Spartanbill had it right. I was simply pointing out that many writers will not look past the cocaine issues Raines had (remember stories that he would slide headfirst so as to not break the vials he had in his back pocket) and this would explain lower vote totals than his high OBP and high SB's would otherwise deserve.

Interesting note, I was looking at some HOF vote totals and Jim Bunning had 74.2% in 1988 and didn't make it in his final three years on the writer's ballot.

So he was even closer than Rice and still had to wait until 1996 when the Veteran's Committee selected him.

Anyway, my point here is just to characterize the intensely complex situation around HOF voting. Do I think that looking from a purely statistical view as we do has merit? And do I think that sites such as this one, Hardball Time, Baseball Prospectus, and numerous others take a very smart approach to stats? Yes I do. But I think it's only one segment of what needs to be considered.

My main point was that the voting system is somewhat antiquated as long as it is with ONLY the BBWAA. It's the 21st century and all media should be represented in the voting.

Parker was a great defensive outfielder during this stretch. If only he could have kept it up. Raines may have dallied with drugs in a way that didn't hurt his performance measurably; something seriously impacted Dave Parker from 1980 through 1984.

Tim Raines batting from career game #817 (Jul 23, 1986) to game #978 (Aug 19, 1987)

G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+
162 712 611 126 208 41 7 18 83 93 21 57 4 0 4 8 67 7 .340 .428 .519 .947

What does it (total bases plus bb plus sb minus cs and gdp) mean? If he came up to bat five times, he was likely to advance 3.25 bases all by himself. For his great 1978 year, Jim Rice's numbers would be .611/ab and 3.05 bases in five trips.

Where Rice has an advantage is that his 46 home runs in 1978 obviously drove home more teammates than Raines's 18 on the line above. On his own, however, not considering whether anyone was on base when he came up, Raines was clearly more of a force -- for one year or over his career -- than any of the other HoF candidates named in paragraph one.

The guys with highest bases-advanced percentages are the sluggers who also draw a lot of walks (and if they can steal a few bases with some efficiency and avoid hitting into double plays, that helps even more).

On stats alone, McGwire should be in and when Bonds name comes up, he should get into with 100 per cent. But in the system we have, I am sure Raines lost some votes because some members of the BBWAA see him as a druggy. McGwire did as well. I wonder how many Jack Morris and Steve Carlton lost becuase most writers saw them as surly and uncooperative. Bonds is going to lose point based on his "alleged" steroid use as well as his boorish personality. Even though Clemens says he doesn't give a "rats ass" about the HOF, the next few weeks will largely determine his electabilty more than his 354 wins and 4672 K's.

I beleive that in a voters eyes, being a "good person" whatever the heck that means, counts to many voters. It is silly to presume otherwise. It helped a personable guy like Tom LaSorda, and to one extent or another, it hurts some of the others.