"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

Waiting for the Hall’s Call


It’s a big day for Rickey Henderson who will be elected into the Hall of Fame later today.

Who else goes in?

Will it be this man?


Or this dude?


Or this guy?


So, what would your ballot look like? Pick up to ten–75% is the threshold, just as with the actual Hall.

[poll id=”3″]

Share: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email %PRINT_TEXT


1 Bruce Markusen   ~  Jan 12, 2009 10:19 am

My prediction? Henderson and Rice will be getting in, though Rice will be very close. Dawson will finish third at about 70 per cent. Blyleven, sad to say, has no chance at election this year.

2 Diane Firstman   ~  Jan 12, 2009 10:23 am

Wait wait wait .... we've had 16 votes, and only 15 for Henderson.
Is Corky Simpson lurking here? :-)

3 SteveAmerica   ~  Jan 12, 2009 10:31 am

Blyleven should get in just for that shirt he's wearing.

4 Raf   ~  Jan 12, 2009 10:37 am

My vote has Henderson, Blyleven, Raines, McGwire

5 williamnyy23   ~  Jan 12, 2009 10:54 am

My vote would go to Henderson, Blyleven, Raines and McGwire. Sadly, only Henderson will make it from the quartet. Even more sadly, it looks like Rice will get in this year and could pull Dawson in with him.

As I stated in the previous thread, Rice wouldn't be an iffy selection; he would be a very bad one. If you let Rice in, there is really no valid argument against Parker, Trammell, Baines, Murphy, Mattingly, Hernandez, McGriff, etc.

If the HoF doesn't significantly revamp its election process (removing the honor from the sole domain of the writers), the Hall of Fame will continue to lose its relevance. I think that's sad.

6 mehmattski   ~  Jan 12, 2009 11:03 am

Whoops, I forgot to vote for Rock Raines. He, plus Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Trammell, Smith and John would get my vote. Blyleven and John in particular get my vote because there have been an absurdly low number of starting pitchers elected to the Hall of late. Trammell and Smith were the among the best at their positions during their careers, and I believe that's good enough to be Hall worthy. The others I don't think I even have to justify.

7 williamnyy23   ~  Jan 12, 2009 11:13 am

[6] I definitely think Trammell has a great case, and can see TJ if you give him pioneer credit, but I think Lee Smith would be a weak choice. If you are only going to throw 1,200 innings, I think you need to be a lot more dominant than an ERA+ of 131. As far as relievers go, I think Goose is right at the cut off, and he pitched over 600 innings more than Smith. Of course, I think Smith is right there with Sutter, but I though the latter was also a bad selection.

8 Shaun P.   ~  Jan 12, 2009 12:06 pm

Where is the write in line for Lou Whitaker?

I am still incensed that somehow Jim Rice might be a Hall of Famer according to the BBWAA, but that Lou Whitaker is not. Absolutely madness.

[4] [5] The ones you guys voted for, and Trammell. I could be talked into Tommy John, but I believe that Kaat was more deserving and so I withhold my vote for TJ for now.

If it would help Edgar Martinez get in, I would also vote for Baines. Edgar was the far superior hitter, but he (like Baines) is essentially considered to be a DH-only guy, and thus I see some people comparing them. Truth is, Edgar was a far superior hitter (.326 EqA for Edgar, .291 for Baines, adjusted all time), but I'm not sure if the distinctions will be made clear.

9 Mattpat11   ~  Jan 12, 2009 1:35 pm

I say Rickey, Rice and Blyleven get in. I'd like to see Raines get in, but thats not to be.

10 Mattpat11   ~  Jan 12, 2009 1:39 pm

I also want to know who the seven percent that didn't vote for Rickey are.

11 Mattpat11   ~  Jan 12, 2009 2:03 pm

5.2 percent of the baseball writers did not vote for Rickey Henderson.

12 Raf   ~  Jan 12, 2009 2:09 pm

I also want to know who the seven percent that didn’t vote for Rickey are


5.2 percent of the baseball writers did not vote for Rickey Henderson.

I'd be curious to hear their reasons why.

13 OldYanksFan   ~  Jan 12, 2009 2:21 pm

[5] The Rice to Mattingly comparison is interesting. From memory (I know...), Rice was a feared, and a dominant player, for a longer period. Stats say Donnie finshed in Top-5 in the MVP 3 times, while Rice did it 6 times.

They both had similar OPS+ numbers in their best years, although Donnie was a somewhat better. Was there more 'competiton' in Donnie's day? Rice was peaking almost 10 years prior to Donnie.

The had similar career OPS+'s (what is the plural of OPS+?) but he difinitely benefitted more from his Home park (0.920 Home, 0.790 away). I think Donnie was better at his peak, and was far far far and away the better fielder. But Rice played a bit longer and hit more HRs (voters love HRs).

But you are correct William, that if Rice gets in, many other players should be in too. Rice is definitely a near miss.

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver