Bert Blyleven -- long overdue, wicked curveball, & 3,701 strikeouts!

†Rickey Henderson -- over-the-top ego, but ultimate base thief...

Lee Arthur Smith from Castor, Louisiana, where the best watermelons on Planet Earth grow!

[quote=SCUDSBROTHER]With a guy who was a basestealing threat like Raines was a walk can be similar to a double not to mention the havoc that guys like him and Henderson caused while on the basebaths. A walk to a guy like Raines was often more valuable than a single from Boggs or Gwynn.

Bert Blyleven - He was good. 300 Win benchmark should be less considered.
Andre Dawson - Tops in his playing time
†Rickey Henderson - Automatic
Tommy John - Should get in definitely after writer elgibility
Don Mattingly - some compare him to Kirby Puckett - How do you compare a 1B to an CF? Could take the final year to do it
Mark McGwire - Oh heck why not
Jim Rice - Final year with the writers this year?
Lee Smith - Its time. But if he's in then do you consider closers who past him?

The problem I have with guys like Tommy john is that it is hard to make a case that they wouldnt be the worst pitcher in the hall of fame. Mattingly actually has worse career stats than mark grace. I really have no problem with Lee Smith but there are an awful lot of guys that have similar credentials too.

Harold Baines - definitely a baseball player, but just not HOF worthy
†Jay Bell - nope
†David Cone - iffy. I don't see it.
†Ron Gant - gets a vote and system once again would be known as a joke.
†Mark Grace - another ball player, but not even Harold Baines worthy
Jack Morris - Despite his 2 World Series MVP's. His 10 inning win. I'm just not there. Maybe once Blyleven gets the call, I might reconsider
Dale Murphy - I think injuries may have derailed a possibility
†Jesse Orosco - sorry but longevity of a lefthanded reliever doesn't qualify as HOF worthy.
Dave Parker - Love this guy. I still remember his rifle arm in the all-star game to get a runner. I still don't see it now. Veteran's?
†Dan Plesac - Again if this guy gets a vote, then system is a joke.
Tim Raines - I need to warm up more. But definitely didn't like this guy to get on base, just to see the Hawk drive him home. Give me a year.
Alan Trammell - Another team player. But HOF worthy?
†Greg Vaughn - Another guy who shouldn't get a vote.
†Mo Vaughn - think he'll get a NY writer vote?
†Matt Williams - Not even in the league of Baines or Parker.

It starts and ends with:: Jim Rice !

[quote=Cannon Shell]If he actually used it(the walk) to then attempt to steal, then I would agree. Must not be that true, because the guy still didn't get more steals than Lou Brock(although you say he had so many more walks that could have easily resulted in steal attempts.) See, there is a lot that goes into whether someone(who can steal) actually attempts to steal when they get on 1st base. Has to do with the manager, the quality of the batters behind you(and in front of you.) If he was able to turn more of the walks he had (way more than Brock) into steals, then he would have a lot more steals than Brock(but he doesn't.) Putting base-stealer types in is kind of like respecting a fetish. We have 2 major ones(Henderson n' Brock,) and I think that's enough. It's like fat chicks, or something like that.

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rickey Henderson
Mark McGwire
Jim Rice

[quote=Cannon Shell]Very, very true.

Henderson is the only clear cut HOF'er on this list. A lot of borderline ones...of those I think Blyleven is the best of those listed.

Why not McGwire? Have you personally drug tested Henderson to know he was never on steroids?

In his prime Dawson was the better defensive player by a large margin...but offensively he was not close. I don't know how ball park plays into that...but Rice was 20 points higher career average...30 points higher career OBP and 20 points higher career slugging. Dawson was a power hitter from day one. He hit 19 as a rookie which in the mid 70s was a decent number and was hitting 25 by his second year. His game was not speed based ever. He was a power hitter who could run in his Montreal days. I don't think he transferred his game...he simply improved his power naturally as he aged and as his knees fell apart he lost his speed. He had enough power to be a plus offensive power if he had no speed at all...the speed early in his career was just a bonus and yes, Rice never did have that.

If you want to call Dawson a better player I have no problem with that...by a large margin is laughable. I honestly don't know how much a liability Rice was in left field if at all. Rice was a far superior offensive player as the numbers verify however...and I'm not sure how much of that was ballpark influenced. All phases of the game, I'd agree Dawson was better, but I think Rice was better by a pretty large margin with the bat which is why I prefer Rice as a HOFer more than Dawson though I think both are pretty questionable.

.231
.235
.201 in full seasons 1989-1991

INjuries curtailed a lot of his career as well. He was a monster from 1996-2000 and I could care less about steroids. I don't care if Henderson did steroids nor McGwire. I dont' think McGwire is a hall of famer with steroids.

There are five tools that players are measured by. Fielding, throwing running hitting for average and hitting for power. Dawson was laughably better at fielding, throwing and running while Rice was marginally better as a hitter. Overall Dawson was a better player because he was clearly superior in three catagories while marginally worse in others though if you take into consideration the ballpark factors is probably even. Olympic stadium was never a good hitting enviroment. Not to mention his career numbers which are a major factor in hall of fame voting are better in hits, runs, rbis, 2b, 3bs, hrs, SBs and in negative far fewer GIDP. I just dont see why you think Rice was better by a clear margin as a hitter. Go to baseball-reference.com and neutralize the stats and see what the numbers look like without park bias.

You vote for Rice over Dawson using OBP and SLG % differences of 20 points but dont like McGwire despite his OBP being 40 points beter than Rice and his Slg% being 80 points higher than Rices. Not to mention his hitting 200 more hR's than Rice, being a 12 time all star, rookie of the Year, gold glove winner, and hitting into 150 less DP's than Rice.

Rice never had years even remotely as bad as McGwire did in what should have been his prime years. Hitting in the 70s and early 80s ...was it not different than the late 90s? Stacking 4 or 5 great years to me does not a hall of famer make. I don't think Rice is a hall of famer either...but he is more of one than McGwire. Travis Hafner also has a much higher slugging percentage and OBP than Jim Rice...does that make Hafner a hall of famer or more worthy of a vote than Jim Rice??

You can compare Rice and Dawson's stats...they played at basically the same time or very close. McGwire didn't play when they did. I only voted for Ricky Henderson on the list.

That's funny cause in McGwire's three terrible years he had as high an OBP as Rice did in his career.

I dont' care. I don't think either one is a HOF'er. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Rice had 12 years with an OBP higher than .330 and 9 years higher than .339.

There is nothing about Mark McGwire that makes me think he is a HOF'er...nor Andre Dawson, nor Jim Rice. Of the 3 I think Jim Rice is the closest. That's it.

If you look at the players in the hall of fame, all of them not just the ted Williams and Willie Mays, you will find many players that are very similar to these guys and some that are not as good. That is how I ultimately wind up believing a player in HoF worthy, are they as good as similar players from history that are already in.

Well, if Perez is in, then who isn't worthy? Honeycutt? I mean that's a low standard that you just mentioned.