Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua
I once read some writer who said his own voting criteria was to vote on players who were the dominant players for their position during their given era. I've always felt that to be the best guide and using it I agree that Rice goes in as he was unquestionably the top slugger of his era. OTH, Raines was not among the dominant OFs of his era. Yes, he was certainly one of the better ones, but not one of the two or three guys you point to and say he's the best.
|
But this seems to be based almost entirely on perception - and perception can be misleading. It is almost as bad as Steve Phillips saying "I haven't looked at the numbers, but Tim Raines just doesn't 'feel' like a Hall of Famer to me."
I think it is
highly questionable that Jim Rice was the "top slugger of his era." Short career, short peak, atrocious home-road splits. I think, unquestionably, the greatest slugger of
Rice's era was Mike Schmidt. The media remained dazzled by Rice's amazing '78-'79 and his performance in Fenway Park long after they should have wised up that he was an illusory player. Hype and thunder with a serious lack of fundamental substance. Rice is a case of if they say "it" enough, "it" must be true. But the people saying "it" were blind, dumb, or both.
And Tim Raines probably was one of the two or three best guys out there, but he played in Montreal so not many folks were pointing at him. They should have been. Arguably the best lead-off hitter in the history of the National League, certainly the National League answer to Rickey Henderson and no slouch in that regard.
Raines had a strong overall career, probably should have gotten the magical 3,000 hit mark (see posts above), excelled at things that were unappreciated, played his best seasons - and they
were brilliant - in a media backwater. To rely on perception or "feel" where Raines is concerned is, I think, to commit a grave injustice.
