Between Olbermann and Pearlman, this morning Repoz is in fine nausea-inducing form.

Between Olbermann and Pearlman, this morning Repoz is in fine nausea-inducing form.

Yeah, but if it weren't for Repoz's pinata posts, the traffic wouldn't justify the flat belly and PED ads that have kept BTF going.

Worst. Ballot. Ever?

Wow.

Just awful.

Why is it that for all the talk of sportswriters condemning stats, they can't spot a great player if it bites them in the ass?

I am amazed at how little support Raines seems to get. I always viewed him as a top run producer and good defensive player. If I recall, Bill James had him rated as one of the top(if not the top?) player of the late 80s. Let the abuse begin. :-)

Fail.

If nothing else, Olberman and Pearlman's pretend ballots show that, in fact, things could be worse.

After seeing this ballot, I'm pleased to see that Olbermann doesn't have an actual vote.

Wow. I must apologize. After years of saying this idiot should stick to sports since he knows nothing about politics or world affairs, I have to admit I was wrong. Compared to his understanding of sports his political acumen is at least sophomoric.

I now have another reason to dislike Olbermann. I take the opposite of every one of his.

I am amazed at how little support Raines seems to get.

Well, he didn't hit 0.300 for his career. He didn't get to 3000 hits. His last All-Star game was at the age of 27. His career after that involved a 15-year slow decline from star to pinch hitter. His base stealing is remembered as second best of his time to the Greatest of All Time. Leadoff hitters don't get respect. He's a left fielder who had a lot of non-hitting value getting compared to the pure hitters at the position.

Raines should be better supported in these things, but it's not hard to see why he isn't.

I agree (I think) with Ryan's implicit suggestion that if Raines were not a contemporary of Rickey, he'd get more squeezy sportswriter love.

Would we let Bonds come back in?

Who is "we"?

This has less to do with racism than the fact that Bonds has, from what I understand (I don't know the guy), shown himself to be a selfish first-class jerk in many instances.

And I said it then, I'll say it now, McGwire's performance in front of Congress was just fine. He didn't owe me, or Congress, anything, and was in a vulnerable position and was protecting himself.

If he did "do" anything back in the day, the only reason I'd care for him to come forward now and "confess" is so that "we" can forgive him and I can stop reading this self-righteous nonsense.

Well, he didn't hit 0.300 for his career. He didn't get to 3000 hits. His last All-Star game was at the age of 27. His career after that involved a 15-year slow decline from star to pinch hitter. His base stealing is remembered as second best of his time to the Greatest of All Time. Leadoff hitters don't get respect. He's a left fielder who had a lot of non-hitting value getting compared to the pure hitters at the position.

Add: His best years were in Montreal. No player suffered more numerically from labor issues than him (two stoppages and a month missed due to collusion during his best season). Unlike Paul Molitor, his cocaine use was damaging.

What's amazing is not that Keith has blind spots--who doesn't--but that he has so many. This is a worse ballot than Pearlman's, which is hard to believe.

No player suffered more numerically from labor issues than him (two stoppages and a month missed due to collusion during his best season).

*Cough* Fred McGriff *Cough*

To me, Raines would be second on that list of guys screwed by the strike. Baines would be third, since it probably cost him a chance to chase 3000.

well, someone finally made the BBWAA writers look good.

Keith Olbermann - dumber than Bill O'Reilley and 10 dogs?

This article is just a horrible string of non-sequiturs. I officially declare it "the worst article of the week". And god knows it has got some serious competition.

*Cough* Fred McGriff *Cough*

You should get that checked out.

I wasn't limiting it to the perception of him, but also the actual damage to his career numbers. Crime Dog simply doesn't compare (remember, Timmy was around for both the 81 and 94-95 stoppages, plus the 87 collusion was damn near his alone).

And while 500 would surely help Crime Dog's chances, it in no way would have made him a lock.

There are legitimate arguments against Raines, the thing that I always find weird is that for me he WAS the intangibles guy. I guess what seems odd to me is that if Rice and Morris get all that credit for being feared and gritty and "winner" ballplayers, why Raines doesn't get it. I was young when he was playing and he really sticks out in my memories as THAT GUY.

Keith, stick to bashing Limbaugh. This is indeed the worst ballot ever. Dumber than O'Reilly. I mean, this is cultivated ignorance.

Now I'm wondering what Bill O'Reilly's HOF vote would look like.

Does O'Reilly actually follow baseball?

I'd love to see a Glen Beck ballot (the actual ballot, since I'd want to see if it was tear-stained).

If there was any doubt Olberman is a moron, he has removed it.

As for Bonds as hitting coach, sign me up from everything I've read he was quite the student of hitting.

25: I've sat close to O'Reilly at Shea stadium a couple of times. He did spend more time looking around the crowd with that typical vacuous "nobody home" stare, and usually left before the 7th inning stretch - I always figured he wanted to pound a few more Buds while he still could before heading back home to his Erin Andrews video collection.

I always figured he wanted to pound a few more Buds while he still could before heading back home to his Erin Andrews video collection.

Or perhaps he wanted to go get some falafel.

How do you possibly like Baines if you think he's hurt by his hit total? Isn't that his whole case?

This is an amazing ballot in its ability to go in the exact opposite of sensible on every single item.

What a horrible ballot. It's hard to imagine someone getting it more wrong.

No on Larkin because he didn't "feel" like a HOFer (despite winning an MVP and going to TWELVE All-Star games), but yes on Baines (who hung around for 15 years after his prime churning out decent but not special offensive seasons and playing DH).

Wow.

SABR member Olbermann was an early Abstract dude, wrote the foreword for BPro 2009...and now this.

the only reason I'd care for him to come forward now and "confess" is so that "we" can forgive him and I can stop reading this self-righteous nonsense

The sorry truth is that "we" wallow in self-righteous nonsense. It is never going to stop.

Does O'Reilly actually follow baseball?

I'd love to see a Glen Beck ballot

Personally the ballot I'd like to see is Geo. Will's. We know he follows the game. I'm just thinking his ballot would be Bud Selig and nine owners.

Raines is one of the best leadoff hitters of ALL TIME. He had the misfortune, if you can call it that, of being a contemporary of Rickey Henderson. You would keep Gehrig out because he wasn't as good ad Ruth. Raines was a much better player than Brock (if you look at OBP, steals, SB pct, power, HRs etc).

[33]: and TLR

Worst Fake Ballot in the World!

Raines is one of the best leadoff hitters of ALL TIME.

Ugh. I hate this particular line of argument

Raines was one of the X (hundred?) best players of all time and one of the Y (ten?) best to play his position. He played good defense (in an unimportant position) and provided good offense. Much of his offensive contribution was particularly well-tailored for someone batting in the leadoff position. That's all true enough and is probably reason enough to vote for him.

However, saying Raines was one of the best leadoff hitters of all time, while true, is damning with faint praise. Henderson is acknowledged to be a better leadoff hitter, but so would be people like Ted Williams and Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby and Stan Musial and Mickey Mantle and... and so on, except that they were all so much better at slugging than Raines that their abilities to get on base were outweighed by their ability to drive runners in. Saying someone is a really good leadoff-hitter merely speaks to the distribution of their offensive talents, and being a "good leadoff hitter" is considerably less valuable than being "a good number three hitter" (assuming both are equally good relative to their spot in the order). There are no good leadoff hitters who, with 100 more points of SLG, wouldn't hit 3 or 4 (see Barry Bonds).

So talk about his being a good hitter and use that for a reason for his being in the Hall of Fame. But don't talk about his belonging in the HOF for his being a good leadoff hitter. The "good leadoff hitter" merely talks to the shape of his offensive contributions, not to their quality. That Raines provided value through hitting singles and stealing bases does not make it any more or less valuable than someone who did it by hitting home runs (once the contributions are weighted accordingly). We shouldn't give credit to Raines for the shape of the value, so long as we can properly determine the value itself.

EDIT: Ignore the third sentence of the second paragraph. It's true enough, but I wish that I had removed it from that paragraph and placed it elsewhere -- by leaving it there, I seem to be suggesting the flip of what I'm arguing, that his well-tailored-ness is a reason to vote for him. He was well-tailored for leadoff, but that is not a reason to vote (or not vote) for him.

Why is it that for all the talk of sportswriters condemning stats, they can't spot a great player if it bites them in the ass?

Ah yes, the Piazza Test.

No player suffered more numerically from labor issues than him (two stoppages and a month missed due to collusion during his best season).

*Cough* Fred McGriff *Cough*

Prorate his '81, '94 & '95 season rates and Eddie Murray's RBI total passes Foxx, Cobb, Musial, Gehrig and 2,000, thus Bonds never passes him. Murray would be below only Aaron and Ruth in the modern-era. I'd say that'd bolster his rep at little.

his cocaine use was damaging

OK, clearly this can't be known.

"Now I'm wondering what Bill O'Reilly's HOF vote would look like."

I found Bill O's ballot on-line at Youarejustanunwhatthehelldoyouknowaboutbeingarealcatholicyoupinhead.com. Here it is, including his commentary:

Roberto Alomar - How do you say no in Spanish?
Kevin Appier - Is this guy French?
Bert Blyleven - He wasn't even born in this country.
Andre Dawson - Another French guy?
Andres Galarraga - Can you say Freedom Fries?
Pat Hentgen - Is Pat a he or a she?
Mike Jackson - Sorry, Jesse.
Eric Karros - No, but I love your corn syrup.
Barry Larkin - No commies, no pinkos, no Reds.
Don Mattingly - A white guy. A Yankee. A mustache.
Mark McGwire - My Irish eyes are smiling.
Dale Murphy - Never had a good season after age 31. But Irish, so yes.
Tim Raines - I'd rather vote for Claude Rains.
Lee Smith - Who was the pinhead who came up with the Save stat?
Alan Trammell - Never trust a guy named Alan: all liberals.
Robin Ventura - Is Robin a he or a she?
Todd Zeile - He was a Dodger, a Marlin and a Met. Must be gay.

I don't think [Roberto Alomar] was as good as Sandberg

Really?

Alomar: 10,400 PA at 116 OPS+, 12 time All-Star, 0 MVP, 1.91 career MVP shares, 10 gold gloves

Sandberg: 9,282 PA at 114 OPS+, 10 time All-Star, 1 MVP, 1.98 career MVP shares, 9 gold gloves

I think Alomar's post-season contributions push him over the top, even without the MVP title.

At age 34 he not only turned from a superstar into a fringe major leaguer, but he also turned into a millstone around the neck of a franchise.

Yeah, that's a rational reason to vote no on Alomar.

Alomar: 1,443 PA at 84 OPS+, $16.9M salary
Sandberg: 1,348 PA at 89 OPS+, $11.5M salary

OK, clearly this can't be known.

Now this time I was talking about reputation, which I thought was clear from the Molitor usage. Hell, if you were to make a guess based on their performance at the time, you'd have to conclude it was Raines who was less likely to have damaged his own efforts.

Prorate his '81, '94 & '95 season rates and Eddie Murray's RBI total passes Foxx, Cobb, Musial, Gehrig and 2,000, thus Bonds never passes him. Murray would be below only Aaron and Ruth in the modern-era. I'd say that'd bolster his rep at little.

Bonds still passes him, unless you're denying him the revised 94-95 numbers.

Baines: 11,092 PA at 120 OPS+, 6 time All-Star, 0 MVP, 0.29 career MVP shares, 0 gold gloves. Won't happen.

Harold Baines: Yes, just barely. He's hurt by the 2,866 hits - he's in that Buckner zone. Everybody else who got to Buckner's level of hits (2,763)...

BB-ref says Buckner got 2,715 hits, not 2,763. Other non-HOFers with more hits than Buckner: Rusty Staub had 2,716 hits. Al Oliver had 2,743. Vada Pinson had 2,757.

Everybody else who got to Buckner's level of hits (2,763) has gotten in, or will, or is Pete Rose.

Mr. Olbermann, I'd like you to meet Andre Dawson (2,774 hits) and Rafael Palmeiro (3,020 hits). Dawson MAY get in, no guarantees. Palmeiro will NOT get in if enough people take your stance on steroids, as evidenced in the McGwire synopsis.

Let's see how Keith's picks match up with Sean Smith's WAR data (from baseballprojection.com):

I wasn't limiting it to the perception of him, but also the actual damage to his career numbers. Crime Dog simply doesn't compare (remember, Timmy was around for both the 81 and 94-95 stoppages, plus the 87 collusion was damn near his alone).

What the strikes hurt about Raines isn't simply his numbers, but the narrative of his career. If you look at his BB-Ref page, he looks like a guy who was a regular from 1982 - 1992, a mere 11 seasons, with a decade of hang-around time (1981, 1993 - 2002). If you pro-rate his games played to account for the 1981 and 1994-95 strikes, though, you see that he was actually a regular for 15 seasons, 1981 - 1995 (with meaningful time missed in 1988 and 1993), with a mere handful of hang-around seasons at the end.

To really see and appreciate Tim Raines's Hall-of-Fame case, all you need to do is look at his Neutralized Stats on BB-Ref (scroll down maybe two-thirds of the way). Placed in a neutral context with full 162-game seasons throughout his career, Tim Raines was a lifetime .314 batter who batted .350 over a 4-year stretch from 1984 - 1987, had 3,001 hits in his career, as well as 976 SB (with 2 100-SB seasons) and 1,715 runs scored (25th alltime, if you don't neutralize anybody else's stats). That player's already in the Hall of Fame, having been inducted with Rickey this past summer.

Between Olbermann and Pearlman, this morning Repoz is in fine nausea-inducing form.

Pearlman's ballot isn't bad. He's got Blyleven and Raines going in, which means he gets the two obvious ones right. Alomar in is good. I'd put in a few others, but reasonable people could disagree. Larkin out and Morris in are his only big mistakes, and it could be a lot worse. Like Olbermann's.

He makes the same 2 glaring errors that Pearlman does, plus Raines and Alomar out, and Baines in. He also votes for McGriff, Dawson, and Murphy, who are defensible, but it means he's voting for 4 position players, none of whom are among the four most deserving on the ballot, even if you exclude McGwire because of special circumstances.

Worst. Ballot. Ever?

It just might be. The only thing he could do worse is leave off Blyleven in favor of Shane Reynolds. Which he's probably considering.

Eligible HOF Candidates With the Most Runs Scored, 1897-2004

1571 Tim Raines
1508 Roberto Alomar
1470 Dwight Evans
1386 Lou Whitaker
1373 Andre Dawson
1366 Vada Pinson
1359 Brett Butler
1357 Doc Cramer
1355 Tommy Leach
1349 Fred McGriff
1344 Darrell Evans
1329 Barry Larkin

Eligible HOF Candidates With the Highest OBP, minimum 9500 plate appearances, 1897-2004

.385 Tim Raines
.377 Fred McGriff
.377 Brett Butler
.371 Roberto Alomar
.371 Barry Larkin
.370 Dwight Evans
.363 Lou Whitaker

I used to flinch at that 3.90 ERA. There seems very little doubt that Tom Glavine will go in on the first ballot at 3.54.

Well, gee, when you put it like that.

unless you're denying him the revised 94-95 numbers

his cocaine use was damaging

OK, clearly this can't be known.

LOL, I read that as "[Raines'] cocaine use wasn't damaging [as Molitor's was]."

I'm currently dealing with my own chemical issues with tryptophan and lack of coffee, perhaps.

I don't recall ever during [Barry Larkin's] playing career having had even that Alomarian sense that this could be a Hall-of-Famer.

I do not understand voting in Alomar but not Larkin.

Alomar: 10,400 PA at 116 OPS+, 12 time All-Star, 0 MVP, 1.91 career MVP shares, 10 gold gloves
Larkin: 9,057 PA at 116 OPS+, 12 time All-Star, 1 MVP, 1.10 career MVP shares, 3 gold gloves

I understand Larkin had trouble staying healthy, but before Alomar declined, his career value was similar to Larkin's overall value:

Year           PA;   OPS;+
1988-2001 8957 121
2002-2004 1443 84

If we're looking to put a Reds shortstop in Cooperstown, it should be David Concepcion.

This is a pretty dumb thing to write.

Larkin: 9,057 PA at 116 OPS+, 12 time All-Star, 1 MVP, 1.10 career MVP shares, 3 gold gloves
Concepcion: 9,640 PA at 88 OPS+, 9 time All-Star, 0 MVP, 0.52 career MVP shares, 5 gold gloves

Win Shares puts Larkin way, way ahead of Concepcion, both peak and career.

With respect to gold gloves, Larkin and Concepcion are not that far apart for NL shortstops. (It didn't help Larkin that Larkin and Ozzie Smith overlapped.)

Gold Gloves wins by SS (NL):

1. Smith     13
2. Concepcion 5
3. McMillan   4
4. Ordonez    3
4. Rollins    3
4. Larkin     3


Gold Gloves wins by SS (both leagues):

1. Smith     13
2. Vizquel   11
3. Aparicio   9
4. Belanger   8
5. Concepcion 5
6. McMillan   4
6. Trammell   4
6. Fernandez  4
6. Jeter      4
10. Ordonez   3
10. Rollins   3
10. Larkin    3

So here is the complete list of all players since 1871 with 135+ HR, 430+ SB and 2100+ H in their career:

While I'm not going to deny the awesomeness of Raines at his peak, the criteria used to generate that list make me laugh a little.

That player's already in the Hall of Fame, having been inducted with Rickey this past summer.

Actually, that Rock was already in Cooperstown welcoming Rickey to the club, but otherwise you're exactly right. It's remarkable how much stuff outside his control (and, in most of those cases, stuff that shouldn't matter) is working against Raines' HoF case.

Sheesh! This ballot is a Gomez Addams' train wreck of epic proportions. I'll have to question anything he says about baseball from now on after this abomination.

[Raines] played good defense (in an unimportant position)

Did he? I'm surprised how pedestrian he comes out in TZ (+3 in his Montreal years, TZ + OFarm).

Unrelated oddity: In Chone's WAR, he's -18 on ROE in his career. I'm guessing that a lot of this is due to all his lefty PA's, and maybe some more is due to pulling the ball to the right side, but not many players are this far below avg. (The tops I've found so far are Yaz at -36 and interestingly, Charlie Hustle at -35.)

[43] Wow

[47] You bet me to the punch on #1 of the "Keith Olbermann is the worst moron" Countdown.

Morris is no Tom Glavine, but don't let pesky things like adjusting ERA for different run scoring environments bother you, Keith.

Morris:   3,824 IP at 105 ERA+ (46th all time with minimum 3,500 IP),  5 time All-Star, 0 CY, 0.73 CY career shares
Glavine: 4,413 IP at 118 ERA+ (20th all time with minimum 3,500 IP), 10 time All-Star, 2 CY, 3.15 CY career shares

Rank Name WAR Keith's Vote
58 Barry Larkin 68.8 NO
65 Edgar Martinez 67.2 NO
67 Alan Trammell 66.8 NO
79 Tim Raines 64.9 NO
84 Roberto Alomar 63.6 NO
87 Mark McGwire 63.2 NO
128 Andre Dawson 56.8 YES
163 Fred McGriff 50.5 YES
225 Dale Murphy 44.4 YES
324 Harold Baines 36.9 YES
375 Dave Concepcion 33.8 YES

You said it. The first thing I thought after reading Ketih's ballot was, "could this be any more ass-backwards?" Apparently not.

SABR member Olbermann was an early Abstract dude, wrote the foreword for BPro 2009...and now this.

Him writing the forward to BP was an embarrassment.

I used to flinch at that 3.90 ERA. There seems very little doubt that Tom Glavine will go in on the first ballot at 3.54.

That has to be the most overwhelmingly stupid statement in the whole mess. Glavine's ERA, though a little higher than norm for a HoF pitcher, is irrelevant to the conversation. He also has 50 more wins than Morris. You know wins are basically the entire argument for Morris (besides one post season game). If Glavine had the same number of wins as Morris he would wait a few years if not be left on the outside altogether. Beyond that, they were never regarded as similar level pitchers by contemporary observers. Glavine had twice as many All Star selections (10/5). Morris' best showing for CY was two third place finished. Glavine won twice and came in second two other times and third two more times. Mind you, I don't put a lot of stock in AS selections (only speaks to fast starts) and there is more than enough past mistakes on major awards, but the evidence is overwhelming that Glavine's eventual election should have no affect on Morris' consideration.

I'd love to see a Glen Beck ballot (the actual ballot, since I'd want to see if it was tear-stained).

Beck: "I just love the...(sob!)...Hall of Fame so much.
And I fear for it... (wah!!!)

It pains me to see Jeter listed with those excellent defensive shortstops.

Reading down the list of poster's...finally, something we can all agree on.
What a horrible ballot.

Reading down the list of poster's...finally, something we can all agree on.
What a horrible ballot.

Yeah, the McGwire vote aside (which has nothing to do with player evaluation in the usual sense), it really is a chamber of screwiness. That Larkin-Concepcion comment really takes the prize.

Pass.

I guess it doesn't quite say enough for a primey, but I really liked #43.

I used to flinch at that 3.90 ERA. There seems very little doubt that Tom Glavine will go in on the first ballot at 3.54. I’m looking more at the 254 wins and the clutch performances.

Keith's math skills make Fox News look positively literate.

.363 Lou Whitaker

Santo .362.

Can I put away the razor blades once I realize that he doesn't really have an actual vote?

[63] Thanks! I considered adding a link to my commentary, but the chart speaks volumes...

Having said that, Keith was able to successfully discern that Andres Galarraga was not a Hall of Famer. Well done, sir.

Lee Smith - Who was the pinhead who came up with the Save stat?

I think if you're doing "racist/xenophobe/moron O'Reilly ballot", you have to go for the save/slave joke.

Also, I saw this the other day and it's perfectly appropriate to link now: Sesame Street person goes on Bill's show, and brings along SS's O'Reilly muppet (who knew?), Spill O'Reilly. Bill does not seem amused. The reaction when Spill first starts yelling is priceless.

We shouldn't give credit to Raines for the shape of the value

I agree in general, but would give Raines style points for being a historically great base stealer.

Puck,

You could be looking at a park effect with the low ROE totals. That might explain Rose's as well.

Me: So here is the complete list of all players since 1871 with 135+ HR, 430+ SB and 2100+ H in their career:

Ryan: While I'm not going to deny the awesomeness of Raines at his peak, the criteria used to generate that list make me laugh a little.

It's admittedly a freakshow list [#46], but it's worth a little more comment. The first thing to see is that I didn't just draw a line under Raines' number and say "170+ HR, 800+ SB and 2600+ H." The minimum for each stat was set significantly below Raines' totals, and we still see the group comprised of only seven greats. (Well, six greats plus Brock.) If you just posed it as a trivia question: "How many players in history had 135 HR, 430 SB and 2100 hits?", I think most people would guess more than seven. And the fact that Raines far surpasses each of these marks points to his greatness.

What is it about becoming a sportswriter that turns you into someone who has opinions and even a few facts and yet specializes, more and more over your sentence as a sportswriter, in developing stupid, unfathomable opinions about baseball.

Alomar? No? Baines? Yes?

Call the men in white. Make sure they bring their nets.

#37
Provacative, leads down a number of baseball roads doesn't it?
Run expectancy
base and out state specifically,including his SB's and rate
notion of TEAM
"shape of the value" is heavy lifting
"distribution of their offensive talents" I get your edit

You can lead off a game once--so how did he do
you can lead off an inning any number of times--wondering how he did
and throw that in the mix

I used to think Olberman was great on Sportscenter but not so much on news.

Now I think he's probably better at news than he is at sports.

All of [57] and plus: a .36 difference in ERA over 4,000 innings is not at all insignificant.

Olbermann has to be trolling here. You can't be wrong on every single player unless it's on purpose.

He didn't get every single one wrong. He got Blyleven right, probably just to let everyone know he was ####### with them.

Roberto Alomar: No, just barely. I don’t think he was as good as Sandberg and I always said Sandberg shouldn’t go in before Joe Gordon.

Great, but now Joe Gordon is in. Does Olby not know that? Am I missing his point? I'm confused.

31 repoz - olbermann also wrote the 1975? sspc backs...

No on Larkin because he didn't "feel" like a HOFer (despite winning an MVP and going to TWELVE All-Star games), but yes on Baines (who hung around for 15 years after his prime churning out decent but not special offensive seasons and playing DH).

Not only that, but he used Alomar in the comparison of who feels like a HoFer to him... right after he said he wouldn't vote for Alomar!

It's been a long time, chimps. Here's my take on the first ballot guys on this year's HOF ballot.

http://www.hallofverygood.com/2009/07/hall-of-fame-class-of-2010.html

It's been a long time, chimps. Here's my take on the first ballot guys on this year's HOF ballot.

What the what?!? Sorry for the double-post sans hyperlink...not sure what's going on with this computer.

Oh well. I sleep now.

"How many players in history had 135 HR, 430 SB and 2100 hits?", I think most people would guess more than seven. And the fact that Raines far surpasses each of these marks points to his greatness.

Well, only 25 guys have 430+ steals in the post-1920 era (nobody hit HRs before then). And Lofton misses that list by 5 HR; Lopes misses it by 500 hits (that's a lot); Cedeno misses it by 13 hits; Bobby Bonds misses it by 214 hits. Add those names to your list and suddenly it's not so impressive.

That Raines "far" surpasses each of those marks is kinda pointless. 118 players have 135+ HR and 2100+ hits since 1920. Make the threshold 170 HR and 2600 hits (Raines' numbers) and you still get stellar names like Buckner, Oliver, Pinson, Staub, Brooks Robinson (not exactly known for his hitting), Parker and Baines. That makes his steals the only real signifier of his "greatness." It would probably be more convincing to just point at his runs scored.

On ROE, I wonder if there's an astroturf effect. Hard-hit grounders just shoot through for hits and never get a chance to become an error while regular grounders (or ones right at a guy) take a much truer hop.

On ROE, I wonder if there's an astroturf effect. Hard-hit grounders just shoot through for hits and never get a chance to become an error while regular grounders (or ones right at a guy) take a much truer hop.

Not just that, but fielders have more time to recover from a bobble and potentially bad throws (one-hoppers) were much easier to scoop by first basemen.

Hence my sense that Raines has a 5-year peak and not as much a career claim.

The road to Hall of Fame rejection hell is paved with voters who don't pitch your best case. Raines is in such a place.

Koufaxian-peak, with a better 2nd-5 years, is the way to go.

The road to Hall of Fame rejection hell is paved with voters who don't pitch your best case. Raines is in such a place.

Koufaxian-peak, with a better 2nd-5 years, is the way to go.

I don't really disagree with your assessment of Raines's career, but arguing that somebody had a peak comparable to Sandy Koufax will be convincing to exactly zero BBWAA Hall-of-Fame voters. Sandy Koufax's peak is utterly unique.

I'd love to see a Glen Beck ballot (the actual ballot, since I'd want to see if it was tear-stained).

Based on Beck's "912 Project," I'm assuming he'd be a booster of Jose Lima and his ERA.

Hence my sense that Raines has a 5-year peak and not as much a career claim.

There are a lot of ways to make the career case for Raines though.

He reached base more times than Tony Gwynn. (yes, in more PA ... he's 3 points behind on OBP)
He scored more runs than Gwynn (and Boggs and Carew).
He stole about 500 more bases than Gwynn, about 800 more than Boggs and 450 more than Carew.
He even hit more HR than Gwynn, Boggs and Carew.

He's Gwynn, Boggs and Carew who substituted walks for singles, adding a handful of HR and a ton of SB. He's Lou Brock with walks. That's how you sell Raines.

Of course if they look at that all closely they might not be so impressed. In terms of times on base, he's just behind Staub, just ahead of Baines, both Evanses and Luis Gonzalez aren't that far behind. Still, other than Staub and probably Palmeiro (and Rose), everybody ahead of him on that list is in the HoF. Other than Sheffield and Palmeiro and Rose, everybody ahead of him on the runs list is or will be in the HoF. And of course some guys behind him on that list are in as well.

Nine years of Bush Derangement Syndrome has finally erased the one worthy part of Olby's brain: his sports knowledge. Sad.

Yeesh.

Today's worst... ballot.......... in the wooooorrrrrrlddddddd!

Today's worst... ballot.......... in the wooooorrrrrrlddddddd!

Not only that, but it's far more egregious than all of the errors combined in Ken Burn's Baseball.

At least he got the "without wings" part right. He was talking about bringing the political right and left together in agreement over the stupidity of his choices, yes?

There are legitimate arguments against Raines, the thing that I always find weird is that for me he WAS the intangibles guy. I guess what seems odd to me is that if Rice and Morris get all that credit for being feared and gritty and "winner" ballplayers, why Raines doesn't get it. I was young when he was playing and he really sticks out in my memories as THAT GUY.

He's black and played in cities where the writers' brains aren't crippled by Calvinist guilt.

crippled by Calvinist guilt

That little jerk blames Hobbes for everything.

That little jerk blames Hobbes for everything.

...when we all know it's the fault of his Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.

Is this a parody?

That little jerk blames Hobbes for everything.

...when we all know it's the fault of his Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.

*Sniff*. I'm crying because out there, Keith Olbermann's cretinous HoF column is gone... but it's not gone inside me.

Wow, GB going old school with the very first story arc in C&H;. I guess if you don't count the 3-4 strip "I'm going to catch a tiger" arc to start it off.

There are a lot of ways to make the career case for Raines though.
...
He scored more runs than Gwynn (and Boggs and Carew).

It's probably too late in this thread to take anything seriously, but here are two of the ways I've done this:

1. He made the same number of outs in his career as Boggs and had the same number of R+RBI, despite playing in lower-scoring offensive circumstances. (It should be true that Boggs was a better offensive player than Raines - but it doesn't come through in the R+RBI.)

2. Take Raines's career statistics and convert 1100 walks into 400 singles and 700 outs. That turns him from a .294/.385/.425 career hitter into a .301/.318/.418 hitter. That's a massively worse player, and a player who would have scored significantly fewer runs and had somewhat fewer SB. But it's 3005 career hits and a .301 career BA. Would you vote for this paper creation (who is a much worse player than the real Raines) for the HoF?