by Ken Rosenthal

Oh, I flip-flopped myself on Rice over the years, voting for him the first time I had the ballot in 1997, then stopping, then voting for him again starting in 2005. I fretted that he was too much of a one-dimensional slugger, too much of a beneficiary of Fenway Park — entirely reasonable criticisms.

The reason I resumed voting for Rice is that he met my first essential requirement for a Hall of Famer — 10-year dominance. Actually, Rice was prolific over a 12-year span, from 1975 to '86. And while he fell significantly short of generally accepted Hall standards, finishing his career 118 homers shy of 500 and 548 hits shy of 3,000, his election will not suddenly justify the candidacies of Dave Parker, Dale Murphy and other similar — but lesser — sluggers.

Andre Dawson, that's another story; I've made my feelings about him clear. But Dawson, who received 67 percent of the vote is making the same slow, steady climb that Rice did during his 15-year period of eligibility. Ditto for Bert Blyleven, who received 62.7 percent, a slight increase over his total last year. A player must receive 75 percent of the vote for induction.

Here's the good news for Dawson and Blyleven: The next three Hall elections lack first-ballot locks — Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin and Edgar Martinez are the big names in 2010, and the first timers in '11 and '12 are completely unremarkable. I'm confident that Dawson and Blyleven will be elected before the debates get truly hairy in '13, when Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and Curt Schilling become eligible.

As for the rest of the ballot, I'm puzzled that Tim Raines dropped from 24.3 percent to 22.6 percent in his second year — Raines was not Rickey Henderson, but he was a reasonable facsimile. I'm dismayed that Alan Trammell fell from 18.2 percent to 17.4 percent; he is unfairly penalized because he played in the same era as Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith.

Rosenthal's ballot

Ken Rosenthal's Hall of Fame ballot features some controversial names. Check out his picks for Cooperstown. My picks: Bert Blyleven Andre Dawson Rickey Henderson Tim Raines Jim Rice Lee Smith Alan Trammell

One final note about voting for the Hall, something that occurred to me while pondering Rice's chances in his final year of eligibility. Rice received 72.2 percent of the vote last year, missing election by just 16 votes. I wondered: How many writers will vote for Rice this year simply because they do not want to be the one who keeps him out of Cooperstown?

I know what you're thinking: Voters should not be influenced by such thinking; a player is either a Hall of Famer or he is not. Well, it's easier for someone who is not a voter to take that view; I know this to be true, because that is exactly how I felt until I gained 10-year membership in the BBWAA and qualified for the vote.

The Hall of Fame vote is a staggering responsibility; voters effectively determine the legacies of the game's all-time greats. Out in the blogosphere, or even the real world, one's opinion is just that — an opinion. But if I had been inclined to deny Rice, I am not sure that I would have followed through and become, potentially, the last naysayer.

Don't get this wrong: I am not an advocate of "groupthink." But we're talking about human beings, both the voters and the players. If, entering a given election, a voter knew that more than 400 of his or her peers were likely to vote for a certain player, then he or she would need to feel awfully strongly about holding out. To me, it would be almost heartless, borderline cruel.

In the end, Rice received 412 votes, seven more than required. The debate over his candidacy isn't over. It never will be. But Rice, at least, need not listen to the arguments any longer. Now and forever, he's a Hall of Famer.