It's been my signature literally since the day the 2009 Hall of Fame ballot was released, because I knew this was coming. As I said then, "Can anyone explain to me how Jim Rice will get elected to the HoF this year, while Tim Raines won't come close? I just don't get it."

Well, that's exactly what happened. Jim Rice received 76.4% of the vote and was elected (that's 7 votes above the threshold, for those counting). Tim Raines, meanwhile, received just 22.6%, which is actually slightly lower than his total last year, his first year of eligibility.

To be honest, I have little recollection of seeing Raines, and none of Rice. I'm just not old enough. So, why do I feel this result is an outrage? Because as the numbers pan out, Raines was the superior player.

Let me point out here that I have nothing against Jim Rice himself, and I congratulate him on his induction. That doesn't change the fact that the primary arguments for him don't really hold water.

First, there's his career stats: .298/.352/.502; 2452 hits, 382 HRs, 1451 RBIs, 1249 runs, 128 OPS+

Not bad by any stretch, but there is a significant caveat here. Rice benefited significantly from Fenway Park. A look at his career home and road splits show this.

Home: .320/.374/.546 (.920 OPS)
Road: .277/.330/.459 (.789 OPS)

That's a career 131 point difference in OPS, much of it in Rice's specialty, slugging. While players will almost always have an advantage at home, this is a near Coors-like advantage. The much maligned for having a home park advantage Matt Holliday has only hit 56 points more of OPS at home than on the road in his career. Rice was not the only Red Sock of that era to have a big advantage. Given that his road performance is merely a bit above average, it's a problem.

Of course, the big argument for Rice is that he was the "most feared" hitter of his time, and frankly, this is a load of crap. For this, I'll just copy the argument I made last year.

In theory, “most feared hitter” should equal the best hitter, or close to it. From 1977-1979, this was true. After that though, Rice finished in top five in OPS just once in 1983. 1983 was also the only other year he finished top five in homers, total bases, and slugging. While Rice was good during the other seven seasons he was “most feared,” those four years were the only seasons where he was truly at the top

Again, if Rice was the “most feared hitter,” wouldn’t he have been intentionally walked a lot? In his career, the most times Rice was intentionally walked in a season was ten. Rice only ranked in the top ten three times.

To flesh out the IBB numbers, Rice ranks tied for 179th in career IBBs. This is less than such luminaries as BJ Surhoff, Von Hayes, Ed Kranepool, and Chris Speier, among many others. That doesn't exactly constitute fear in my eyes.

Finally, there's the argument that Rice led the AL in runs, RBIs, homers, htis, slugging percentage, and total bases from 1975-1986. That's all true, and that's great. However, as Joe Posnanski noted last year, a big reason for that was becuase Rice had a lot more at-bats that anyone else in that period. Only four others players were even within 1000. It's easy to have the most counting stats if you have the most at-bats.

Add it all up and while Rice was a fine player, there's not reasonable doubt to conclude the Rice did not deserve his election into the Hall of Fame.

On the next page...the case for Raines.