Do you trust in great and Hall of Fame Member and Ex-Yankee Goose Gossage:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/14/sports/BBO-Gossage-Rice.php

What about Hall of Fame Member and Ex-Yankee Wade Boggs:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=3830341

How about Hall of Famers Joe Morgan and Peter Gammons:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=3828094

More from Gammons in this chat:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2008/01/03/peter_gammons_red_sox_chat_transcript/

How about Hall of Famer Carl Yazstremski:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/01/14/it_takes_one_to_know_one_yaz_extols_rice/

Remember Rice didn’t take steroids etc…
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/01/14/enhanced_credentials/

The Home Town Papers views:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/01/13/enter_smiling/

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1144972&srvc=sports&position=0

Too Homer for you?
How about some writers from California?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/SPTB158D9O.DTL

http://www.mercurynews.com/morningbuzz/ci_11439884

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=22&entry_id=34458

Or Detroit?
http://www.freep.com/article/20090112/SPORTS02/90112076/1050/SPORTS02/Baseball+writers+need+to+get+over+themselves+when+voting+for+HOF

How about from MLB.com?
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=3740061&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=3740568&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

Ken Rosenthal and Fox:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9069082/Rice-decision-controversial,-but-correct

Tom Verducii and Sports Illustrated:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/01/12/jimrice.halloffame/?bcnn=yes

[3] You make a great point, and I meant to mention it on the show. Bruce Markusen alluded to that in his post, re: the new generation of writers and analysts viewing HOF credentials, that it’s the sabermetricians vs. the traditionalists. It doesn’t have to be that way, but I do think standards beyond, “He wasn’t my type of player,” as the one writer used for Rickey Henderson, need to be addressed in determining who gets in and who doesn’t.

[5] Eb, that’s a great nitpick. Are you OK with saying we’re both right?

[7] Dave, spot on. I looked at Dewey for s—s and giggles when brushing up on the Rice stuff, and you can easily make as compelling a case, if not more so, for Evans, than Rice. The average of 122 hits per season and lack of dominance in any offensive category hurts him. He was the best right fielder in that time frame, however.

Babe Ruth held the single season home run record longer than Roger Maris. The record of 61set by Maris in 1961 did, however, stand longer than the record of 60 famously set in 1927.

Babe Ruth became the single season home run leader in 1919 when his 29 HRs surpassed Ned Williamson’s 27. He increased his own record total three times, topping out at 60 in 1927. The Babe held single season home run record until 1961, 42 years. Maris’ was the leader until 1998, 37 years.

Or, just stick them all in the Hall (see my longer post above, at [3]).

I wonder, though–does this possibly penalize players whose careers played out when different offensive metrics, now superseded, were used to analyze a player’s greatness?

For example, I agree that Rice should not be in the HoF. His weakness, like Andre Dawson’s, is that he did not really get on base all that often, especially given that he was more or less a .300 hitter. Yet during the 1970s and 1980s, far greater attention was paid to BA than to OBP, let alone OPS, OPS+, etc. Perhaps, therefore, Rice’s career was extended because his offensive skill set was considered more valuable. And perhaps other players had shorter careers or were less well thought of because in the day no one noticed OBP or VORP.

So, where am I going with this? Well, perhaps therefore Jim Rice was considered the greatest player of his generation (or one of the greatest, or the best at his position, or whatever). If so, should that not carry a significant weight with HoF voters?

Should a player essentially be penalized by HoF voters because players now might be evaluated by very different standards than they were in the old days?

Now, I am not arguing for Rice, or anyone else for that matter. I’m just increasingly skeptical that, as thei great game lives on decade after decade, that any objective measure of “greatness,” comparing players across generations, can be maintained. In the end, I wonder if we just shouldn’t let without complaint or hand-wringing the process succumb to the whims–objective, subjective, ideological–of the voters.

Meanwhile, I was stunned that Cone didn’t at least get the 5% necessary to remain on the ballot. I don’t think he’s a Hall of Famer, but he certainly was good enough to stick around for a few more ballots.