Goose Gossage elected to HOF

[gingerbreadmann]

Story

Gossage got 466 of 543 votes, 85.5%. The line for inclusion is 75%. He is the only one elected from the BBWAA this year, following Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. last year.

All I can say is that Goose deserved this. He was one of the most dominant pitchers in the game, and was an all-around reliever, not one of those "lefty specialists" or one-inning guys we have now. No doubt he should have gotten in.

However, for the 14th straight year, Jim Rice was snubbed, getting 392 votes(72.2%), 16 votes shy of 75%.

Please don't accuse me of anything relating to Boston fanaticism when I say he should be in. You could say he was Gossage's counterpart during his day. One of the most feared hitters when he stepped to the plate; a monster in a time where steroids were not in the picture. He has one year left of eligibility; here's hoping he gets in. Hell, even Gossage gave him a vote of confidence:

"I think Jim Rice does belong in the Hall of Fame," Gossage said. "No hitter scared me, but Jim Rice came the closest."

(from Boston Globe/AP article)

If you still don't support him, please take a look at these and at least rethink your position:

Boston Globe slideshow

Document sent to all HOF voters

In other news, also-deserving Bert Blyleven got 336 votes(61.9%), following 3rd-place Andre Dawson (65.9%).

"70" WATCH:

Mark McGwire received 128 votes, good enough for a whopping 23.6%, up from 23.5% last year. If his percentage keeps increasing at this rate, he'll have 24.9% by the time his 15th year of eligibility is up. Cooperstown, look out!

Alright, what are your thoughts on all of this?

[winghaz]

Jim Rice is definitely deserving.

But Bert Blyleven is also deserving. It's amazing how a person with his numbers didn't make the Hall on the first try.

I would have voted for Blyleven and Rice WAY before Gossage.

[rams80]

The media's stance of "whiff of steroids = no hall vote" is one of the biggest cop outs I've seen recently.

If the media doesn't vote Rice in, the Veterans Committee will.

[CDuffy26]

Congrats to Goose! Does this mean that the deserving relievers are finally gettingtheir shot at the hall? I hope so.

And yes, I do infact think that Rice should be in the Hall. I do not think he'll make it next year, but the veterans commitee will vote him in sometime...hopefully.

[Fred T. Jane]

The fact that Bert Blyleven still remains outside of the Hall of Fame shows just how incompetent the votership is.

The easiest way to solve that problem involves backs to the wall and a whiff of grapeshot, but unfortunately no one's helping me out to limber the cannons...

[CC97]

Raines didn't even get 30% -- a shame

[rams80]

The fact that Bert Blyleven still remains outside of the Hall of Fame shows just how incompetent the votership is.

The easiest way to solve that problem involves backs to the wall and a whiff of grapeshot, but unfortunately no one's helping me out to limber the cannons...

The last time somebody did that, most of Europe ended up getting conquered. That might have something to do with it.

(Actually, I agree with you, reform is needed in the current voting system.)

[LMU]

The problem with Rice, according to Colin Cowherd, is that he was a jerk to the media. This is why the media shouldn't be deciding who is enshrined. Being a good interview has nothing to do with how impressive a player's career was.

[Jigga]

The problem with Rice, according to Colin Cowherd, is that he was a jerk to the media. This is why the media shouldn't be deciding who is enshrined. Being a good interview has nothing to do with how impressive a player's career was.

"The Herd" is an absolute expert on jerks in the media...considering he's the biggest one on ESPN Radio.

[NJTank]

The problem with Rice, according to Colin Cowherd, is that he was a jerk to the media. This is why the media shouldn't be deciding who is enshrined. Being a good interview has nothing to do with how impressive a player's career was.

"The Herd" is an absolute expert on jerks in the media...considering he's the biggest one on ESPN Radio.

I listened to the Heard once it was excruciating

[dfwabel]

The problem with Rice, according to Colin Cowherd, is that he was a jerk to the media. This is why the media shouldn't be deciding who is enshrined. Being a good interview has nothing to do with how impressive a player's career was.

"The Herd" is an absolute expert on jerks in the media...considering he's the biggest one on ESPN Radio.

I listened to the Heard once it was excruciating

Man, just when I thought that you would give us your opinion (and Sports E-cyclopedia knowledge) on the topic of just one HOF

inductee, you fail to do so.

[NJTank]

Well I was agreeing with a post about Colin Cowherd.

The Baseball Hall of Fame has become a joke as of late, sure its good to be exclusive but far too many players are being excluded now.

Oh well ask and ye should recieve.

1. Jim Rice was one of the top sluggers over a 10 year period

2. Jack Morris won more games in the 80s then any other pitcher and was unhittable in the playoffs.

3. Bert Blyelven did not quite reach 300 wins but was close enough and when you realize he played on some poor teams and was among the career leader in strikeouts its a joke hes not in.

4. Tommy John came back from a surgery and was even better, and came close to 300 wins too.

5. Tim Raines was a top star and lead off hitter among the career leaders in SB and later became a solid RBI man.

And thats not including Mark McGwire, I am now convinced EVERYONE did steroids, Bud Selig looked the other way until 2003, and with several players using it other had to take it to keep up and his inaction made them acceptable, and thus the players should not be blamed.

Now anyone caught after 2003 thats a different story.

[jonkj]

"Jim Rice should NOT be in the Hall"

"Is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer?"

[gingerbreadmann]

"Jim Rice should NOT be in the Hall"

"Is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer?"

Look at his comparisons with people who were elected DURING his time on the ballot.Top 50%, if not top 10% in all of them(except maybe one or two).

That second link, though, is complete BS. Okay, he got injured at 33-34 years old and ws never the same. How in the world does that affect what he did over the previous 12 years? Not at all. Plus read the debate and look at both sides, there are some good arguments the other way. You gotta read the whole thing.

Plus SANDY KOUFAX. HOF member, 86% 1st ballot. Was HOF-worthy for 6 years(compared to 12), got injured early and was never the same. How about that?

I respect your opinion but I think you are wrong about Rice. What is your main reason for not supporting him(curious, not mad)?

[jonkj]

I've read a lot this week, and the past few years, about Jim Rice and Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame. The myths of these players has been driving me nuts. I don't like when people call Jack Morris the best pitcher of the 1980s because he was not. I don't like when people talk about how Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his time because he was not, at least not in any way I can find. I don't like when people talk about how Vince Young's "leadership" is so valuable when that guy can't throw a 10-yard out pattern. Stuff like that makes my teeth hurt.

Well, there has been something else about Rice that has bothered me, but I could not figure out why. Then I saw some stats listed on sports news website -- that from 1975-86, Rice led the American League in several categories including:

1. Runs

2. RBIs

3. Homers

4. Hits

5. Slugging percentage

6. Total Bases

There are others (extra-base hits, multi-hit games) but it seems to me with those we're just double-counting. Let's leave it at those six. That seems impressive enough -- over a dozen years, Rice led the American League in six major offensive categories. Good stuff.

But something about this accomplishment made my teeth hurt, and I could not figure out what it was. At first I thought it was that the numbers here are all at least a little bit suspect -- Rice put up most of his big numbers at Fenway Park while playing for high-scoring Red Sox teams. But no. That wasn't it. There was something else bugging me.

And then, I realized what it was. I was looking again at the "stats" that Rice led over those 12 years and I saw it.... Rice had more at-bats than any other player. And not by a small margin either. Rice had 7060 at-bats over those 12 years -- 588 per season. And while that's a testament to his durability -- no small thing -- I did think, "Hey, wait a minute now." Nobody else had 7,000 at-bats. Or 6900. Or 6800. Or even 6700.

In second place was Robin Yount, who had almost 400 fewer at-bats (he had 6,693 at-bats).

And so here's where it gets interesting. Only four American League players (Yount, Cecil Cooper, Don Baylor and George Brett) were within ONE THOUSAND AT BATS of Jim Rice over that time period. That's it. We're basically comparing Rice to FOUR GUYS, and with Rice having a sizeable at-bat advantage over even those four.

And that did it. Suddenly, I could put that stat in context. I mean, yes, Rice had more home runs than Reggie Jackson over that time...but he had 1100 more plate appearances. Yes, Rice had more hits than Rod Carew but he had 1700 more at-bats -- that is three seasons' worth. Yes, Rice had more runs scored than George Brett; but with about 900 more at-bats, you would HOPE he would score more runs.

Reggie hit more homers per at-bat, Carew had a much higher batting average, Brett scored more runs per game, etc.

Believe me or not, I'm not trying to downplay Rice?s accomplishment here. I happen to think that durability is one of the most underrated qualities in baseball. People don?t have enough respect for those every day players who can give you 150-160 games year in and year out. Rice did that. He put up the numbers when others were on the bench (or, you know, taking walks). He also hit .304 over that time and slugged .520 and, Fenway Park or no, that's a good peak. As if/when he goes into the Hall of Fame today, he won't be anywhere close to the worst player in there.

But I'm just trying to point out that in baseball, in anything, when you start narrowing your focus, you can lose the big picture. Sure, it sounds amazing that Rice led the "American League" in homers, RBIs, runs, hits and all that over a 12-year period. But the reality, I think, is that the stat is rigged. Give a good player hundreds more at-bats than anyone else and, yeah, his counting stats should look pretty good.

Joe Posnanski

[zoneranger]

All this just lends credence to my idea of a "Almost Good Enough" Hall Of Fame!

[infrared41]

Jim Rice isn't a hall of fame player. Sorry, but he just isn't. He was very good but he is not a hall of famer.

[DDR]

More disheartening than Jim Rice being left out again (because he'll get in next year, despite Rickey Henderson's first appearance), is that "The Rock" Tim Raines got less than 25%. That guy redefined "leadoff hitter." Too bad he had to do his thing in Montreal for so many years. But, what really grinds my gears is BWAAers abstaining from the vote. Guys like Rick Telander in the Chicago Sun-Times whose steroid anger has turned into a "defiant ennui." What? Wasn't it like 5 years ago when writers not casting a single vote was in the news? You're just now getting the memo, Rick? Don't wanna vote for McGwire? That's cool. Wanna write about how you won't vote for Bonds and Clemens? Cool, too. But to not cast a single vote to send some sort of message to baseball, and then writing about it the next day? That's just grabbing for attention for taking a frivolous moral high ground. Telander claims that he can't be certain that guys like Tommy John, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Byleven weren't taking something. Well, this whole steroids thing didn't just come up with the publishing of the Mitchell Report. We've known steroids was a serious widespread issue for several years now. How sure are we that Cal Ripken, Jr. didn't take anything? I mean, going out there every day en route to becoming Baseball's Iron Man takes a lot out of the body. Are we 100% sure that he didn't take something to help his body recover a little quicker? No. We're pretty sure. And I'd say about as sure as I am that Goose Gossage wasn't taking anything that he didn't need to chase with a Budweiser. The fact is, the Steroids Era has somewhat tainted baseball, but we can't assume "guilty until proven innocent" when there's no reasonable amount of evidence to suggest more than a handful of these HOF-worthy players were taking steroids.

[OnWis97]

How sure are we that Cal Ripken, Jr. didn't take anything? I mean, going out there every day en route to becoming Baseball's Iron Man takes a lot out of the body. Are we 100% sure that he didn't take something to help his body recover a little quicker? No. We're pretty sure.

I'm not pretty sure. I think it is quite possible that he was taking something. But nobody ever suggests it because his retirement came before it hit the fan and he does not have any home run records--and he's one of those few people that you just don't badmouth or everyone wets themselves. But it could be argued that steroids are just as important for playing every day as for strength.

[OnWis97]

Well I was agreeing with a post about Colin Cowherd.

The Baseball Hall of Fame has become a joke as of late, sure its good to be exclusive but far too many players are being excluded now.

Oh well ask and ye should recieve.

1. Jim Rice was one of the top sluggers over a 10 year period

2. Jack Morris won more games in the 80s then any other pitcher and was unhittable in the playoffs.

3. Bert Blyelven did not quite reach 300 wins but was close enough and when you realize he played on some poor teams and was among the career leader in strikeouts its a joke hes not in.

4. Tommy John came back from a surgery and was even better, and came close to 300 wins too.

5. Tim Raines was a top star and lead off hitter among the career leaders in SB and later became a solid RBI man.

And thats not including Mark McGwire, I am now convinced EVERYONE did steroids, Bud Selig looked the other way until 2003, and with several players using it other had to take it to keep up and his inaction made them acceptable, and thus the players should not be blamed.

Now anyone caught after 2003 thats a different story.

Good post, Tank and welcome back.

My mother in law bought me a Hall of fame book that had a page about all HOFers inducted before about 2005 or so. So I read about each and every one of them. And the impression I had is that it was much easier for people in the first half of the 20th century to get in than now. Almost everyone is from that era. Take a look at the numbers for Tinker, Evers and Chance and tell me whether they'd have gotten in if they played in the 1970s.