HOF : Tim Raines

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

This is where I disagree with you and many purists.

I don't know when it was assumed that the Hall of Fame is the Hall of the Greatest Players Ever.

All I see is Fame. The Hall has memorabillia from games no one could really care about when you think about it. I believe Schilling's bloody sock is in there. Really? Is that more worthy than Tim Raines career? Lets be serious.

It's the Hall of Fame. If you are someone most people can sit back and say, "That player was great for baseball" then you deserve to be in the Hall in my book.

Right now 70% of the people that have voted agree. That's overwhelming to me and justifies his position.

I see that Jamie compared Rice to Luis Gonzalez. Again, the difference is Rice was a great player of his time while Gonzalez is considered a player that had a few jumpout years but was never considered at the top of his position during his playing years.

In my opinion, that puts Rice in the Hall because everyone knows he was a great player in his time. Gonzalez was never considered a great player.

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.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

This is where I disagree with you and many purists.

I don't know when it was assumed that the Hall of Fame is the Hall of the Greatest Players Ever.

All I see is Fame. The Hall has memorabillia from games no one could really care about when you think about it. I believe Schilling's bloody sock is in there. Really? Is that more worthy than Tim Raines career? Lets be serious.

It's the Hall of Fame. If you are someone most people can sit back and say, "That player was great for baseball" then you deserve to be in the Hall in my book.

Right now 70% of the people that have voted agree. That's overwhelming to me and justifies his position.

I see that Jamie compared Rice to Luis Gonzalez. Again, the difference is Rice was a great player of his time while Gonzalez is considered a player that had a few jumpout years but was never considered at the top of his position during his playing years.

In my opinion, that puts Rice in the Hall because everyone knows he was a great player in his time. Gonzalez was never considered a great player.

I agree with YankeePride.

I was 11 when the first nationally published Bill James Baseball Abstract came out. It had a profound impact on how I view baseball performance. I believe in sabermetric baseball analysis. If the question is "which player produced the most runs in year x or over the course of their careers", then I'm happy to use just about any modern metric and accept the results accordingly.

But I draw a line when it comes to the Hall of Fame. It's easy now in hindsight to say so and so's VORP or WARP3 was better than Jim Rice's. So if Rice gets voted in then so should so and so. I don't agree with this. Jim Rice, rightly or wrongly, was famous. He had 6 top 5 MVP finishes. 8 All Star Games. And was the most feared slugger in the AL for the better part of a decade.

Modern statistical analysis says that maybe he wasn't quite the stud that people viewed him to be at the time. But you can't change the fact that he was viewed in that regard. Guys like Moises Alou, Joe Carter and Luis Gonzalez were never thought of this way (well maybe Luis was in his fluke year). In fact those three guys combined have a grand total of 5 top five MVP finishes.

And after all of this, I'm not necessarily advocating Jim Rice for the Hall. I'm just pointing out that the people who watched Rice then thought of him as a HoF-type player (and I'm old enough to remember the hype). So I'd be fine with his induction without using the if he's in then ______ and _____ should be in, too.

[The Professor]

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.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by The Professor

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.

Dawson played a huge chunk of his career in Montréal, and so did Gary Carter. If a Montréal bias exists, it can't be the only reason he got such a low score.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Dawson played a huge chunk of his career in Montréal, and so did Gary Carter. If a Montréal bias exists, it can't be the only reason he got such a low score.

Raines doesn't have the 1986 Mets or a 1987 MVP award to polish his image.

I wonder if Carter, who was probably a HOFer anyway, didn't have his productive few years in the New York limelight (including a legendary championship season) if he'd have gotten as much support.

Same goes for Dawson. I don't think people really "woke up" to Dawson until he got out of Montreal and became a Cubs 'superstar.'

Raines was merely solid in his post-Montreal career. If he'd posted one of his vintage Montreal-era seasons in a hotter market, I bet you'd see a bigger percentage of voters behind him.

Anyway, I don't think Montreal is the sole reason Raines is jilted. I think it is part of it, but mostly I just don't think people understand or appreciate his particular brand of excellence.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

This is where I disagree with you and many purists.

I don't know when it was assumed that the Hall of Fame is the Hall of the Greatest Players Ever.

All I see is Fame. The Hall has memorabillia from games no one could really care about when you think about it. I believe Schilling's bloody sock is in there. Really? Is that more worthy than Tim Raines career? Lets be serious.

It's the Hall of Fame. If you are someone most people can sit back and say, "That player was great for baseball" then you deserve to be in the Hall in my book.

Right now 70% of the people that have voted agree. That's overwhelming to me and justifies his position.

I see that Jamie compared Rice to Luis Gonzalez. Again, the difference is Rice was a great player of his time while Gonzalez is considered a player that had a few jumpout years but was never considered at the top of his position during his playing years.

In my opinion, that puts Rice in the Hall because everyone knows he was a great player in his time. Gonzalez was never considered a great player.

I find myself sympathetic to this. I'm not sure the only criterion for the Hall of Fame should be how good a player someone was. There are things like how much of impact he had on the game and, of course, how famous he was. I know these are subjective, but that's why there's a vote rather than a formula to figure out who is in. Now, I've seen people put together a Hall of Merit before, and that's not a bad idea, but I think performance is only one of the criteria that should be considered when thinking about HOF credentials.

That said, I still think Raines belongs in there.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

OTH, Raines was not among the dominant OFs of his era.

7 straight all star games while playing in Montreal. It's an overrated award, but surely that should say something about how he was viewed at the time.

On a side note, the more I look into it, the more amazed I am at the similarities between Dave Parker and Jim Rice. They had incredibly similar careers, even down to the way they were perceived during their own time.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by The Professor

You are being a provocateur.

If I was able to pick between the two to play for my real life baseball team (as opposed to a stat-based baseball RPG) I would take Dawson over Raines. He was a 5 tool player and had the power to turn a game around fast.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I dont think Dawson is getting his proper respect. What would his offensive numbers have looked like had he played in a HR friendly park?

[bababui]

Originally Posted by The Professor

You are being a provocateur.

DOLA

To say that Tim Raines was a better defensive player than Dawson..now thats provocative.

[CMH]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

OTH, Raines was not among the dominant OFs of his era.

I see where you are going with this and my defense is who Raines is compared to. It seems to me that people want to point out his lack of power or RBI. His slugging isn't high enough is what others say. He doesn't have that flashy OPS. And of course he wouldn't because he wasn't knocking in 30 homeruns a season.

Raines is the type of player that needs to be evaluated differently. He was a prototypical leadoff hitter and should be valued as such. I understand that he played in a time when outfielders were dominating the power numbers. If a guy played LF he was a power hitter. That's just how it was. Raines wasn't. He was a leadoff guy that happened to play the outfield.

I guess what I mean is this. If Tim Raines were a 2B instead then would people view him differently? They would be saying that he was perhaps one of the greatest 2B of his time alongside Ryne Sandberg.

It's a bit unfair that Rickey Henderson doesn't get the "He wasn't a power hitting OF" comments but Raines does.


And it really bothers me when people say, "He doesn't look like a Hall of Famer though I haven't looked at the numbers." Man, that pisses me off and it really shouldn't because it's just a vote. Is this what the voters have come down to? Picking a guy they feel should be a Hall of Famer because he just looks like one to them? That's really sad.

I keep seeing that same argument for Blyleven. That's sickening.

Dave Buscema, against Bert Blyleven
"And I can let the mediocre win-loss record go a bit because he played for so many poor teams and excelled in the postseason when given the chance … but ultimately I still would have liked to have seen at least a little better winning percentage and/or more Cy Young votes, an ERA title and more than one 20-win season in 22 years."

Can we all have a collective "wow" at this? I can let his winning percentage go a bit but I'm not going to vote for him because of his winning percentage. WHAT? And since when does Cy Young votes have anything to do with Hall of Fame credentials?

What I see when I look at Blyleven is an unlucky pitcher who still won close to 300 games. He's a guy that just happened to take that loss that a lot of star pitchers didn't. He had a career 3.31 ERA. And while I'm not trying to argue that makes him great, surely no one can say that a 3.31 ERA is bad.

Funny enough, Nolan Ryan, the sure thing Hall of Famer, had a lower winning percentage than Blyleven but that didn't stop the voters. It stops them for Bert, though.

The other argument he brings up is only one 20-win season. Ryan had two. Anyway, I got off on a tangent.

Gerry Fraley, against Tim Raines
"Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage."

Raines stole 808 bases. That was Fraley's argument. Should I even expand on how silly his argument sounds?

Tracy Ringolsby, against Tim Raines
"The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman's five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don't see Coleman as a Hall of Famer."

Let me start his off with a resounding "HAHAHA!" Vince Coleman outperformed Tim Raines? Read Ringolsby's statement again. He just said that Coleman's top five years were better than Raines' top five years.

I'm going to use OPS+ to find Raines' WORST five years (not including 79, 80. That's right, I'll even use 2002).

Tim Raines
2002 OPS+ 66
98 Games, .191/.351/.258 (BA/OBP/SLG), 23 TB, 0 SB

1999 OPS+ 79
.215/ .337/ .341, 46 TB, 4 SB

1982 OPS+ 101
277 .353 .369, 4 HR, 43 RBI, 78 SB

1994 OPS+ 101
.266 .365 .409, 10 HR, 52 RBI, 10 SB

1998 OPS+ 107
.290 .395 .383, 5 HR, 47 RBI, 8 SB

Lets compare that to Vince Coleman's TOP Five years.

Vince Coleman

1992 OPS+ 104
.275 .355 .358, 2 HR, 21 RBI, 24 SB

1990 OPS+ 104
.292 .340 .400, 6 HR, 39 RBI, 77 SB

1995 OPS+ 92
.288 .343 .398, 5 HR, 29 RBI, 42 SB

1991 OPS+ 92
.255 .347 .327, 1 HR, 17 RBI, 37 SB

1987 OPS+ 91
.289 .363 .358, 3 HR, 43 RBI, 109 SB


There you have it. Vince Coleman's BEST seasons just barely beat out Tim Raines' WORST seasons. What is Ringolsby talking about then?

Keep in mind that each of these guys are voters.

[Long_Long_Name]

Ringolsby seems to be misinformed. However, Fraley's argument marks a profound misunderstanding of the game of baseball. He's basically saying that he won't vote for Raines because he is a smart baserunner who was very efficient. What would he rather have, a baserunner who gets his team in trouble? It's akin to saying Player A is better than Player B because even though he has a lower batting average (and probably OBP and SLG), he really wanted to hit every ball the pitcher threw at him, he didn't wait for his pitch like self-centered Player B did.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by bababui

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I dont think Dawson is getting his proper respect. What would his offensive numbers have looked like had he played in a HR friendly park?

Like Wrigley?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by bababui

If I was able to pick between the two to play for my real life baseball team (as opposed to a stat-based baseball RPG) I would take Dawson over Raines. He was a 5 tool player and had the power to turn a game around fast.

hitting for average - Raines
hitting for power - Dawson
baserunning - Raines
throwing ability - Dawson
fielding abilities - Raines

I just don't follow the argument here, I guess. Raines was a better hitter, a better baserunner, and a better fielder, but for reasons I can't fathom Dawson was apparently a better player. I'm guessing it involves his leadership on those 1987 Cubbies.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

hitting for average - Raines
hitting for power - Dawson
baserunning - Raines
throwing ability - Dawson
fielding abilities - Raines

The fielding abilities are up for grabs and Dawson is better at baserunning than Raines is at hitting for power. And Dawsons arm saved more than a few runs for his pitching staff by making runners stop at second on a base hit with a runner at first.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Like Wrigley?

For his entire career.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by bababui

The fielding abilities are up for grabs and Dawson is better at baserunning than Raines is at hitting for power.

Dawson leads in extra base hits 1039-713, SLG .482 to .425.
Raines leads in steals 808-314, SB% 84-74.

I think you might be able to argue that they offset each other. Regardless, Raines was a more productive hitter since he had a higher OPS and OPS+, even if you don't readjust OBP/SLG so they're on a similar scale. When you factor in baserunning, their offensive contributions aren't even close - Raines was contributing over 6.5 runs per game (i.e. 27 outs) and Dawson a little under 5.5.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by bababui

For his entire career.

Nah, just for the one season that puts him into hall discussions.

For a guy whose credentials rely entirely on his power hitting, you'd think he'd have more than 3 30-homer seasons. Hell, Joe Carter had 4 before the power explosion.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by bababui

For his entire career.

It's the first time I hear of someone adjusting career stat in order to deneutralize them and make them look out of whack .

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Nah, just for the one season that puts him into hall discussions.

For a guy whose credentials rely entirely on his power hitting, you'd think he'd have more than 3 30-homer seasons. Hell, Joe Carter had 4 before the power explosion.

Dale Murphy had four 35+ HR seasons...in a row...in the mid-80's.

[ctorg]

You know, I'm starting to think that writers are not well-equipped to be the ones voting guys into the HOF. They simply don't know the game well enough. Maybe they once did know more than most others, but they have clearly been far surpassed in their baseball knowledge by the fantasy baseball community in particular.