As expected, Henderson and Rice inducted into Hall of Fame

[justanewguy]

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Just look at Alan Trammell...They SHOULD be locks.

They might not be first ballot HOFers, but they'll make it.

Alomar had 11 straight All Star appearances, 10 Gold Gloves (in an 11 year run), 4 Silver Sluggers, and was the best all around 2B in baseball for much of a 10 year period. Toss in over 200 HRs, a lifetime .300 AVG and over 2700 hits, and there's no way the BBWA doesn't have this guy in. He's too decorated with accolades to overlook.

Larkin has 9 Silver Sluggers, and was easily the best offensive SS in the NL during the 90s. 12 All Star Games with 5 starts. The MVP award and the ridiculous production from his position will put him in. This is another guy that may or may not get first ballot recognition.

In my opinion (and I'm almost certain it'll be this way in the opinion of the voters), Alomar and Larkin are far more worthy of the Hall than Trammell. The awards and the superlatives exceed Trammell's, and in both cases (ESPECIALLY Alomar's), the career totals and YBY stats are superior.

It's entirely possible that NOBODY goes into the HOF next year, but I'm thinking the writers will make sure someone does. My bet would be on Alomar and Blyleven, with Raines having a good shot. McGriff and Larkin may have to wait a year or two, but I think they'll both get in, and I'd definitely put them in.

[BINGLEBOP]

I doubt Raines would have that huge of a jump within one year though.

[justanewguy]

I doubt Raines would have that huge of a jump within one year though.

I think his low score this year was partly related to Rickey being on the ballot. That and, I think he's the type of guy that writers don't vote for the first time around just because they don't want him to a first ballot guy.

[reflections]

If Rickey got 95 percent of the vote.
Raines was at least a half step behind Rickey. He should of had a much higher pct of votes this year.

[HoustonGM]

In my opinion (and I'm almost certain it'll be this way in the opinion of the voters), Alomar and Larkin are far more worthy of the Hall than Trammell. The awards and the superlatives exceed Trammell's, and in both cases (ESPECIALLY Alomar's), the career totals and YBY stats are superior.

I think all three are easily qualified. I, as you, would rank Larkin and Alomar above Trammell. Trammell should've gotten the 1987 MVP award, and now, in retrospect, I can't recall hearing anyone actually still supporting George Bell for that one, and he also had an equally strong case in 1984 when his teammate, a closer, won it.

I think his low score this year was partly related to Rickey being on the ballot. That and, I think he's the type of guy that writers don't vote for the first time around just because they don't want him to a first ballot guy.

Similar things were said after McGwire's first year, that a good portion of writers were giving him a "slap on the wrist" for the steroid issue, but he hasn't seen his votes rise at all (and they actually dipped slightly this year). Raines, obviously, is very different from McGwire, but I don't think he's going to get more than roughly 30% next year. I think, and hope, that he gets in eventually, but he's going to have an uphill battle much like Bert Blyleven. The thing with Raines is that he hung on for so long as a (very good) fourth outfielder. The image of the 1980's Raines, who really was the Rickey of the NL and could easily be argued as superior for a stretch of years in the mid-80's, has been replaced by "Raines - bench player" in the minds of many writers. They forget, or just don't know, how phenomenal the guy was at his peak. They can't grasp the concept that Tim Raines, .294 batting average, provided roughly equivalent value to Tony Gwynn, .338 batting average, over the course of their entire careers.

He has many things working against him. The way he achieved a good portion of his value came in a shape the writers don't appreciate (walks), and while another huge portion of his value came from something writers usually salivate over (stolen bases), he was greatly overshadowed by the superior Henderson, and while "2nd best to Rickey" is no insult, the writers seem to draw a gigantic line between the two. He also has the shape of his career working against him, which I mentioned above.

[HoustonGM]

Joe Posnanski with an extensive comparison of Rice and Dale Murphy.

[reflections]

I think if Rice is in, then eventually Murphy has to join. He had a very good run, but of course succumbed to injuries basically right as his prime started.

[justanewguy]

Joe Posnanski with an extensive comparison of Rice and Dale Murphy.

If Rice belongs, Dale Murphy belongs. Similar numbers, plus 2 solid years as the best player, period, in all of baseball, and several years of exceptional defense in CF.

[HoustonGM]

Murphy, to me, clearly has the better Hall of Fame case than Rice, but I don't ever want to use that "If Player, then Player B" argument, because then you can easily say "If Jesse Haines, than every league-average pitcher that played for 10 full seasons".

I do think it's perfectly fair to ask people to defend their decisions when they pick a guy like Rice but not Murphy. I'd like to hear the arguments for anybody that would put Rice on their ballot but not also Tim Raines, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson and Dave Parker. I think, if you're a Big big Hall kind of guy, it's understandable to want all of them in. I don't at all follow the logic that Rice fits but those 4 don't.

[reflections]

Dave Parker is another who doesn't seem to gather much discussion.
I guess the main problem with the HOF, is that there isn't a defined rule as to what a Hall Of Famers credentials are. They are all unwritten and vary from writer to writer.

[HoustonGM]

Forgot Dawson in that group.

[reflections]

Hawk is another one.
Rice is definitely going to open the conversation for a lot of players.

[justanewguy]

Murphy did what none of these borderline guys ever did... he was the best offensive and defensive force in baseball for a couple of seasons.

I don't consider Murphy a HOFer. I'm a small hall guy, and I'd put Murphy right on the fence, which would default him as a "no" for me.

But, he did what none of these other "maybe" guys - Rice, Dawson, Parker, soon Edgar Martinez - ever did... he was THE best player in baseball, and possibly the best offensive player AND the best defensive player, both, in baseball, for two seasons.

He also racked up a great career outside of those two seasons. And if you want to get down to non-stat and non-award related things, it's hard to find guys in any sport that have better personal reputations than Murphy.

Dale Murphy is my second favorite baseball player ever, just behind Orel Hershiser - another guy with a remarkable but short peak, glowing accounts of his sportsmanship and being a quality teammate, but with just not quite enough longevity at or near the top, and not quite enough total career value, to be in the Hall.

[HoustonGM]

Hawk is another one.
Rice is definitely going to open the conversation for a lot of players.

It doesn't usually work that way. Bruce Sutter going in did nothing for Lee Smith.

[reflections]

Yeah, but for some reason it seems closers are having a harder time. Just cause of the nature of the closer position now.
i'm curious as to the age range of the hall of fame voters.
It would put into perspective into what era they began to watch baseball