Continuing an annual tradition we began last year in this space, we here at UmpBump cast our ballots this year for who we think should be in the Hall of Fame who is not yet in.

The rules were simple: elect anyone you want, with no restrictions. Just like the real Hall, players who appear on at least 75 percent of all ballots cast are considered elected to the UmpBump version of the Hall of Fame. The voters consist of the main UmpBump contributors Alejandro, Coley, Sarah, Nick, and Paul in addition to three guest voters.

This year’s guest voters were our good friend, occasional guest poster, and loyal UmpBump commenter Melissa, the inimitable Kensai, who authors one of the very best Dodgers blogs on the web, Fire Ned Colletti Now, and the illustrious Dan Rosenheck, who writes for the New York Times and The Economist.

Here are the results of the balloting (names with number of votes received):

Rickey Henderson – 8
Tim Raines – 6
Bert Blyleven – 5
Andre Dawson – 5
Ron Santo – 5
Dwight Evans – 3
Mark McGwire – 3
Dick Allen – 2
Ross Barnes – 2
Bill Dahlen – 2
Joe Gordon – 2
Gil Hodges – 2
Joe Jackson – 2
Grant Johnson – 2
Sherry Magee – 2
Don Newcombe – 2
Jim Rice – 2
Pete Rose – 2
Ted Simmons – 2
Dave Stieb – 2
Alan Trammell – 2
Deacon White – 2
Harold Baines – 1
John Beckwith – 1
Charlie Bennett – 1
Pete Browning – 1
Bert Campaneris – 1
David Concepción – 1
Will Clark – 1
David Cone – 1
Bob Caruthers – 1
Darrell Evans – 1
Wes Ferrell – 1
Bill Freehan – 1
Jack Glasscock – 1
George Gore – 1
Bobby Grich – 1
Heinie Groh – 1
Stan Hack – 1
Paul Hines – 1
Keith Hernandez – 1
Charley Jones – 1
Jim Kaat – 1
Charlie Keller – 1
Cal McVey – 1
Dick Lundy – 1
Minnie Miñoso – 1
Dobie Moore – 1
Graig Nettles – 1
Alejandro Oms – 1
Buck O’Neil – 1
Johnny Pesky – 1
Billy Pierce – 1
Lip Pike – 1
Rick Reuschel – 1
Hardy Richardson – 1
Bret Saberhagen – 1
Reggie Smith – 1
Jimmy Sheckard – 1
Joe Start – 1
Harry Stovey – 1
Ezra Sutton – 1
Quincey Trouppe – 1
Lou Whitaker – 1
Maury Wills – 1
Jimmy Wynn – 1

As we can see from these results, this year UmpBump unanimously elected Rickey Henderson, who appeared on 100 percent of the 8 ballots cast. This is not surprising, as Rickey looks likely to challenge Tom Seaver’s record for percentage of votes received on the real Hall ballot this year. Tim Raines also edged into our verson of the Hall this year, appearing on exactly 75% of ballots cast (6 out of 8).

Also giving strong showings were Andre Dawson, Ron Santo, and Bert Blyleven. Dawson held steady from last year at 5 votes, while Santo and Blyleven made progress, both jumping up from 3 votes to 5. Mark McGwire and Dwight Evans also made up ground, moving up to 3 votes from 2 and 1 last year, respectively.

Several players who received significant support from UmpBumpers last year did not even get one vote this year. Players who got at least two votes last year but none this year included Jack Morris (4 votes last year), Tommy John (3), Roger Maris (3), Rod Beck (2), Albert Belle (2), Don Mattingly (2), Dale Murphy (2), Luis Tiant (2), and Joe Torre (2).

Earlier this week, Umpbump reminded you about where we stand on the Hall of Fame candidates. Here’s what some other folks on the internets are saying about the eligible players:

• Joe Posnanski examines the merits of each and every Hall of Fame inductee in an attempt to better understand … something. He must have been an unbelievably hyper child.
• Baseball Think Factory alerts us to another great minor league gimmick. The Golden Baseball League (GBL) announced today that they have offered professional baseball superstar Rickey Henderson $1M if he elects to be enshrined in the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown as a San Diego Surf Dawg. Henderson played the entire 2005 season for the San Diego Surf Dawgs in the inaugural season of the Golden Baseball League. I don’t want to throw cold water on the Surf Dawgs, but last I checked players were no longer allowed to choose which cap they wear on their HOF plaque.
• Fox Sports’ Tracy Ringolsby chastises Rickey Henderson for not knowing when to hang up his cleats, saying, “From the Mets to the Mariners to the Padres to the Red Sox and Dodgers, Henderson put on an uncharacteristic performance. The last three years he struck out more than he walked for the first three times in two decades. His hit a paltry .228. He stole a total of only 72 bases, a figure he had surpassed in seven single seasons.” Why you gotta focus on the negative, Tracy?
• The Hardball Times’ Tom Tango makes his case for Tim Raines induction by comparing him to the best leadoff hitters already in the HOF.
• Boy of Summer thinks Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer. Rob Neyer agrees. But MLB.com’s Scott Merkin thinks Baines belongs. Here’s my favorite line from Merkin:

Clutch hitting for Baines, who turns 50 on March 15, led to an amazing 1,628 RBIs despite only topping the 100-RBI plateau in 1982 (105) and 1985 (113) with the White Sox, and with Baltimore and Cleveland in 1999 (103).

As Neyer points out, Baines wasn’t particularly clutch. His impressive RBI total is due more to longevity — Baines played until he was 42. And good for him. But sticking around a long time doesn’t get you into the Hall of Fame. If it did Jamie Moyer would be a first ballot lock.

• LoHud Yankees Blog says older players should be judged by outdated statistics: “Nobody cared about on-base percentage in the 70s and 80s. Rice’s job was to swing for the fences. But now we know OBP matters. But Jim Rice can’t get in the DeLorean and take more pitches because it would make the Baseball Prospectus guys respect him more.”
• Athletics Nation’s Baseballgirl says she is feeling more forgiving of Mark McGwire lately, and wonders if BBWAA members feel the same.

Today, the Hall of Fame sent out the 2009 ballots. New names on the ballot include Rickey Henderson and a bunch of other guys. Here at Umpbump, we’ve never been shy about supporting or damning eligible HOF players. Here’s a reminder of what we’ve written about some of the leading candidates, as well as some more up-to-date views.

On Jim Rice

Nick: “[I]f Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than there are probably at least a hundred other guys with better careers than Rice who should go in too. For a guy who was a left fielder, who hit in the middle of incredible lineups, and who demonstrably got a huge boost from playing half his games in Fenway Park, Rice has no place in the Hall of Fame. People keep trying to argue that Rice was the best outfielder in the American League during his prime. But I’m not sure that Rice was even the best outfielder on his own team during those years, because Dwight Evans, who was one of the better defensive outfielders of all time, did just about everything equal to or better than Rice. Well, except pile up RBI, which was just a function of where Rice was penciled into the batting order anyway.”

Paul: “[W]e need to pose the question – Would Jim Rice have been a Hall of Fame caliber player if he were not drafted by the Boston Red Sox? … If we cannot penalize him for being a Red Sox (which I have no interest in doing), then we can’t credit him for it either…. During the games where Rice didn’t have the pleasure of hitting in Fenway, an argument could be made that Andy Van Slyke was a better player (since Andy played a more demanding position). Now that’s nothing to scoff at ordinarily since Van Slyke was a very good player – but he’s no Hall of Famer.”

Sarah: “In ‘77, ‘78 and ‘79, he was in his prime. He hit more than 35 homers in each of those three years, while also collecting over 200 hits — the only major-league player to ever accomplish that feat…In fact, though Rice is now remembered as a lead-footed, perennially injured slugger, he was actually possessed of the rare ability to hit for both power and average. Though his lifetime batting average of .298 and 382 total home runs may not look like much on their own, look at them together and the impact is powerful: out of all retired players, Rice ranks tenth in terms of batting average and homers. Needless to say, those players (Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams) are all in the Hall of Fame.”

On Tim Raines

Nick: “I understand all you New York-based writers never noticed Raines because he played all those years in Montreal while you guys were too busy noticing Yankees and Red Sox like Jim Rice. But shouldn’t you at least take a look at his career numbers? Did any of the people who didn’t vote for Raines even consider that he was a superior player to former stolen base king and present Hall of Famer Lou Brock in just about every way imaginable? … I mean seriously. A .385 on base percentage? 808 stolen bases, 4th all time in the modern era behind only Henderson, Brock, and Ty Cobb? The highest stolen base percentage in baseball history at 84.7%?”

On Jack Morris

Nick: “Morris’s career ERA is high for a hall of famer, but that’s about the only reason I could see to keep him out. The man was the ace of every team he ever pitched on, including four World Series squads, and outdueled John Smoltz in the greatest game in World Series history. If the Hall of Fame is all about stats (which it is clearly not), then he could be kept out, but if it is about fame and glory, there has to be a place for Jack Morris, who was the greatest starting pitcher of the 80s.” I’ve changed my mind on Jack Morris, so I can no longer stand by this Jack Morris quote.

Coley: “1. Win Shares are a good stat. But they’re not all-important. There are HOF pitchers with fewer Win shares than Morris. Bruce Sutter had 168! 2. Morris never won a Cy Young, but he came darned close. He finished fifth or better in the Cy voting five times. He led the league in wins twice and in strikeouts and complete games once. He was a five-time all-star. And nobody won more games in the 1980s. 3. Yeah, his ERA was high. But his career ERA was inflated by a couple of rough years (1988-1990). You know what Morris did in 1991? He won 21 games and posted an ERA of 3.43. That’s HOF perseverance, baby!” I’m off the Morris bandwagon, too. I think Morris was a very good pitcher, the kind of guy it was easy to root for. But he was probably more hype than substance. All Star game appearances and Cy Young votes are nice, but those awards are highly subjective.

Paul: I don’t think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall. So what if he won the most games in the 1980s? Couple that with his ERA and what do you get? One lucky pitcher who was never consistently among the best.

On Andre Dawson

Nick: “The first 16 years of Andre Dawson’s career are virtually identical to the entire 16 years of Jim Rice’s, except that Dawson stole 318 bases to Rice’s 58, won 8 gold gloves to Rice’s zero, and hung around a few more years to hit 56 more home runs than Rice. Dawson was a complete player, whereas Rice was a one-dimensional slugger.”

On Mark McGwire

Paul: “Let me get one thing straight – I do not believe that McGwire was clean, and depending on the mood, may ridicule anyone who tries to insinuate otherwise. Which I guess puts me in the camp of people who think that a) steroid testing came far too late, b) we will therefore never know who was or wasn’t using, c) there’s no way that the town of Cooperstown or the Museum itself will lock out all those who played in the “steroids era”, so d) the Hall must admit all the elite players of their times, regardless of how loud the whispers may be. Let’s take this step-by-step.”

Sarah: “He was the most famous slugger of his era because of illegal steroids. He was one of the most intimidating physical presences in sports history because he took banned substances. He broke an untouchable record by injecting substances that gave him an unfair advantage. He hit 245 homers in a four year span by taking drugs. He finished seventh on the all-time home run list by relying on Slugger’s Little Helper. He made 12 All-Star Teams because he gained an unfair advantage over other players. In fact, every one of Big Mac’s Hall qualifications goes directly to his use of illegal PED’s. Unlike Barry Bonds, who likely would have been a Hall of Famer even without the drugs, Big Mac only achieved what he did BECAUSE of the drugs. And isn’t inducting him actually tantamount to endorsing drug use…?”

Nick: “I am starting to think that maybe if a player were to come clean, 100%, and take full responsibility for his mistakes (and I don’t mean the Andy Pettite “I only did it once and it wasn’t even wrong” thing), then maybe we should consider them for the Hall. Because players coming clean in an honest and humble way would be the best hope for healing the sport and moving forward. But until Mark McGwire comes clean, and there’s no sign that he ever will, I will keep rooting for them to keep him out of the Hall forever.”

On Ricky Henderson

Bill James: “If you could split (Rickey Henderson) in two, you’d have two Hall of Famers.”

What you said

Last year, we asked Umpbump readers who they would vote for and here’s what they said.

1. It’s good to see Goose Gossage finally get in, as he was clearly the most deserving person eligible for the Hall of Fame but not yet in. In hindsight, it’s just amazing that it took him nine ballots to get in, and that Bruce Sutter got in first. Goose Gossage’s best 12-year run was better than Bruce Sutter’s entire 12-year career by almost any statistical measure except saves, plus Gossage also had another 10 seasons of pretty decent work on either side of his peak.

A lot of people are talking about how the election of Gossage speaks to a continuing evolution in how the Hall voters view closers, and that the door is being opened to allowing more relievers into the Hall. I hope that is not the case. Only five relief pitchers have been elected to the hall of fame, and already one of them (Sutter) and arguably a second (Fingers) can be ranked among the least deserving players enshrined

Here’s hoping that Gossage is the last reliever elected until Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman get the call.

2. Jim Rice only has one year of eligibility left, but if precedent is any guide, he is a virtual lock to get in next season, having secured a staggering 72.2 percent of the vote and falling just 16 votes shy out of 543 ballots cast. No player has ever gotten more than 70 percent of the vote without being elected the following year, and with the Rice supporters only needing to change the minds of a handful of voters and having a whole year to do it, it’s almost impossible to imagine that he won’t be in next year.

Which is a shame. Because if Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than there are probably at least a hundred other guys with better careers than Rice who should go in too. For a guy who was a left fielder, who hit in the middle of incredible lineups, and who demonstrably got a huge boost from playing half his games in Fenway Park, Rice has no place in the Hall of Fame.

People keep trying to argue that Rice was the best outfielder in the American League during his prime. But I’m not sure that Rice was even the best outfielder on his own team during those years, because Dwight Evans, who was one of the better defensive outfielders of all time, did just about everything equal to or better than Rice. Well, except pile up RBI, which was just a function of where Rice was penciled into the batting order anyway.

If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than Dewey should have been a mortal lock. Jim Rice had a career OPS+ of 128, despite not playing through his late 30s decline phase, whereas Evans had a career OPS+ of 127. Evans had 345.5 career win shares (including 51.9 on defense), whereas Jim Rice had only 282 career win shares, ranking him 228th all-time (right between Sal Bando and Boog Powell). And though Rice averaged 6.0 runs created per game over his career, Dewey averaged 6.2, and again that’s including all the declining late-30s seasons Evans played which Rice didn’t.

And yet Evans got less than 5% of the vote and fell off the ballot after one year, whereas Rice keeps building momentum towards his eventual enshrinement? Crazy.

3. It was gratifying to see Mark McGwire’s vote totals holding firm at just a shade over 23 percent, hundreds and hundreds of votes shy of election, especially after a lot of people were predicting that he would see a big jump now that he had already been “punished” in his first year of eligibility.

I wrote a post in this space last year, arguing that we should never elect anyone tainted by steroids, because the Hall is an honor and not a right. I think my policy might be changing in the wake of the Mitchell report, after realizing just how widespread the abuse was. Now I am starting to think that maybe if a player were to come clean, 100%, and take full responsibility for his mistakes (and I don’t mean the Andy Pettite “I only did it once and it wasn’t even wrong” thing), then maybe we should consider them for the Hall.

Because players coming clean in an honest and humble way would be the best hope for healing the sport and moving forward.

But until Mark McGwire comes clean, and there’s no sign that he ever will, I will keep rooting for them to keep him out of the Hall forever.

4. Lastly, I was amazed and saddened to see that Tim Raines only got 24.3 percent of the vote. Fine, I understand all you New York-based writers never noticed Raines because he played all those years in Montreal while you guys were too busy noticing Yankees and Red Sox like Jim Rice. But shouldn’t you at least take a look at his career numbers? Did any of the people who didn’t vote for Raines even consider that he was a superior player to former stolen base king and present Hall of Famer Lou Brock in just about every way imaginable?

I don’t know who these guys are comparing Raines to, that they feel he falls short, other than Rickey Henderson, but Rickey Henderson was far and away the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Tim Raines was the second greatest leadoff hitter of all time.

I mean seriously. A .385 on base percentage? 808 stolen bases, 4th all time in the modern era behind only Henderson, Brock, and Ty Cobb? The highest stolen base percentage in baseball history at 84.7%?

And as long as people are giving Andre Dawson extra credit for playing on bad knees, and Kirby Puckett free points for having his career cut short by glaucoma, and Jim Rice sympathy for mysteriously becoming sucky at age 34, shouldn’t Raines get some points for the even more insane numbers he would have put up if he wasn’t playing the last third of his career while battling Lupus?

So yeah, 24.3 percent, that’s ridiculous. I think Tim Raines is going to have to be the subject of my next Hall of Fame crusade.

It’s Hall of Fame Week at Umpbump. We’ll be taking a look at the guys on the ballot and giving you our take on who does and doesn’t belong in Cooperstown. Up next is Tim Raines, who may, or may not get into the Hall of Fame, but he sure deserves a chance.

Let me begin with a disclosure: I’ve never given much thought to the Hall of Fame or the voting process. I understand its a matter that can make or break what would be considered to be a storied career. The Hall of Fame is a place for legends, or so they say. Whereas, to me at least, the Hall of Fame used to be a tourist attraction for those high enough on their baseball knowledge to want to make the trek to Cooperstown, the institution is slowly becoming a morality prism by which we give a the thumbs up or down to our baseball heroes. And it may function as the whopping stick by which the baseball writers of this era will chastise the steroids and HGH users (and deniers).

And some will say, “what’s wrong with that?”

Frankly, the cynic in me cannot take the past two decades of baseball and its “historic” streak at face value. It’s evident the game is full of liars and cheats (and douche bags). And for an institution to still have integrity and want to present great baseball people, not only for their abilities on the field, but for their outstanding character, is a noble endeavor.

As is understanding the context of things.

Take Tim Raines. I was too young to discern the good players from the bad during his playing days (I’d dare say I only became “baseball cognizant” in the mid nineties – and what a time to do it). So what I know about Raines is what I can learn from some research and from the fact that he was a member of the storied White Sox squad of ‘94, who could’ve gone all the way.

I’m glad there are some who think he ought to be in the Hall. Baseball Prospectus’ Jay Jaffe said it best:

Raines could take over a game, as his comeback from collusion-driven contract limbo and his bravura performance at the 1987 All-Star Game showed. Even past his prime, he evolved into a charismatic, highly-sought role player, a staple of two engaging Yankees champions from Joe Torre’s early tenure. While he didn’t win an MVP award, the seven-time All-Star’s skills hardly went unappreciated by those hip to Bill James’ sabermetric measures, which valued his ability to get on base and his efficiency once he got there.

But to others that’s not enough; Bugs and Cranks eliminated Rock in round two of their fake HOF ballot:

• Tim Raines – Rock Raines should get some kind of an award for stealing all those bases on the awful turf at Stade Olympique and still having enough left to sustain a long career. As Raines got older, he became a great student of the game, understanding the value of getting on base any way he could. But he was a base-stealer and not even the best base-stealer of his era. Rickey, of course, was the king. But Raines also could be forgotten for Vince Coleman, Willie McGee, Alan Wiggins and a whole slew of guys who ran the bases like jackrabbits. I’m gonna say no to Tim Raines.

And then there’s Rock’s drug use. Something I feel is irrelevant to the question at hand: Does Tim Raines, as a baseball player, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

Take this post at Suite101 that tries to make a case that cocaine use is not the same as steroid use, and thusly, it cannot be used to leave him out of the Hall.

In 1982, Tim Raines admitted using cocaine. He used crack cocaine before, after and even during games and said that he would slide head first because he had bags of cocaine in his pocket that might fall out if he slide feet first.

I’m not excusing the fact he used it (and the real possibility of him using it during a game). And if you were to ask me, using cocaine during a game is far worse than betting on the result of said game. But I don’t think chastising Raines now for doing something stupid in his twenties is the way to operate. I’d say some twenty-something people these days would be next in line for the lines alongside a young Rock.

In fact, when in 1986 Baseball suspended Keith Hernandez and others [reg. req.], including Raines, for their Cocaine use, Rock had admitted his role and had undergone treatment. The point is, he regretted his mistakes and that’s commendable.

We can’t be so naïve to think that Baseball (and society in general) is so clean as to stand from our moral perch and deny Raines a place in the Hall of Fame because of his drug use. So what Raines “said” he slid head first so the bags of blow wouldn’t dust the base paths at Stade Olympique? Wilt Chamairlain said he slept with 10,000 women and they also tell us he scored 100 points in a game. There are feats of sport and then there are the self-aggrandizing jocks behind them.

Ok, so Raines wasn’t being self-serving by saying he had bags of coke in his pants, but I don’t think we can really believe that.

And we can’t be so elitist (and morally hypocritical) to think that Raines, having regretted his mistakes (something Bonds and MacGwire keep forgetting to do), doesn’t deserve an up-and-down vote that looks at his baseball achievements while setting aside his troubled past.

Rock doesn’t need your spite, he needs your HOF vote.