[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
Mondo,
Assuming steroids are irrelevant (I know they aren't, but just work under that assumption)
McGwire got on base more often and hit for more power than Rice. They played for a similar amount of time. How is Rice better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rice's raw power numbers came in an era where offensive numbers weren't what they were in McGwire's (and yes, I know Big Mac's first couple of years coincided with the tail end of Rice's career).

For the sake of discussion, let's equate a walk to a single, as in, both are single total bases (though a single probably has a greater liklihood of driving in a run).

Add up walks and hits and Rice has 3100, McGwire has around 2950. Rice had a few more RBIs, and on a lot less HRs, to boot. McGwire struck out 10% more than Rice, in 1/3 less at bats (so even with a higher OBP, he also wasted a much higher % of ABs).

I'm don't know that Rice was better than McGwire (obviously not the case, by OPS). I just don't think a comparison between those two players is what HOF voters will make. Since I'm not a sabrehead, I don't know each one's career VORP+ or what not, and I also think it's impossible to work under the assumption that steroids are irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Tim Raines' OPS+ was similar to Rice he played for longer and he had much more value running and defensively.

[/ QUOTE ]

The HOF isn't the HOL (for longevity). The difference between Raines' and Rice's OPS and OBP was about the same, with one tilted in Rice's favor, and the other in Raines'. Rice had four 200 hit seasons, Raines none.


[ QUOTE ]
McGwire >>>>>>> Kingman.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt, and that's why McGwire at least gets a reasonable number of votes. But being >>>>>>> Kingman does not = getting into the HOF.