The second baseman needs to worry about him stealing; the shortstop has to worry about the ball getting away on a throw

Hey, even I would worry!

- A.E. Neuman

I remember my first official at-bat in the major leagues--it was against Nolan Ryan

Raines is kind of like Tim McCarver. His first at bat was against Dick Tidrow. He didn't face Ryan until his third plate appearance.

But I bet Will Clark remembers his first MLB at bat which really was against Nolan Ryan.

Who kidnapped Tim Raines and replaced him with Joe Morgan?

Raines is kind of like Tim McCarver. His first at bat was against Dick Tidrow. He didn't face Ryan until his third plate appearance.

Was Ryan his first start? If so, close enough.

look folks, the human memory stinks, whether it's Raines', McCarver's or yours. just thank your lucky stars there's no retrosheet available for your life.

I remember my first post on Primer, I think it was in the PETCO thread.

We could check, if I hadn't been raped.

just thank your lucky stars there's no retrosheet available for your life.

Amen to that, sir.

I can't remember my first post and it was about 2 months ago.

Raines belongs in the HOF. He's not a sure thing to make it, though. I expect he might have to wait 3-4 years more. But he deserves enshrinement. I'd rate him as a slightly lesser player than Lou Brock was, though Rock's career was longer.

You would really put Raines behind Brock? I'm a Cardinals fan and I don't think it's all that close. Brock is statistically a borderliner (who I feel deserves to make it because of the hits, the stolen bases, the postseason play and recognizability - i.e., his status as one of the legends of baseball), I think Raines was quite a bit better.

I loved Tim Raines as a kid. The one and only time I ever called a sports talk show was when I was 12 and someone from the A's FO was on. The season had just ended and the two big free agents were Jack Morris and Tim Raines. I called in baseically to beg the A's guy to sign Raines whom I loved as a player and because he seemed the perfect replacement for Rickey!. He gave a long answer how free agency wasn't the answer and so on and so on. I think we all know now the real reason they had no interest.

Raines is the best player in the short history of the Montréal Expos. I think Vlad had more pure talent, but nobody in the Expos history played the game bettern than Raines.

Raines belongs in the HOF. He's not a sure thing to make it, though.

I'd say he is pretty close to a sure thing not to make. It expect that he will fall off the ballot after a couple years.

Not that I think that is right.

I'd say he is pretty close to a sure thing not to make. It expect that he will fall off the ballot after a couple years.

You're probably right, Matt. I see Raines as a possible Vet selection, but not from the BBWAA.

The one and only time I ever called a sports talk show was when I was 12 and someone from the A's FO was on

That was you?!

That was you?!

Yep. Thankfully, my voice sounded manly on the radio.

I can't remember my first post this morning, & it was about 5 minutes ago.

Well, OK, yeah, I can. I exaggerate. Sue me.

Also, as I've noted before (in other posts that I don't remember), Tim Raines is 2 days older than me. I am old.

You would really put Raines behind Brock? ... I think Raines was quite a bit better.

I'm willing to be convinced I was wrong. I think of them together because of their similar base-stealing prowess. I've just looked up Raines's numbers on b-ref, and notably it says his No. 1 comp is actually Brock; and Brock's No. 1 is Raines. Their raw averages are strikingly similar:

Brock: .293/.343/.410
Raines: .294/.385/.425

Yet with a .057 raw OPS edge, Raines wins that score. Adjusting for era, league and ballpark, these are their career OPS+ numbers:

Brock: 109
Raines: 123

And their EqA, EqR, and WARP3's for career, all of which favor Raines:

Brock: .282 EqA, 1634 EqR, 87.4 WARP3
Raines: .302 EqA, 1638 EqR, 132.3 WARP3

While Brock did steal 130 more bases, he did have an additional 291 attempts. In other words, in his 291 extra tries to take a base, Brock was thrown out 55% of the time. Hence, Raines had better value as a base stealer, too.

Defensively, I don't know how to compare them. I saw much of Raines's career and very little of Brock's. (Check that -- in the years that Raines was in the majors, I was watching a lot of baseball, but of course missed 99% of his games.) Perhaps someone has a meaningful metric to compare Brock and Raines in the field? All I know is that neither one won a Gold Glove, though that doesn't mean too much. Brock actually played about 400 more games in the field than Raines did.

Adding it all up, my initial statement was wrong. Raines was the better player. However, perhaps because I (incorrectly) remembered Brock as better, that is indicative of how many people think of these two? I think part of it is because Brock retired in the late '70s (when I was 15) as "the all-time stolen base leader." Raines doesn't have any "all-time records." And as such, he might be overlooked for his more generalized excellence.

I grew up a Lou Brock fan, and I've been one of his defenders over at the Hall of Merit. However, Brock was no Raines, although the distance between Raines and Brock is smaller than the distance between Raines and Henderson.

As for defense: the Cubs initially hoped that Brock could play CF, but they eventually concluded that he didn't belong there. That is part of the background of the 1964 trade. Brock was fast, of course, but he was erratic and error-prone. He took bad routes and had a weak arm. While you'd generally rather have a fast erratic guy in LF than a Luzinski/Watson type, that doesn't make him a good outfielder. Raines couldn't throw, either, but apart from that he was an excellent outfielder who could and did play some CF.

Rich, I'd think Raines has a pretty fair defensive edge too. Well to be fair Brock appears to have aged better. Young Raines looks to me to have been a fair bit better than young Brock. I think I'd rather have had Brock in the field from their mid-30s on.

To me it seems clear that Raines was a much better player at their respective bests, while they're pretty decent comps
outside their primes.

Dale Stephenson has Raines with the 8th best peak of any LF. And enough of an edge over Frank Howard and Ralph Kiner in defensive value and off peak to move him up to 6th. And he's close enough to Stargell as an offensive player to consider moving him above Stargell. And that to me best sums up Raines' HOF case. If there's a real discussion as to whether he's better than Willie Stargell, he's a HOFer.

(Dale lists Musial as a RF, since more of his prime was spent in RF than at any other position. Obviously if you consider Musial a LF, Raines drops a spot)

Brock used to wear that Brockabrella. That should count for something.

IIRC, Brock was a butcher in the OF. Overall, Raines was far better than Brock, and it isn't particularly close.

Unfortunately, I think MHS is correct -- Raines has very little chance of getting elected.

I think it is very likely that Raines will get hosed, except for one thing: So many sabre types are so sure that he will get hosed, that I have to feel the universe may be ripe for a contrarian outburst.

If it is, it will take the form of a BBWAA backlash against the "steroids-generated power game" and "one dimensional sluggers clogging up the basepaths", by getting all gushy about stolen bases and the importance of speed at the top of the line-up -- thus missing the point, but doing the right thing by accident.

I've done this before, but I like repeating it:

Raines: 6527 outs, 1548 runs, 964 RBI. That gives 2512 R+RBI or 2342 R+RBI-HR.

Boggs: 6566 outs, 1513 runs, 1014 RBI. That gives 2527 R+RBI or 2409 R+RBI-HR.

Both R and RBI are dependent on lineup position and teammates. The lineup positions may not be all that different - both of them batted both leadoff and 3rd in their careers, although the mix is a little different. As for teammate context - I doubt that that's an advantage for Raines.

Yes, there's a large difference in OPS between the two - but the R+RBI is the same. (And yes, a 3B is worth more on defense than a LF.)

IIRC, Brock was a butcher in the OF. Overall, Raines was far better than Brock, and it isn't particularly close.

Brock was a bad outfielder; in addition to taking poor routes on balls in the air he also had a lot of trouble fielding bouncing/rolling balls. The turf fields that were common in the NL in his day gave him fits. I don't know of any easy way to check this but Brock may have played more doubles into triples than any leftfielder in history.

You guys are all PWNED, by the way - Raines' first at-bat was against Nolan Ryan. I've been informed that the May 28 game was suspended and not finished until August 8, with Raines getting his Tidrow at-bat in August, but Retrosheet going by the day the game was started. If you need to verify it, just look at the lineups - that "May" boxscore also has the Cubs with Cliff Johnson, who wasn't acquired until June.

"Historical revisionists of today, not satisfied with trying to turn Thomas Jefferson into a tyrant, convert Dwight Eisenhower into an intellectual, and wash the blood from the hands of Robespierre, have begun arguing that Lou Brock was a good outfielder. That, gentlemen, is going too far. There are too many of us still alive who saw the man play. Lou had no arm and a tendency to freeze up on balls hit right at him."

- Bill James

Brock led the NL in outfielder errors seven times, which is a major league record.