It does seem like Alomar has enough momentum to get elected. Hopefully, Raines will get a boost, Blyeleven will inch closer and McGwire will see a big spike, but I don't expect anyone else to get elected.

Yeah, I agree. I think Dawson could come close. I don't think Bert will. I think Raines will still have piteful support. Who knows, maybe Larkin will have a decent showing.

Here's my prediction, based more on hunch than any inside information:

Dawson and Blyleven get in, with Alomar finishing just short.

I wonder, if McGwire ever did get elected, if he'd want to talk about the past during his speech.

Alomar, Blyleven, and Larkin. Thats my prediction.

I think Dawson will fall just short and McGwire won't get out of the 40's in terms of support

and yes, I would probably vote for McGwire.

I don't really care who gets in this year, I just hope MLB finds another way to honor the Red Sox for having the plucky fortitude to keep fighting.

Dawson. Eh.

74.2 - so close for Blyleven!

The Hawk is the only inductee. Blyleven missed by two votes and Alomar by a handful more. Larkin only got 50%, while Raines saw little increase. Kind of a shocking outcome.

[8] Yes, but inevitable after the ridiculous Rice result.

I take comfort from the fact that Rice being in gives Bernie that much more of a chance.

[7] IIRC, Dawson spent a year or two in Boston, so there's that.

[3] Great call...almost dead on.

this is a joke, I'm sorry. Hawk I'm not in love with, but ok fine.

no Alomar is damn near inexcusable, same for Larkin but I figured he'd have to wait 3 or 4 years anyway

After Rice, I don't have a problem with Dawson anymore.

[10] wow - guess none of those folks were feared.
someone better start a campaign for raines or he has NO chance.
robbie might get in next year.
i hope this wasn't bert's best and last chance.

[13] I was actually on the fence about both Larkin and Alomar, so I don't think it is an outrage. Alomar will be a lock next year, while Larkin looks to be on the fence.

Also, the real outrage is Raines very low support.

I'm pretty much a small-hall guy, so I like that only one player was elected. Unfortunately, the voters put the wrong guy in.

what annoys me is that Alomar didn't get in on the first ballot, but you just know Biggio will. And I'm sorry, but Biggio was not as good as Alomar

[18] who is your 1 guy?

[20] Well, look at it this way, Dawson would be about fifth on the list, after Blyleven or Raines, then Alomar, then (maybe) Larkin. Heck, I might put McGwire in before Dawson, and I'm almost sure that Big Mac shouldn't get in.

So you might say Alomar was within spitting distance.

Alomar is a Latin guy who spit on an ump and crashed before he was 35, never reaching 3,000 hits. They are making him wait.

[23] come on Alex, you're making the BBWAA sound like what some would describe as an "Old Boys Network"...and as we all know, that couldn't possibly be the case

[21] well of course it ain't the hawk :}
just wondered who you would let in between bert and raines if you were only letting in 1.

i think bert, raines, alomar are the 3 who should be in from this bunch.

Meh. The HoF leaves me cold. All these guys mentioned are deserving in some way. Were it not for personal politics, they'd all have a place; if not next to each other or in the same wing, then in the same building.

26) Will, well said. I like to argue about it even though I know it is absurd. Hey, when I visited Cooperstown Tom Yawkey's plaque was next to Bob Gibsons! That said it all.

[26] word, Chyll.

[21] I am just curious, and don't want to open the McGwire can of worms - do you think he shouldn't get it because you're a small-hall guy, or because of another reason? (If its another reason, just say that - no need to go into detail.)

The list of people I'd put in before Dawson (and Rice) is staggeringly long. If I'm Dale Murphy - who, IMHO, was a much better player than Dawson - I'm ticked that I'm at 11.7% while Rice and Dawson got in.

[19] Leaving aside the issue of who was better, Biggio has the shiny round number (3000 hits) attached to his name, and the voters do love their shiny round numbers (except, of course, where PEDs and the home run record are concerned).

i'm rather pissed that Raines is at 30.4%. it's ridiculous. he's my guy. he better get in at some point.

[15] well, i'm sure you know, there have been quite a few articles the last few years about Raines. guess they're not doing enough. i believe it was Rich Lederer at Baseball Analysts that wrote the first couple...and they were awesome!

what a letdown Hall vote this year. i guess that's par for the course, at this point...

Francesa, for once, is actually making sense.

Andre Dawson average 162 game season: 27/98/.279
Albert Belle average 162 game season: 40/130/.295

of course counting stats don't tell the whole story, but its at least worth considering.

[30] we need bob ryan and the curly haired boyfriend to jump on the rock truck

[23] Juan Marichal would have been the first pitcher to get 3,000 hits if Willie Mays hadn't gotten in the way. They made him wait four years...

I've grown increasingly skeptical about the HOF in the last few years. When Rice got elected, I decided that I no longer cared.

Shame about Alomar.....Raines too.

[29] I know I am in the minority here, but the PED thing is a strike against Big Mac in my book...that's not the only reason, it just tips the scale. His career totals outside of HRs are not very high (1600 H, e.g.), a product of so much time lost to injury. When he played he was a beast, but his career was not very long when you look at it. Plus, he played at a slugging position in a slugging era with several other guys who were also beasts. Since I'm a small hall guy, I tend to think in terms of "who was the player at that position" in a given era. I'm not convinced that McGwire was the best 1B/DH of his era, when all factors are added in. Was he that much better than Bagwell? Thome? Thomas? E. Martinez? McGwire's peak really wasn't any better than the Big Hurt's, and Thomas played more (500 more games, 800 more hits) and has never been associated with you know what.

Then again, I haven't really given this too much thought.

Hawk came to VT Expos game a few years back. I lived south of Burlington in Salisbury, about an hours drive. Studied up. Packed my camera, an old Expos program and a Cubs book with his picture and headed out on the road. Before I could get to Middlebury, the heavens unloaded. Trees crashed in the road. Electrical lines came down. We heard that the greatest part of the storm lie ahead between Ferrisburg and where we were. We turned back. Unbeknownst to us, the storm didn't last long up North. We could have taken an alternate route. Hawk, I was told, was quite cordial, posed, signed autographs, and watched the game from the cheap seats.

I love the guy. He played as hard as anyone and he played hurt. He also had a chance to win a game in the playoffs and came up short. There is a story, but I cannot remember it.

[35] Hmm.

It really is a peak v. career argument, with a dash of PED thrown in. In terms of offensive win %, McGwire ranks in the 30s all time, higher than Thomas (by a smidge), Thome, etc. But looking at career runs created, McGwire is virtually tied with Jason Giambi, and well behind Thomas, Bagwell, etc.

Tough call, I think.

[35] Leaving aside the PED thing, I can see your argument, especially if you are a small-hall guy. I would, however, say don't pay so much attention to McGwire's hit totals, and focus more on his OBP. Yes, he spent a good amount of time on the DL, but as we know, hits aren't really that important for a big slugger. Not making outs is what counts.

And those six words, FWIW, are why I think Dawson and Rice are bogus Hall of Famers.

(BTW, hat tip to VivaElBirdos for the "pay attention to Big Mac's OBP" point. They have a very interesting argument that McGwire was not a one-dimensional player, but rather a two-dimensional player. Worth reading.)

I'm a small Hall of Fame kind of guy too and think Raines should be in. His peak seasons were amazing and he had good numbers for a long time, just not the numbers that HOF voters notice. I guess Runs are overrated in baseball. It's all about Grit.

[26], [34] The HOF leaves me cold because of the dominance of numbers in the conversation.

I've addressed this before and won't belabor it; I'm not some atavistic "stats hater" like you see among some of the old columnists. But I stand by my assertion that numbers aren't the story - they're a tool you use to tell the story.

The HOF question should always be this, and only this: Was this player indispensable to his era? Can you tell the story of those years without him?

This is about stepping back and seeing the big picture. I loves me some Rob Neyer columns as much as anyone, but I'm tired of all the green eyeshades.

Hawk is in, partly, on 'nice guy' I suspect. I agree that the OBP should hurt more, but also it seems clear that 'newer' stats aren't registering as much yet. Alomar waits for the reverse reason. ("Spitting distance" is SUCH a mean, funny line up there.) I'm glad Blyleven will now (surely!) make it, he was my #1 this year. I share the growing outrage that Raines is so low, and I am truly not sure why Trammell is so low, either. Was Larkin that much better? Belle? A truly feared ballplayer. Media hated him. End of story?

I think McGwire might bode ill for Barry and Roger, but his case, absent PEDs isn't nearly the lock theirs are.

[38] Good point about walks/obp. I only invoked hits as a convenience. Anyway, comparing Big Mac and Big Hurt:

Thomas: 1667 BB, .419 OBP
McGwire: 1317 BB, .394 OBP

[42] Big Hurt a no doubt HOFer, isn't he?

BBWAA is pathetic..not voting in Alomar or Raines or Blyleven..do they understand how baseball works? It's a joke at this point.

David Segui got a HOF vote...is there something in the water back home???

[19] What's so wrong with that? A strong case that Biggio was better than Alomar can easily be made (more easily than vica versa).

[23] I don't think being latin or the spitting incident have anything to do with it (aside from a voters like Marty Noble's). I know am not sold on Alomar as a Hall of Famer, so I can see 27% of the electorate agreeing.

Also, it should be noted that Ryne Sandberg, who rates just behind Alomar based on Jay Jaffe's JAWS system, took 3 or 4 years to get in. Also, guys like Witaker and Gritch, who rank better than Alomar, never made it in.

[43] Yes, Frank Thomas should be a shoe-in first ballot Hall of Famer.

[42] And just to complete the picture:

Thomas: 1667 BB, .301 AVG/.419 OBP (.118 IsoD), 10,074 PA
McGwire: 1317 BB, .263 AVG/.394 OBP (.131 IsoD), 7,660 PA

I think the Big Hurt is a sure-fire first ballot Hall of Famer, and I think McGwire should be in too.

[44] Nah. Lots of guys get "courtesy" votes from a sportswriter or two (or more). Nothing wrong with that.

[46] You're probably right. I guess my point is that McGwire was not obviously the best player at his position in his era, despite his gaudy HR numbers. He was great, to be sure. Yet there is also the matter of his relatively "short" career (that is, relatively few games played b/c of injury) and the other, unnamed things. How much will (or should) weigh in the minds of voters?

[45] their numbers are comparable in several areas, but Alomar wins out in OPS+ (which I know carries much weight with you), average, OBP, struck out less, and as a postseason player was worlds better.

I think they're both HOFers, I'd take either one on my team, but Biggio isn't so much better that he deserves to be in on the first ballot more

[48] Biggio has an edge in OPS+, but it's very small (116 to 111). Of course, Biggio had over 2,000 more PAs, which makes his rate of performance much more impressive. I think you can definitely make the case that his longer career distinguishes Biggio from Alomar. Personally, I think Biggio is a HoF'er, but am on the fence with Alomar (I wouldn't have voted for him, but could see my mind changing).

[49] You have that reversed. Alomar has the edge in OPS+ 116 to 111.

[50] I meant to say "Alomar has an edge in OPS+", but Biggio's longer career more than made up for that. Thanks.

Is there an AL bias in the preferences on this board? Is Tim Raines considered head and shoulders better than Andre Dawson because he played a couple years in New York? I'm not going to denigrate the careers of Alomar or Blyleven or any of hte other candidates. All very good players. But, Dawson was an excellent player. You can quibble over his HOF credentials but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines. I watched both play for many years in teh NL East and I think Raines was a terrific player. He was no Hawk. He played a long time despite knees that betrayed him in the prime of his career. An elite player in the NL at a time when the NL was predominant in terms of talent level in the way the AL has been for the last decade or two. He hit for power, stole bases by the basketful and played a phenomenal right field. When he was in Montreal with Cromartie and Raines and Valentine (Ellis, of course), he more than held his own among some pretty damn good fielders. Maybe he doesn't have 3000 hits, or 500 HRs. But, he does have 2750 hits and 425+ HR and 300+ SB despite playing half-crippled in his 30s. ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times. It may be an outlier in terms of his average numbers but, no player preferred on this thread with teh possible exception of Albert Belle had a year nearly as dominant as Dawson's peak.

[52] but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines.

No, he really wasn't.

Compare:

Name, Offensive win % (rank all time), RC (rank all time), BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/OPS+, SB-CS

Raines, .6648 (157), 1636 (53), .294/.385/.425/.810/123, 808-146
Dawson, .5944 (463), 1518 (76), .279/.323/.482/.806/.119, 314-109

Raines gets the better of it across the board, except for slugging % (and we all know that SLG is less important than OBP). And we haven't even talked about Runs Scored.

Whatever Dawson's HOF merits, he was, simply, not as good a player as Raines. Now, maybe if he didn't break down with injuries....But that's another story.

[52] Any evidence to support your assertion that Dawson was hands down better than Raines? In a similar number of PAs, Raines had a higher OPS+ (with a significantly higher OBP) and stole 500 more bases at a much better rate. Using more advanced metrics, Raines also has Dawson beat across the board (in some cases handily):

wOBA: .374 to 352.
EqA: .306 to .285
RARP: 708 to 527
JAWS: 66.6 to 49.9

Andre Dawson is a borderline candidate who probably falls a little short, but by no means disgraces the Hall of Fame. Tim Raines is clearly above the average standard for a HoF outfielder.

Also, as for your assertion that Dawson's 1987 season was historic, well, that couldn't be further from the truth. His OPS+ that season was 130. For perspective, 8 Yankees were about as good or better than that level last year alone. Dawson's 1987 is light years from being a historic season (in fact, Raines own 1987 was better). And, by the way, the reason Dawson only "managed to score 90 times" is because he didn'y get on base alot, as evidenced by his .328 OBP.

I am sorry, but your claims are way off base, although I would gladly listen to your argument if you could back it up with something other than your own subjective opinion.

[52] ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times.

Dawson was arguably not even the best player in the league that year (1987), despite what the MVP voters said. Tony Gwynn's year was better (.370/.447/.511/.958/158 OPS+), and look what Jack Clark did (though only played about 130 games).

As for best seasons by any NLer not Bonds, it is surprising that a Phils Phan such as yourself would overlook several monster seasons by Mike Schmidt (how about 1980?).

[52] [54] To further illustrate my point about Dawson's 1987 season, since 1950, 553 players with at least 662 PAs (Dawson's 1987 total) had an OPS+ higher than the Hawk's 130.

Top Non-Bonds OPS+ (chosen for its ease) since 1950 (min of 662 PAs, chosen to match Dawson's 1987 season):

1998 Mark McGwire - 216
2001 Sammy Sosa - 203
1961Norm Cash - 201
2001 Jason Giambi - 198
1966 Frank Robinson - 198
1967 Carl Yastrzemski - 193
1996 Gary Sheffield - 189
1969 Reggie Jackson - 189
2009 Albert Pujols - 188
2003 Albert Pujols - 187

[53, et. seq.] Absolutely subjective, hyperbolic, seat of hte pants reaction to the notion that Dawson was not an elite player. Unabashedly unobjective. Just thought he needed a little love.

Not a Mike Schmidt historic great but, a contemporary elite player. 353 total bases in the 1980s was a monster year. Who else did that in the era? Don Mattingly? Kirby Puckett, maybe? I can't think of another NLer who came close in that decade. - looked it up and the Cobra did it.

Maybe a borderline HOFer at the end of the day, but, if you watched him for his first ten years in the league, you expected him to be in the Hall when it was all over. As for Raines, I'm not comparing career statistics in any way when I say Dawson was better. I may be underselling Raines, who was a leadoff hitter par excellence. My view of his 1987 season isn't based on a comparison of historic numbers (quite obviously). It is based on watching that season unfold where Dawson seemed able to hit hte ball out of the park nearly at will. It was all he did, all year, and he never had another like it. To see him do that after spending 8-9 seasons as more of an all-around ball player - good at everything but not the best at anything - was startling.

[58] Dawson definitely had a very good 1987, but it really wasn't remarkable by any standard with the exception of the number of HRs. I also watched a lot of Dawson in the 1980s, and always thought of him as a good player, but never among the game's elite. Tim Raines in the middle 1980s, however, did standout as such.

I can understand liking Dawson as a player, and don't think he is an awful selection, but it is very hard to argue that he was a better player than Raines.

[59] I won't argue that point. Raines was on base all the time and was a nightmare on the basepaths. It's amazing to me the quality of ballplayers that the Montreal franchise had over the space of a couple decades, yet, they never made a noise in the post-season.