even poor old Albert Belle really transcend the whole steroids thing. There are some borderline guys who will probably lose out in the adjustments, once we (not just us, but the BBWAA as well) figure out how to categorize the weight training era.

I might, btw, be the only person in America who supports the Chicago sportswriter's decision to leave his ballot blank. The sportswriters and baseball analysts need to work together to hammer out a way to deal with the steroids / weight training issue in a rational way, but right now they are clamoring around like a rabble at a public execution.

Hey guys .. I "stole" the idea of this thread to start my own with a bunch of people from my hometown .. I would also like to open it up to all of you .. for those of you who wish to "get in on the ground floor" the original 1936 vote is now up for voting ..

http://houltonhof.proboards81.com

I would encourage any of you to come over and join us .. this thread has just about run it's course and over on my board we're just starting.

Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules posting this link here, and if I am, please delete it.

I see your argument about other one-dimensional guys, but I still am no closer to voting for McGwire than I was yesterday. First off, I think I was "dead" when most of those guys got elected, so *I* wouldn't have voted for them. I am surprised some of them made it in, but I wasn't around for the debate so I am not going to argue the point now.

I guess that steroids does play a bit into my decision about McGwire, but only in the sense that he played in an era of inflated stats, especially power stats. Yes, he hit well, well over 500 homeruns, but I don't think that there is some magic line at 500 that makes or breaks someone's Hall of Fame credentials. Fred McGriff fell seven shy of 500 and were it not for 1994's strike almost certainly would have comfortably cleared it. Would seven more homeruns make The Crime Dog a Hall of Famer? I don't think so. (Guess who I won't be voting for in 2009! Oh, by the way, this isn't an implication that McGriff used steroids -- I don't know and I don't care either way).

McGwire just needed to be better in some other facet of the game to get my vote. Not all, not even many. Maybe just one. I am open to being convinced to vote for him, but not by arguments like, "he's got 583 homeruns, a .588 slugging percentage and 163 in adjusted OPS+!!1!1! He's a Hall of Famer." I can read stats, I already know that. (not that you argued that, VAL, I'm just saying).

Finally, I really disagree with the Chicago sportswriter's stance. It's impossible to determine now who used what and when and how it made a difference in their careers. There are virtually no players whose use would surprise me, not when the ones who have been caught are variously small, wiry, fast, slow, huge or muscular. So, all you can do is look at the players within the context of the game at that time.

This most recent period is known for its inflated offensive numbers, and there are a lot of reasons for that inflation (expansion, smaller ballparks, doping, etc.). The Hall of Fame is really just a measure of how well a certain player stood out in his playing era. There is absolutely no way to escape the fact that there will be players who doped up in the Hall of Fame. And it's possible, probably likely, that we won't have a clue that some of them did.

I have never been to the Hall of Fame, but if they want to deal with the "steroid era," then they should have an exhibit explaining it. I would be surprised if they don't already have something describing the different eras in baseball, just to give visitors some context of why these players stand out.

This is exactly my point and you put it very well. I think the first step in coming to terms with the past 15 years is basically the baseball world acknowledging that steroids were a tool that some players used during the Weight Training era, but that almost everyone got bigger and stronger one way or another, including Ripken, Gwynn, Biggio, Rafael Furcal, Rickey Henderson and Ken Griffey Jr. If you look back at the 1990's Astros teams, for instance, you had a whole bunch of guys whose numbers all improved by essentially the same amount, including guys like Caminiti, Bagwell, Biggio, Abreu, and Richard Hidalgo. Pitchers worked out too and got bigger. There are maybe four or five guys from those teams who one day may have some claim to a place in the HoF. It's nearly impossible to pick out - from the numbers themselves, who may or may not have benefitted from PED usage - probably all of them, although Caminiti is the only one who we knew for sure crossed the line between "legal" PEDs and "illegal" ones.

Another way to look at this would be to go through the list of your favorite players from whichever era you remember most vividly and try to imagine which ones would have used steroids if given the chance. Mike Schmidt has already said the hey might have. Can you imagine Jimmie Foxx on Steroids? Pete Rose? Yaz? Teddy Ballgame? How about Pee Wee Reese with a body?

The ones who can embrace this and set the standards are, of course, the sportswriters themselves, which is the point that I would like to think the Chicago guy was trying to make. Rather than sitting there amidst the twinkie wrappers and empty beer bottles on their desks pontificating and pointing fingers, these are the guys who can and should be trying to make sense of this whole issue and putting it into the proper historical context so that we can all move on.

I agree that McGwire is not as slam-dunk a candidate as he would appear with 583 home runs, but I'm not sure I buy this. McGwire won one gold glove at first base (same as Clark), and played 1,700 games there. He started his career as a third baseman. He wasn't Keith Hernandez, but he wasn't a defensive liability as, say, David Ortiz and Jason Giambi are.

Then there's the minor matter of the home runs. McGwire, I guess, can look one dimensional if you discount his home runs and focus on his relative lack of doubles and triples. But that's not particularly fair to McGwire, who even with this supposed one-dimensionality, had about 70 more extra-base hits than Clark did.

If you take 100 of McGwire's home runs and turn them into doubles, he would a) be a less valuable player, and B) still have a slugging percentage 60 points higher than Will Clark. If you take away 100 home runs and give McGwire, say, 100 singles and 100 steals instead, he would a) be a worse player, B) still have a slugging percentage 45 points higher than Will Clark.

That's not to mention the 1,300+ walks, which gave McGwire a better career OBP than Tony Gwynn, even though Gwynn hit .338. Meanwhile, McGwire hit more home runs than Gwynn hit doubles, and more doubles than Gwynn hit home runs. McGwire also grounded into more than 100 fewer double plays than Tony Gwynn; I don't know if that has to do with baserunning, but it certainly has value.

I'm not arguing that McGwire was leaps and bounds better than either Clark or Gwynn -- I don't think he was. Gwynn was obviously a more valuable defender as well. But as a complete package, I think it's fairly evident that he was at least their equal.

2007
-----
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Tony Gwynn
Fred Lynn
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken
Bret Saberhagen

Three in...weak entry class this year with one guy I would think is a no-brainer.

Last chance for Nettles, Sutter, and Guidry.

2008 Ballot

Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Fred Lynn
Dan Quisenberry
Tim Raines

Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame:

4B. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.

Cool, bonus rounds.

2008 Ballot
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Don Mattingly
Graig Nettles
Tim Raines
Willie Randolph

Albert Belle
Will Clark
Hawk Dawson
Dwight Evans
Don Mattingly
Graig Nettles
Tim Raines
Willie Randolph
Lee Smith

* I really don't care who I offend, but I'm shocked that Evans hasn't been inducted yet considering the evidence already posted in this thread. I feel similarly about Dawson, though not to the same degree because there hasn't been as compelling a case made for him as has been made for Dewey.

I'm convinced that most of those voting against Evans simply didn't see him play right field in his prime, and thus have no clue as to his defensive value. It's that defense, as I've stated, that gives him a discernible edge and puts him over the hump.

Again, I'd like to make the same case for Dawson, but while I was an avid viewer of TWIB and ESPN highlights and saw plenty to convince me of Andre's prowess, others here may not have. The Expos weren't exactly marquis telecast material.

* Is being 5th all-time in steals with a 123 OPS+ enough for Tim Raines? As great a ballplayer as he was, I'm not so sure. He's in the same gray area as Rice, Dave Parker, Jack Clark, Ken Singleton, George Foster, Bobby Bonds, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, and -- yes, that's right -- Ellis Burks and Andy Van Slyke. (Don't believe me? Read the 2006 MSP Red Sox Annual). We've already said "no" to Singleton (much to my chagrin), and the degrees of separation between him and the others -- including Raines -- are negligible.

The only justification I can find for giving Raines the nod, as much as I'd love to do it, is to lend extra weight to his career Win Shares/648 PA (24.4) where he holds a commanding edge over nearly all the others I mentioned.

EDIT - OK, I'm convinced. I've added Raines.

Dog, I think you are wrong about Raines. I am loathe to use OPS+ at all, and in Raines's case it is a particularly egregious offense. Raines was a tremendous defensive outfielder, and an astonishing baserunner, with a SB/CS ratio of (read this carefully) 811/146. Neither of these things is accounted for in OPS+. To be perfectly blunt, Singleton would have to be 30 points better than Raines in OPS+ for him to be in Raines's league. I'd rather have Raines than Mark McGwire, and I don't think it is close.

Tim Raines is not a borderline Hall of Famer. He is the second greatest leadoff man in major league history, and he is not as far behind Rickey Henderson as you think. He had a fantastic peak, arguably being the best player in baseball in the mid-1980s. He was good enough to contribute long after his prime, when he had lost his speed and his defense.

IMO, of course.

I plan on voting for Raines because he was surely one of the best leadoff men in the history of baseball...probably top 5. His problem is that he was an exact contemporary of Ricky Henderson, who did everything that Raines did, only a little bit better/longer, and Paul Molitor, who was a different style of leadoff guy.

If you want to go by OPS+ (I generally don't), Raines is 1% better than Molitor, who was voted into our Hall, while being a terror on the bases and a pretty good defensive outfielder.

Also, on the OPS+ front, he had 19 'real seasons' (over 150 PAs) and had a OPS+ below 110 5 times. That makes 14 years where he was 10% better than league average at this measure...which is as long as Jim Rice's total career (effectively) was.

I agree with you that Tim Raines does not really belong in the Hall of Fame. But Tim Raines Jr. only played three years in the majors, so he's not eligible. As for Tim Raines Sr., it's a different story.

- Six times, Raines was in the top 10 in OPS+. That's the same as Ken Singleton, the same as Dwight Evans, more than Andre Dawson. He's got a better OPS+ than Dawson, almost the same career OPS+ as Evans, he'd probably be even with the latter if he'd quit a couple years sooner.

- Defensively, Raines and Evans have exactly the same win shares per 1000 innings -- 2.82, among the best marks for career corner outfielders. Baseball Prospectus has Raines as a Rate 102 LF, Evans as a Rate 103 in RF.

- Add in the 808 steals, and remember that they come with an 85 percent success rate, one of the best in history.

- Raines not only has the great Win Shares rate, he also has 40 total more WS than Evans, and 50 more than Dawson. He had a better WS rate than Albert Belle, in a career 1,000 games longer. He has more total WS than Joe DiMaggio and Roberto Clemente.

I've been supporting Dawson and Evans. Dawson and Evans had great careers. Dawson and Evans were not as good as Tim Raines. Tim Raines was a great ballplayer.

edit: In light of the last three posts, possibly mabrowndog is a closet Tim Raines fanatic, who used his ballot to draw out passionate defenses of his favorite player, which he will now print out and append to the framed and signed Raines poster hanging above his monitor.

This is hilarious. While I am a Raines fan, I wish the rest were true.

I'm a clever bastard, but not that devious. Seriously, I was hoping to draw out some compelling arguments -- and I did. It's funny how I got so bombastic about defense in making my pleas for Evans and Hawk -- yet failed to see the forest for the trees with Raines.

That's why I'm glad we have that EDIT function. I'm amending my ballot.

2008 Ballot
Albter Belle
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Rock Raines
Jim Rice

I'd nominate Chuck Finley as a pitcher better than Catfish Hunter, but that that still doesn't make Chuck good enough for induction.

Chuck Knoblauch:
1995: .333/.424/.487
1996: .341/.448/.517
While it gave me much pleasure to watch Knobs struggle in the Bronx, it also disappoints me that he couldn't keep on his incredible career trajectory. He was looking top-5 2B there in his prime.

OPS+ is the best of the simple stats, but it undervalues OBP and overvalues SLP. A better formula would be park-adjusted (OBP*1.2) + SLP). Rice is overrated by OPS+, and players like Evans and Raines are underrated by it.

Playing in teams with pitchers' home parks for almost his entire career, Raines put up a career OBP of .384, vs. .331 for his leagues. He also had 10,359 PAs, played solid defense (268 FRAR, 34 FRAA) and was obviously one of the best baserunners ever. His career WARP3 was 131.8. If he were added to URI's chart on Post 795, his career trajectory would be well above those of Evans or Dawson, for both of whom I've been voting. Raines should be a slam dunk.

Ask and you shall receive...

I believe OPS+ is already adjusted for park and league, at least on Baseball reference.

Tim Raines, this is the same guy who snorted coke during games (PED?) and would slide head first to not break the vial in his pants pocket?. Not saying it should keep him out but .............Slam dunk? We all know how that turned out the last time those words were used.

Since there is some cherry picking going on here by some, let me pick my own cherries.

A . Tim Raines 10 yrs 500 or more AB (Jim Rice 11 times)
B. Tim Raines no MVP, 1 time top 5 MVP (Jim Rice 1 MVP, 5 times in top 5)
C. Tim Raines played in 7 all star games his first 8 seasons, but never played in an all star game his last 15 years. (Jim Rice 8 times, last All Star game 3 years before he retired)
D.Tim Raines OPS >140 3 times (Jim Rice 4 times in a much shorter career-due to injuries)
E. Tim Raine OF assists 126 (Jim Rice 137)

Based on the PF I have seen for Montreal, it was essentially a pitcher neutral park. Fenway was a hitters park, but the park factors being applied to Rices numbers seemed especially high in his peak seasons relative to other years IMHO. There was some discussion in the park factors thread. I guess you either trust them or not, I do not trust them the way they are used now and will not unless someone can prove the fluctuations are not due to noise from small sample size.

I have nothing against Tim Raines, if he gets in he fits well with the large number of non-sluggers or marginal hitters who have been voted in the last 15 years and find it amusing we give a pass to a guy who did coke during games but someone who took steroids and spends hours in the gym to get the benefits of using them is judged more harshly.

2008 BALLOT
- - - - - - - - -

Albert Belle
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Dwight Evans
Jim Rice

OK, some of you guys have talked me into voting for Evans and Rice this time around ..

2008

Albert Belle
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Fred Lynn
Tim Raines
Bret Saberhagen

McLusky - this is the 2nd time you've votes for Sabes. I'm not seeing it. What are you seeing that makes him worthy of induction. I'm open to convincing...

2008 Ballot

Don Mattingley
Willie Randolph

I voted for him the first time because I thought he deserved to be on the ballot at least as long as Tom Henke.

With that accomplished, why did I vote for him again? I don't know, his career is disappointing at a glance, but then again it's really something. He's got two Cy Young Awards; the only other multiple winner who isn't a HoFer or a HoF lock is Denny McClain. They weren't cheap awards; both were nearly unanimous. He could have deserved a third in 1994, except Greg Maddux was having one of the best pitching seasons ever in the same league.

Saberhagen also has one of the best K/BB ratios in history. Granted the K/BB ratio of all pitchers is higher now than ever before, but his K/BB as compared to league is still in the top 10 all time. In '94 he struck out 143 and walked 11, the best single-season ratio in history for a starting pitcher.

His record is shaped pretty similarly to Curt Schilling's, with Schill having a bit more power, Sabes having a bit more control. Schilling has been more durable, and thus more valuable over his career. I think Saberhagen was a bit better, at his best, than Schilling. If you think Schilling's a good HoF candidate (and I do), then Saberhagen isn't much of a stretch. On the other hand, he doesn't have much in his career line that Dave Stieb and Jimmy Key don't have. And I didn't vote for them, although I considered it.

Biases that may be swaying me: one, getting to watch him pitch for us in '98 and '99, giving us two great seasons after everyone thought he was through. Two, Bill James loved him, said Saberhagen, when he was healthy and had a decent team behind him, was as close to perfection in a pitcher as he ever watched.

I dunno, he's borderline and no one else voted for him, so if that continues, I'll probably drop him next round, but thanks for indulging me, '67.

How do you justify voting for Rice over Raines? Take a look at the huge WARP3 differential in URI's chart above. Also, Raines had 387 career win shares, 26.64 per 162 games, while Rice had 282 career win shares and 21.86 per 162 games.

It is. My point, perhaps not as clearly stated as it should have been, wasn't about park adjustments, it was that OBP is more valuable, point for point, than SLP, and you need the 1.20 multiplier to adjust for that.

You may consider to use wOBA from The Book. (OPS+OBP)/3 is a close approximation and is the run value per plate appearance adjusted upward by 15% to be comparable in scale to what we consider to be a good OBP or not good.

IMHO Win Shares, WARP 3, wOBA, etc. may give too much credit to some top of the order guys and not enough credit to some power hitters at the 3rd and 4th spots since they do not adjust for lineup position and the run value of events like HR and BB may be dependent on this.

Park adjustments I am not comfortable with for OPS+ and other stats as park factors seem to fluctuate wildly year to year and those players with a high G/FB ratio would not be much impacted by a park with grass fields as much as those with a low G/FB ration, yet their numbers both get adjusted upward by the same amaount when they hit in a pitchers park.

League adjustments also add uncertainty. I am not clear how they adjust for the fact that the AL's higher league averages, etc are due to the DH and not necessarily weak pitching, or if they assume that NL park factors and AL park factors are equal, but how can they be sure (eg the NL had a larger number of fields with astro turf than the AL and some of the newer NL parks are hitter friendly parks)?.

I guess thats why so many of the new HOF hitters seem to be top of the order guys since they are being judged with the new metrics. Since 1990 the BBWA seems to have lower or different standards, at least with regard to slugging and power numbers and they do not seem to like LF. Data from BR and Retrosheet (calculation errors are mine)

[table=Table]Player POS PA AB R/600 PA Hits HR HR/600 PA RBI/600 PA BB/600 PA K/600 PA SB SB/600 PA GDB/600 PA BA OBA SPct OPS OPS+ Tony Gwynn RF 7699 7144 91.0 2401 87 6.8 62.7 46.6 26.8 285 19.9 13.9 0.336 0.388 0.449 0.837 132 Cal Ripken Jr. SS 9372 8577 90.0 2371 327 21.0 81.2 55.6 61.2 34 2.0 14.9 0.276 0.345 0.453 0.798 112 Paul Molitor DH-IF 9971 9135 102.4 2789 211 12.6 62.3 54.9 63.7 466 25.5 8.8 0.305 0.370 0.451 0.821 122 Ryne Sandberg 2B 7993 7384 96.7 2133 245 18.4 68.0 49.5 78.8 325 22.0 8.5 0.289 0.348 0.455 0.803 114 Wade Boggs 3B 8611 7599 102.5 2541 103 7.2 60.2 79.9 41.6 19 1.3 12.9 0.334 0.424 0.453 0.877 130 Eddie Murray 1B 11695 10603 88.4 3071 479 24.6 93.3 61.8 72.0 105 5.0 13.5 0.290 0.362 0.482 0.844 129 Gary Carter C 8712 7971 78.1 2092 324 22.3 84.3 55.8 68.6 39 2.4 11.3 0.262 0.335 0.439 0.774 115 Dave Winfield RF 12070 11003 91.9 3110 465 23.1 91.1 58.2 83.8 223 10.1 14.5 0.283 0.353 0.475 0.828 129 Kirby Puckett CF 7656 7244 89.6 2304 207 16.2 85.0 34.1 75.6 134 9.2 13.0 0.318 0.360 0.477 0.837 124 Ozzie Smith SS 10075 9169 80.8 2396 26 1.5 46.2 59.3 34.5 573 31.2 8.8 0.261 0.337 0.327 0.664 87 Carlton Fisk C 9503 8756 88.4 2356 376 23.8 83.9 51.2 87.5 128 7.3 11.6 0.269 0.341 0.457 0.798 117 Tony Perez 1B 10599 9778 78.9 2732 379 21.5 93.5 50.4 105.7 49 2.5 13.5 0.279 0.341 0.463 0.804 122 Robin Yount SS 11870 11008 89.8 3142 251 12.7 71.1 47.0 68.2 271 12.3 9.9 0.285 0.342 0.430 0.772 115 George Brett 3B 11306 10349 92.7 3154 317 16.8 84.7 55.5 48.1 201 9.7 11.4 0.305 0.369 0.487 0.856 135 Orlando Cepeda 1B 7187 6719 85.9 1970 327 27.3 97.2 41.8 82.0 105 7.8 14.4 0.293 0.350 0.496 0.846 133 Mike Schmidt 3B 9578 8352 109.1 2234 548 34.3 99.9 88.1 117.9 174 10.4 9.3 0.267 0.380 0.527 0.907 147 Reggie Jackson RF 11036 9864 95.2 2584 563 30.6 92.6 71.3 141.1 228 11.6 9.3 0.262 0.356 0.490 0.846 139 Rod Carew 2B 10202 9315 92.6 3053 92 5.4 59.7 57.1 60.5 353 18.9 11.6 0.328 0.393 0.429 0.822 131 Joe Morgan 2B 10794 9277 107.5 2517 268 14.9 63.0 98.1 56.4 689 37.1 5.7 0.271 0.392 0.427 0.819 132 BBWA HOF SINCE 1990 HOF 9784 8908 92.1 2576 295 17.5 77.6 59.0 72.1 232 13.0 11.0 0.290 0.362 0.456 0.819 125 JIM RICE 8845 8225 92.1 2452 382 25.9 98.4 45.2 96.5 58 3.5 19.1 0.298 0.352 0.502 0.854 128 TIM RAINES 10025 8872 107.1 2605 170 10.2 58.4 78.0 57.9 808 45.5 8.0 0.294 0.385 0.425 0.810 123 ALL HOF PLAYING 8964 8112 98.1 2446 250 16.7 83.6 63.0 53.2 171 11.0 NA 0.302 0.376 0.472 0.848 128 [/table]

In Jim Rices day, a number 3 or 4 hitter was judged on BA, SLG, HR, RBI.
Now if Rice was told during contract discussions that he would not get what he asked for because of his K/BB ratio, lower OBP, etc I am sure as a good hitter, he would have adjusted. But he was not and that is why he was in the top 5 in voting for the MVP 6 times (one of those times he made it) despite these "flaws".

It is kind of like being told in your annual performance review that your objectives for the coming year are A, B and C and you work to get these done, but at the end of the year your boss tells you no bonus because you did not do D, E and F and A, B and C are not that important now

edit: change table to per PA from per AB

Nice table but it would be a better tool for comparing these players if you based all the ratios on PA, instead of AB. Can you easily make that change?

As for your last point, I think Rice should be evaluated based on how much he actually did to help his teams win, not based on the assumptions that (1) he was given certain marching orders and (2) he would have done anything differently given a different set of marching orders.

I edited the table to per PA

As for winning, the Sox won 3 division titles, 1 almost division title and went to 2 world series in Rices prime from 75-86. I think he contributed to many of the wins. Raines teams went to the playoffs 1 time in seasons he had 500 or more AB, with the White Sox, and in half a season he helped the Expos get into the playoffs his rookie year. With the Yankees he was more of a platoon/utility guy but did get to the Series once with them. It is too bad he had to spend his prime seasons in Montreal.

I think in Rices days, it was thought that HR's and RBI did help the team win. Tim Raines was a great leadoff guy. Both belong in the HOF but Rice has been waiting longer and he would get my vote first.

2008 Ballot

Tom Henke
Tim Raines
Bruce Sutter

Seems I have seen Tom Henkes name a lot and I am not picking on you but yours is the last one with his name, but he pitched 60 IP only 6 times in his career, what gives with Tom Henke?

Thanks for editing the table. Nice work.

Your math is a little off because from 1975-86 the Sox won 2 division titles, not 3. More importantly, it is illogical to imply that Rice was better than Raines because his teams were better than Raines's teams. Raines was generally the bast player on his team whereas Rice was never the best player on the Red Sox except for in 1978.

Sorry. I guess I meant 1975-88

The Expos were quite a mediocre team for most of Raines time with them, and after Gary Carter/Andre Dawson left he certainly was their best player. I do not think he was when he went to Chicago(Frank Thomas), and he certainly was not the best player with the Yankees but that was at the end of his career. While Rice was never a favourite of mine at the time (Evans and Lynn were) , he was considered the Sox best hitter for several years and we had a lot of real good players on his teams (Yaz, Lynn, Evans, Fisk, Boggs), so best overall player is a tough call in any given year. Three of them are in the HOF and Evans is a legitimate contender for the HOF as well. In fact if Lynn had found a way to stay healthy maybe he would have been considered HOF material today.

Not trying to pick on you in particular, Paul, but it seems that pro-Rice arguments (like Nick Cafardo's) are based far too much on subjective perception, rather than on the reality of what Rice actually accomplished. Almost every pro-Rice argument is riddled with statements like "he was considered to be the best hitter", "he was feared", etc.

Identifying the best overall player on the Sox may have been tough in some of those years, but it is very clear that it wasn't Rice, except in 1978. I dug out my Win Shares book and here's how Rice ranked on the Sox in the 1975-88 era, with the players ahead of him listed in parentheses through 1986:

1975: tied for 2nd (Lynn had 33, Rice tied with Yaz at 20)
1976: 6th (Lynn, Tiant, Burleson, FIsk, Yaz)
1977: 2nd (Fisk had 30, Rice had 26)
1978: 1st
1979: 2nd (Lynn had 34, Rice had 28)
1980: 6th (Lynn, Burleson, Fisk, Burgmeier, Evans)
1981: 3rd (Evans, Lansford)
1982: 2nd (Evans had 31, Rice had 21)
1983: 2nd (Boggs had 34, Rice had 24)
1984: 5th (Evans, Boggs, Easler, Armas)
1985: 6th (Boggs, Evans, Gedman, Boyd, Buckner)
1986: 3rd (Boggs, Clemens)
1987: 9th
1988: 11th

Here are Raines's rankings, 1981-95 (in 1996, he became a valuable role player with the Yankees). The differences with Rice speak for themselves.
1981: 2nd (Dawson)
1982: 5th (Carter, Dawson, Oliver, Rogers)
1983: 1st
1984: 1st
1985: 1st
1986: 1st
1987: 1st
1988: tied for 2nd (Galarraga, tied with Brooks)
1989: 1st
1990: tied for 2nd (Wallach, tied with DeShields)
1991: 3rd (Thomas, Ventura)
1992: 3rd (Thomas, Ventura)
1993: 6th (Thomas, Johnson, McDowell,, Ventura, Fernandez)
1994: 4th (Thomas, Ventura, Franco)
1995: 4th (Thomas, Johnson, Ventura)

Ranking Rice and Raines using WARP3 shows very similar results.

2008 ballot
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Dwight Evans [I'll cave]
Don Mattingly
Tim Raines
Dave Stieb