Sure, Tim Raines would listen if the Hall of Fame called.

Comps for Raines, centered on him in terms of PAs and OPS+, ranked by WAR Runs DP+Baserunning:




An interesting list; there are 20 names and six actual HOF members among them. But: Jeter, Sosa, and Kent are not yet eligible, and have strong face-value cases; and some stathead favorite cases are on the list (the Evanses and Santo). Of the rest, most provided much less defense and baserunning than Raines, or were a bit below him in terms of career value (and Raines, despite his lengthy career, has mostly a peak argument anyway). Dave Parker is an interesting comp. He too was awfully damn good at his peak, but played his way out of the Hall of Fame midcareer thanks to cocaine and junk food. Raines has a more "normal" career arc: he was better in his 20s than in his 30s, but remained useful as a role player into his 40s. (He appears to have kicked his cocaine problems so early that they have no real bearing on what he got out of his talent.) But it's obviously not so much "shape of career" that gets Raines comfortably ahead of Parker; it's extraordinary value on the basepaths. I mean, Derek Jeter is an outstanding baserunner, and Raines is nearly twice as valuable over his career. (I assume that WAR DP+BR measures Raines and Jeter and Parker more accurately than Willie Keeler, because there's more complete data; fortunately most players on this list are late-20th-century guys.)

I always think of Raines as equal to Gwynn, but Gwynn does have a better ops+(which I think Raines baserunning mostly wipes out the difference) neither were good fielders, so I pretty much consider defense to be a wash between the two. War pretty much seems to agree for the most part.

He only had 37.5% of the vote on the last ballot, but that's up from 24.3% of the vote in 2008, so writers are definitely looking at and reconsidering his case. He's not going to get in within the next couple years, but he certainly seems like someone who will end up getting inducted by the 15th and final ballot or, at worst, by the VC.

Yeah, both of those are later than he should have been inducted, but at least it looks like the BBWAA or VC will eventually get things right for him.

Last 3 years Raines has improved in the voting:

2009 22.6
2010 30.4
2011 37.5

If he keeps that up, gaining 7.5% per year, he can go in on the 2016 ballot. Sounds good, but there's a problem. The 2013 ballot gets so crowded that (assuming Larkin gets in for 2012) Raines will be 12th in WAR for the 2013 ballot. Say steroids keep Bonds/Clemens out, and the overcrowded ballot and 10 player limit keeps most of the others out (say Biggio for his clean 3000 hits goes in).

Raines is now down to 14th on the 2014 ballot. Piazza is a bit behind Raines in WAR but his standing among catchers probably means he has a better HOF case. Could also be a situation where guys like Lofton (doesn't feel like a HOFer) and Palmeiro fail to get 5% and fall off the ballot entirely. At this point I'd consider that a good thing - if they aren't going in, at least get them out of the way so other deserving players can get in.

Has anyone started banging the drum for him like with Blyleven? It annoys me to no end he has to wait at all.

The overcrowding of the ballot is going to be a major issue, not only are you going to get a lot of deserving guys, but also get a lot of different takes on how to treat suspected/confirmed roid users.

There will probably be some borderline deserving candidates who are going to fall off as Arom mentioned. Larkin goes in next year, Bagwell is going to be interesting, there is a possibility he also goes in next year, but it's not likely and of course even the hint of roids might keep him out forever. Everyone is going to go up in vote totals next year.

I like to try and guess how things will happen but as many spoil sport like to point out, we really won't be able to gauge the contempt of roid users until after Bonds and Clemens vote, and I honestly think there will be a anti-anti-roid backlash the following year when Bonds and Clemens don't get in.

In the end I think Arom's 2016 comment is about right for Raines.

Has anyone started banging the drum for him like with Blyleven? It annoys me to no end he has to wait at all.

Tango has, though I'm not sure he's as skilled a drummer as Lederer.

I've long thought Raines will get in, though it will take double-digit years on the ballot.

a .294 batting average, 2,605 hits, 980 RBIs and 808 stolen bases

This line, is nutshell, is Raines' problem getting support, no? His numbers in the traditional stats just aren't impressive at all. A .294 batting average is good, but it ain't .300, 2605 hits is good, but 2 very good seasons away from the magic 3,000, and 980 RBI screams "not a Hall a Famer", and he definitely isn't going to lean on his HR total (the 808 SB is impressive though).

I always think of Raines as equal to Gwynn, but Gwynn does have a better ops+(which I think Raines baserunning mostly wipes out the difference) neither were good fielders, so I pretty much consider defense to be a wash between the two.

Gwynn you're wrong on, and possibly you're recalling Fat Tony at the end of his career-thru age 32 he was +76 on TZ. Raines should have been a good defender, with blazing speed in a spacious LF, even if his arm was a wet noodle, but he was only +25 thru age 32, which isn't horrible, but Barry Bonds & Yaz blow that out of the water. For those who watched him a lot in his prime, did he not get good jumps and reads on balls?

...980 RBI screams "not a Hall a Famer"

For a leadoff man? And 1571 runs they never bother to look at? I think you give even the typical HoF voter too little credit.

For those who watched him a lot in his prime, did he not get good jumps and reads on balls?

It was just after his prime, but with the White Sox it seemed like he would get a good jump on the ball and then would just miss it, either dropping it or pulling up a couple of feet too short. That probably happened about twice but that became what I remember about his defense. That and ending the part of Ozzie Guillen's career where Guillen had value.

This line, is nutshell, is Raines' problem getting support, no? His numbers in the traditional stats just aren't impressive at all. A .294 batting average is good, but it ain't .300, 2605 hits is good, but 2 very good seasons away from the magic 3,000, and 980 RBI screams "not a Hall a Famer", and he definitely isn't going to lean on his HR total (the 808 SB is impressive though).

Raines has a cavalcade of little things working against him.

* As you mention, he comes up just short in a number of milestone areas.
* Best years came in the outpost of Montreal.
* A long tail of part-time play at the end of his career, which looks longer because of the 94-95 labor issues, clouds perception of how damn good he was at his peak.
* Speaking of labor issues, no player in baseball was more damaged by management-labor strife. Lost time during his excellent rookie year and again during his last two seasons as a regular in 94-95, plus lost a month in what otherwise might have been an MVP season (and another playoff berth) in 87.
* Was an incredible leadoff hitting leftfielder at the exact same time the greatest leadoff hitting leftfielder was playing.

Additionally, he may get penalized for the coke thing (unfairly, since it was brief and he handled the problem himself ala Molitor and then spent the next 20 years a rock solid citizen).

And, in what is a mystery to me, the fact that he actually came back from frigging Lupus, a feel-good story if there ever was one and surely worth a few ballots had lesser men done likewise, seems to go unnoticed.

All of that and I still think he gets the call.

I've long thought Raines will get in, though it will take double-digit years on the ballot.

I'm afraid that is the most likely scenario. Eventually the argument that he was on base as much as Tony Gwynn will probably put him over the top. There are a lot of little things that have hindered Raines' candidacy. Playing 13 years in Montreal kept him somewhat out of the limelight - although that would be less true today with Extra Innings™, MLB.TV & highlight packages galore. The cocaine problem probably didn't help either, although Raines seems to have put that behind him. Even though he had a long career, towards the end when he was with the Yankees Raines played well but sparingly due to injuries, and missed a chance to make an impression as a major contributor to a resurgent dynasty.

With many voters apparently taking a strong stance against suspected steroid-linked candidates, perhaps they might be inclined to look more closely at the non-slugger candidates who bring a somewhat different skillset. This could be a crucial year, since some voters seem to re-evaluate candidates who add to their vote totals while forgetting about those who decline without cracking the 40% or 50% barrier.

EDIT: Half a coke to #12. It's a little early but I'll have a beer.

Raines is a good egg, but in the glorious Steroid Wars to come, we must all embrace the military concept of "acceptable losses."

he actually came back from frigging Lupus, a feel-good story if there ever was one

Feel-good story? Really? Lupus is treated with steroids!

Gwynn you're wrong on, and possibly you're recalling Fat Tony at the end of his career-thru age 32 he was +76 on TZ. Raines should have been a good defender, with blazing speed in a spacious LF, even if his arm was a wet noodle, but he was only +25 thru age 32, which isn't horrible, but Barry Bonds & Yaz blow that out of the water. For those who watched him a lot in his prime, did he not get good jumps and reads on balls?

I said neither were good fielders, wasn't saying they were poor fielders, roughly speaking about average; and it was a short handed way of stating neither player gets bonus points for their defense, I don't really see anything wrong with that Gwynn might have been slightly better, but not really a notable difference to be honest.

Besides being the poster boy for cocaine thirty years ago (with stories about how he wouldn't slide because he had the coke in his pants pockets), he was hurt by being a leadoff hitting lead fielder in the era of Rickey Henderson. Probably any leadoff hitter in history would pale compared to Henderson but Raines was dealt the short straw. Bill James once wrote o how Richie Ashburn would have been regarded as the top NL center fielder in the 30s or 40s but in the 1950s he looked bad compared to Mays and Snider. And despite being amember of the 1996 and 1998 Yankee champions, you seldom hear his name mentioned nowadays.

But he deserves to be in and will probably get in via Veteran's Committee or slowly increasing his vote totals every year.

For those who watched him a lot in his prime, did he not get good jumps and reads on balls?

I can't say that I watched Raines play all that much but wasn't he mostly an infielder (second baseman?) in the minor leagues that Montreal stuck into LF because they wanted his bat in the lineup and didn't know where else to play him? Having to learn a new position at the major league level probably didn't do Raines any favors, although left field isn't the most difficult spot on the defensive spectrum. IMHO Raines should be in the HOF but as Yogi (supposedly) said, "you never know".

I get the sense that the voters don't really look at Raines and think "not a HOFer". I think they just overlook him completely as they fill up ballots with fame-ier players instead, especially Rickey. Every opinion I've read that actually considers Raines comes to the HOF conclusion in pretty short order.

Tango has, though I'm not sure he's as skilled a drummer as Lederer.

I've long thought Raines will get in, though it will take double-digit years on the ballot.

Jonah Keri could be that guy if he wants to. He's even writing a new book about the Expos so he can replace the Extra 2% references crowbarred into every one of his articles and podcasts with Tim Raines references!

I think the biggest problems for Raines are;

1. comps to Rickey
2. a career that looks light on full time seasons because of '81, '94 and arguably '95. Three more 140-150 game seasons make him look a little better.
3. he was good at the wrong things - In this respect I wonder if Biggio's candidacy will help him. My sense is that Biggio is going to get in and I think Biggio's a somewhat similar guy though of course he has "3,060" in that hits column.

Times on base, all-time rank:

46. Raines 3977
47. Gwynn 3955

The difference between the two is the difference between about 500 singles for Tony and 500 walks for Tim. They were extremely close in extra bases on hits (Tim with a slight lead).

In general a single is better than a walk. But when leading off an inning the events are equal. That Tim Raines regularly turned walk and singles into triples is another point in his favor. If Gwynn is a no doubt, first ballot HOFer (and I don't dispute that he is) then Raines has to be in as well.

I said neither were good fielders, wasn't saying they were poor fielders, roughly speaking about average; and it was a short handed way of stating neither player gets bonus points for their defense, I don't really see anything wrong with that Gwynn might have been slightly better, but not really a notable difference to be honest.

Gwynn was very good during his peak years, which is my point; yes overall he deserves to be docked for hauling his big gut around in RF during his late 30's, but his D definitely adds significant value to his peak.

Maybe someone can help me with something - my memory is fuzzy - but I seem to recall seeing a rare Montreal game on TV in the late eighties where Raines did one of the smartest things I've ever seen. I think the score was tied and he was leading off the bottom of the 9th. Count went to 0-2 and then the pitcher uncorked one of those pitches that "slipped" and was so wild from the instant of release you knew the catcher was going to have to chase after it. Raines swung at the pitch (which didn't come within 10 feet of home plate) for strike 3 and took off at a dead run for 1st base knowing the catcher had no prayer of getting him. I believe he then stole 2nd and eventually came around to score the winning run. Hopefully someone else remembers this too? Or maybe I was in an altered state at the time and am remembering this the same way Dock Ellis remembered pitching a no-hitter...

I also seem to recall the "peak value" argument for Raines basically went as follows - from '81-'88 he did everything a leadoff hitter is supposed to do exceptionally well:

He had the most hits of anyone in the National League
Of those hits, he had the most 2B and 3B of anyone in the NL
He had the most walks of anyone in the NL
He had the most SB of anyone in the NL

If a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base and put himself in scoring position without using up a lot of outs, I can't imagine anyone doing it much better than that...we often see people talking in terms of a 3 or 5-yr peak, this was an 8-yr peak of dominance...

The Raines third strike would make a good "tracer," Moeball: on B-Ref you can search for all of Raines's strikeouts and/or ROEs and you might find it pretty quickly.

In addition to being a top leadoff man for eight years, Raines was close to the best player in the National League 1985-87. A few different guys are ahead of him on the NL WAR list throughout those years, but nobody's ahead of him in two of those years. At the time, when he won his batting title in '86, I thought he'd established himself as the best player in the league; though I was happy enough to see Mike Schmidt win another MVP award, I thought Raines was more consistently great in those years.

Edit: and in fact, Raines leads NL position players in WAR overall 1985-87 with 19.6, ahead of Gwynn, Smith, Schmidt, and Strawberry.

Maybe someone can help me with something - my memory is fuzzy - but I seem to recall seeing a rare Montreal game on TV in the late eighties where Raines did one of the smartest things I've ever seen. I think the score was tied and he was leading off the bottom of the 9th. Count went to 0-2 and then the pitcher uncorked one of those pitches that "slipped" and was so wild from the instant of release you knew the catcher was going to have to chase after it. Raines swung at the pitch (which didn't come within 10 feet of home plate) for strike 3 and took off at a dead run for 1st base knowing the catcher had no prayer of getting him. I believe he then stole 2nd and eventually came around to score the winning run. Hopefully someone else remembers this too? Or maybe I was in an altered state at the time and am remembering this the same way Dock Ellis remembered pitching a no-hitter...

From what I can tell he only twice in the 80's reached on a strikeout, one was by Nolan Ryan in this game, and the other was by Ron Darling in this game, neither time he came around to score, but in the Darling game he did steal a base after the strikeout.

Raines' % is going up, not down. Once there is a year without slam-dunk candidates, he'll go in. Within 5-6 years is my guess.

And he deserves to be admitted.

Once there is a year without slam-dunk candidates, he'll go in. Within 5-6 years is my guess.

When will this occur?

Oh, and the end result of all those times on base was that Raines also led the league in runs scored during that 8-yr peak...duh, should've mentioned that before...I don't think he'll have to wait as long as Blyleven did, but I keep losing $$ every time I bet that the writers are really smarter than I think they are...

In general a single is better than a walk. But when leading off an inning the events are equal.

They are also equal to infield singles, although I don't know how many of those Gwynn had (does anyone know how to look this up on Bref?)

I don't see any way that Raines makes the HOF.

When will this occur?

2012 (if you don't consider Bagwell or Larkin slam dunk candidates) but outside of that you have pretty much slam dunks in every year remaining(Griffey is the slam dunk from 2010, 2011---Manny? not with the way he left, Chipper--signed for two more seasons, Irod I guess is a possibility but that leaves wiggle room for Raines in the 2017 election)

They are also equal to infield singles, although I don't know how many of those Gwynn had (does anyone know how to look this up on Bref?)

They're not equal to an infield single, though it's close. An infield single with a runner on second or third that the lead runner advances on is more valuable than a walk, though that doesn't happen terribly often.

As for where, when I look up his career splits page, it indicates 280 infield hits, but 12 went for doubles and one for a triple, so I'm not sure that's exactly what we're looking for when we use the term infield hit.

I don't see any way that Raines makes the HOF.

At his current vote level and the rate he's picking up votes, I think he'd ordinarily be in really good shape, and I still think he'll make it eventually. The only thing that could really throw a roadblock in his candidacy is the impending logjam. I don't think anyone knows how that mess is going to affect any candidates, because there's no precedent for it.

I don't see any way that Raines makes the HOF.

Every year, the voters gain more younger voters and lose more older ones. At least, I assume.

How many players eligible for, but not in, the HOF are better than Raines?

Jeez, it hasn't even occurred to me until now that I could basically walk across the street from my office and watch Tim Raines manage.

If we're going to go into attack mode for something, shouldn't it be for Santo or Grich, or for making the damn games shorter and more streamlined? The guy has a mere 64-65 WAR in over 10K PAs. How impressive is that for lackluster fielding left fielder?

If we're going to go into attack mode for something, shouldn't it be for Santo or Grich,

Santo's unnecessary. He'll go in when the next Vet's Committee for his age group meets (and would have gone in even if he were still with us, I believe). As for Grich, a full-fledged campaign like Lederer's Blyleven one doesn't seem like it would do much; we're not trying to convince several hundred voters, but, first the initial screening committee (where he was rejected the first time), and then the group of 20 on the Vet's committee handling his era. Finding out who was on those committees ahead of time would be crucial to a Grich push.

I'm all for a concerted effort to speed up games, however.

From what I can tell he only twice in the 80's reached on a strikeout, one was by Nolan Ryan in this game, and the other was by Ron Darling in this game, neither time he came around to score, but in the Darling game he did steal a base after the strikeout.

To be safe, I extended the search to cover Raines's entire career. These two events were the only times Raines reached first after a strikeout in his entire career, not just in the 80s.

-- MWE

How many players eligible for, but not in, the HOF are better than Raines?

This is the question that matters, now when you say eligible, do you mean on the ballot or throughout history (and therefore eligible) (of course I'm assuming 5 year waiting period or else you add Maddux, Randy, Pedro, Bonds, Biggio, Griffey, Thomas, and several others)

I would say that players better than him, but not in yet for various reasons. (in order)
1. Pete Rose
2. Joe Jackson
3. Jeff Bagwell
4. Ron Santo
5. Barry Larkin *
6. Mark McGwire
7. Ted Simmons
8. Kevin Brown

* will go in on the next ballot.

With apologies to Trammel, Whitaker, Dick Allen, Bobby Grich, Jim Wynn, and Joe Torre(managers credit)

From BB-ref:

Reggie Smith, Kenny Lofton, Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, Rafael Palmeiro, Craig Biggio, Alan Trammel, Lou Whitaker, Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, Bobby Grich, Santo, Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell,Buddy Bell, Sal Bando, Jim Wynn, Jeff kent, Ken Boyer, Will Clark, Darrell Evans.

These are players just as good as, or better than, Tim Raines. They accumulated about the same career war, often in much fewer PAs and were just as good or some cases much better defensive players (Bell, Nettles, Larkin, Whitaker, Trammel). And really career accumulation of oWar is all he's got going for him. It isn't as if he had a high peak or sustained his peak, such as it is, very long. The only thing that distinguishes Raines is he was a very good base runner and his average combined with his walks made him a good leadoff batter. All the above players aren't going in, and many are better than he is. A defensive artist at third base like Nettles or Bell is at least as impressive to me as running the bases. I could understand if he would have been a good fielder to go along with his offense--but he wasn't. I could understand if he were truly extraordinary at something very important, but wasn't. The case for him can only be made along narrow lines based on having a long career. If you put him in, what do you tell the others?

there is too much variance in defensive data to take war at full face value when dealing with a player who derives a lot of value from defense.

My list I thought was the obvious non-debaters, I can't for the life of me see an argument for Lofton over Raines for example. Palmeiro never had a peak on par with Raines, (I didn't list Biggio because he's not hof eligible yet) and I'll never get the stat head fascination with Reggie Smith. Evans I see as an equal to Raines, I could argue either way, Hernandez no way. Palmeiero a longer career Reggie Smith is the best argument for him.

Note: some of these guys I personally would vote ahead of Raines, but I don't see them as obvious.

I don't think anyone eligible, but not in, is clearly ahead of Raines. A lot of players have different, but roughly equal cases.

I don't think anyone eligible, but not in, is clearly ahead of Raines.

Bagwell, but he's also well ahead in the voting. And if you're a heavy peak/prime voter, I think you've got to put McGwire and Allen ahead.

Especially when one considers how long his career was. Defense value for some is undeniable, and in some cases, seems low (certainly doesn't reflect their reputation). Many of those listed are much better than he on a per capita-type basis. Hernandez did what he did in 2000 fewer PAs. Heck, there was a discussion about Maris for the HOF--he was a much better player than Raines--he just lacks the time because of injury. At least, Maris was actually famous. All his similar batters who are in the HOF are marginal selectees--better fielders or in the case of Slaughter had their career gutted by WWII. If you draw the line with Raines, who else can't be kept out?

Reggie Smith, Kenny Lofton, Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, Rafael Palmeiro, Craig Biggio, Alan Trammel, Lou Whitaker, Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, Bobby Grich, Santo, Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, Buddy Bell, Sal Bando, Jim Wynn, Jeff kent, Ken Boyer, Will Clark, Darrell Evans.

Of these 22 names, I count three who are almost certainly going in, one who would already be in absent PEDs, two who are widely considered to be among the most egregious HOF snubs, and four or five who have considerable support and are generally acknowledged to be very close to the cut-off even by their detractors. Not to mention a shortstop who was better than at least a few SSs already in the Hall, his DP partner who, while not a HOFer in my opinion, certainly deserved much better than a one-and-done, and one right fielder who was better than Jim Rice. ;-)

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you're a small-hall guy?

Especially when one considers how long his career was. Defense value for some is undeniable, and in some cases, seems low (certainly doesn't reflect their reputation). Many of those listed are much better than he on a per capita-type basis. Hernandez did what he did in 2000 fewer PAs. Heck, there was a discussion about Maris for the HOF--he was a much better player than Raines--he just lacks the time because of injury. At least, Maris was actually famous. All his similar batters who are in the HOF are marginal selectees--better fielders or in the case of Slaughter had their career gutted by WWII. If you draw the line with Raines, who else can't be kept out?

I don't get what you mean by Keith Hernandez did what he did in 2000 fewer PAs. There is nothing resembling equal career value between the two, if you want to argue peak that is one thing, but career Raines blows him away, there is no 'did what he did in 2000 fewer PAs'.

Runs created is a rough stat to tell career offensive value without dealing with context but it's fairly simple to understand.

Hernandez 1281 vs Raines 1636 and if you RC/game you get Hernandez at 6.3 and Raines 6.6. of course this doesn't account for eras but even saying that Hernandez era allows him to equal Raines(a big if) you are still talking two roughly equivalent offensive players Hernandez played a lesser defensive position at an elite level, Raines played the outfield roughly at an average level, that gives Hernandez some ground, which he then loses when you factor in base running, hitting into double plays etc. Roughly making them still equal as players over the course of their careers, the difference is that they are equal players on a seasonal basis but Raines adds 2000 more pa at that level.

If you want to argue peak that is different, although I don't think Keith has a case here either(just glancing at best war, Raines beats him five out of their six best years...basically Keith might win an argument that is couched in terms of 10 best seasons or something like that)

Maris doesn't belong in a hof discussion at all, even accepting the notion about the hall of fame being about fame, it still doesn't mean you put Bo Jackson, Michael Jordan or Roger Maris in for that accomplishment alone. Maris is Darryl Strawberry.

There is nothing resembling equal career value between the two, if you want to argue peak that is one thing, but career Raines blows him away, there is no 'did what he did in 2000 fewer PAs'.

Meh.

Hernandez has 61.0 WAR according to BB-ref; Raines 64.6. If that isn't comparable, especially considering Raines's much longer career, what is? Hernandez has more value for time played than Raines. But, I ain't arguing to put H. in the HOF (I really don't give a #### about the HOF), and it's not just him. It's that Raines is just not that outstanding. Sure, Raines is good; he's just not particularly outstanding. The bottom line is that if Raines goes in, too frigging many other players deserve to go in, too. And getting anal about exact statistical parameters as if they've just come done from the mount hot off the Mosaic griddle doesn't tell the whole story. There's no such precision. That he might have two total WAR more than someone else in 2000 more at-bats is neither definitive nor particularly informative. There are just too many players arguably as good as he who aren't going in. His career just isn't that impressive. There will always be players ahead of him.

I think that Raines has a significantly greater "peak" case than you do, Morty (and perhaps than some others do). Raines, as I noted above, led the league in aggregate WAR over two three-year periods, centered on 1985 and 1986. In other words, by one measure he was the best player in the NL, briefly but more than momentarily. Now, some caveats apply, of course:

(1) One may not think much of WAR; it's always just a starting point.

(2) Raines never led a league over a five-year period. 1985-86 came at the end of a long period during which Mike Schmidt was clearly the best player in the NL, and before a long period during which Barry Bonds was; the leaders in NL total WAR for five-year spans centered on '85 and '86 were Schmidt and Gwynn, respectively.

(3) Raines's three-year WAR totals of 18 (1984-86) and 20 (1985-87) are among the lower three-year league-leading totals of his era, so it's not a historically great peak by any means.

(4) Leading the league in WAR over a three-year period is not in itself a guarantee of HOF status. Others who have done it recently include Will Clark, Andruw Jones, Jason Giambi, and Kenny Lofton (who, like Raines, did it twice in a row, centered on 1993 and 1994).

But, still. I don't think this is a "tallest among midgets" argument for Raines's peak: among his contemporaries were Schmidt, Carter, Dawson, Gwynn, and Ozzie Smith, all of whom have good peak cases for the Hall (as well as outstanding career cases for some of them, too, of course). And Raines was, for several years, right there with them.

Sure, Raines is good; he's just not particularly outstanding. The bottom line is that if Raines goes in, too frigging many other players deserve to go in, too.

That ship sailed long, long ago. Raines is deserving, by HOF standards, and is not particularly close to the borderline*. Thus, he deserves to go in. That others of equal or greater value also deserve to go in doesn't make him undeserving. It just means that others are also deserving.

As for the Hernandez comparison, a huge chunk of his WAR is defense, 13.2 wins. Now, he was undoubtedly an historically good firstbaseman, but WAR defensive numbers are inherently less reliable than the offensive numbers. I tend to think that the difference between Raines and Hernandez is a bit more than WAR states. Raines is 17 wins ahead of Hernandez on offense. I don't think any amount of fistbase defense, no matter how good, can close that gap.

*HOF corner OF with less than 60 WAR (5 fewer than Raines):

Dave Winfield
Zack Wheat
Willie Stargell
Billy Williams
Joe Medwick
Enos Slaughter
Harry Hooper
Sam Rice
Elmer Flick
Joe Kelley
Kiki Cuyler
Ralph Kiner
Heinie Manush
Jim Rice
Chuck Klein
Lou Brock
Chick Hafey

Eligible, Non-HOF corner OF with 60 or more WAR:

Raines
Dwight Evans
Reggie Smith
Larry Walker

Bill James one wrote that a good HOF argument is that many players inferior to the one in question are in the hall and few if any equal or superior are out. That argument serves Raines and the three others well.

Hernandez has 61.0 WAR according to BB-ref; Raines 64.6. If that isn't comparable, especially considering Raines's much longer career, what is? Hernandez has more value for time played than Raines. But, I ain't arguing to put H. in the HOF (I really don't give a #### about the HOF), and it's not just him. It's that Raines is just not that outstanding. Sure, Raines is good; he's just not particularly outstanding. The bottom line is that if Raines goes in, too frigging many other players deserve to go in, too. And getting anal about exact statistical parameters as if they've just come done from the mount hot off the Mosaic griddle doesn't tell the whole story. There's no such precision. That he might have two total WAR more than someone else in 2000 more at-bats is neither definitive nor particularly informative. There are just too many players arguably as good as he who aren't going in. His career just isn't that impressive. There will always be players ahead of him.

I can see that argument, don't agree with it, but can see it.

Raines is pretty much exactly Tony Gwynn, a guy who sailed in on the first ballot. He's better than a ton of people who get consideration in both peak and career value. I don't really see a comparable between Hernandez and Raines because the offense they aren't even close, and I don't care how great a person is at defense(and Keith is the best ever at his position) I just don't think the gap is bridgeable by defense between a great first baseman and an average outfielder.

I think that barring steroid limited players, that Raines or Trammel will end up being the best player eligible but not in the hof (I'm assuming Santo will go in sometime soon)

Of course for someone who doesn't give a #### about the hof, you seem to pop up in these threads a lot. (or course that could be my memory mixing you up with someone else)

I think with Raines, the totalzone estimate for his defense is the floor. It is also consistent with range factor per 9 innings, which tells us Raines made an average number of plays. What I mean is, if someone were to invent a verifiably better system for years gone by, I would not be surprised to see that Raines was in fact a plus defender. I would be shocked if it revealed that he was actually below average.

I think Raines in his prime would have rated better playing among more recent left fielders than he did in his own time. LF seemed to be much more of a speed position then. Coleman, Rickey, Gary Redus off the top of my head.

I just don't think the gap is bridgeable by defense between a great first baseman and an average corner outfielder.

You left out the key word in that sentance. The positional difference between 1B and RF/LF just isn't very big. It's easily smaller than the difference between an average COF, and the best defensive !B of all time.

I'm with Morty just going by numbers, I see very little to chose between Raines and Hernandez. And I wouldn't argue with anybody who thinks Hernandez deserves extra HOF credit for being the best defensive !B of all time, and wants to move him ahead of Raines. (sorry Shooty)

One of the reasons I like comparing WAR against contemporaries but not across eras is the comparison between Lofton (65.3) and Raines (64.6):

Here's Lofton's Top 10s in WAR for both WAR among position players and Offensive WAR (which takes into account position but is agnostic about how well you played it).

WAR Position players: 1st, 3rd, 9th, 9th, 10th
Offensive WAR: 3rd

And Raines

WAR Position players: 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th
Offensive WAR: 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th

Raines was more consistently among the best players in his league during his time than Lofton even with a defensive adjustment that is extremely unfavorable to him versus Lofton (Lofton as 11 wins better defensively compared to center fielders than Raines compared to left fielders seems a stretch to me).

What's even stranger is that it is actually that stretch when they were at their peak where Lofton actually has the WAR advantage (Lofton has around 4 more WAR during their first 10 full seasons than Raines). Their non-peak production is where Raines closes the WAR gap. Looking at that, I just don't see the argument for Lofton over Raines.

Bagwell, but he's also well ahead in the voting. And if you're a heavy peak/prime voter, I think you've got to put McGwire and Allen ahead.

True, I overlooked him and Bagwell is clearly the best eligible player not yet in. Bill Dahlen is second in WAR, but I don't see him as clearly better than Raines/Larkin/Grich/Santo/Hernandez/Allen/McGwire and the rest of that group that I see as close to Raines. Depends on whether and how much you timeline.

On peak, Allen probably does have the strongest peak among this group. But not McGwire. Raines beats him on best 5 year WAR, with 30.7 from 1983 to 1987, to McGwire's 29.6 from 1995-1999. McGwire was far better as a hitter, but you are comparing a left fielder with average D and some of the best baserunning years ever to an extremely immobile first baseman.

One interesting feature in Lofton's resumé is that his best year, by far, was the 1994 strike year. He actually has more WAR in absolute terms in 1994 than in any other single season. It was going to be a great year for him anyway, but relative to other players of 1994 (when Lofton led AL position players) it's based on just 70% of a full season. Not a "fluke" exactly, but perhaps analogous to the home run title that Dwight Evans and Bobby Grich (among others) shared in 1981. Would Lofton's lead in WAR have held up over a full 1994 season, or would he have dropped behind the truly great players in the league, Thomas and Griffey? We don't know either way, so I'm not knocking Lofton's achievement too much, mind you.

Comparing McGwire to Raines using WAR and OWAR as Voros did, McGwire is top 10 in WAR 7 times, top 5 3 times, and as high as 2nd. In OWAR he's got 6 top 10, 5 top 5, and 1 first place. That performance is roughly equal to Raines, either could be made to be a bit ahead depending on how you weight them.

Raines might have the best 4-5 year peak of any non-HOFer absence non-stats decisions that keep players out. That's his case, but he's often touted for prime or career when that's not what made him great. His last, what, 10 years or so, he just wasn't anything special.

As I've noted before, the defensive side of WAR is blind to a specific skill of Raines. He was unusually good as cost containment in plays not made. That is to say that his plays not made resulted in fewer bases than a typical left fielder. It's nothing huge, but as with so much of Raines' case these little things add up.

DA -- a grid based defensive system tracks this and thus sees Raines as a plus defender rather than a more or less average one. It uses bigger grids than ZR and tends to value fast players more highly than ZR. (Though Vince Coleman does grade out as the 2nd worst OF of the DA era, and Mike Greenwell -- the only guy who grades out worse -- is pretty clearly a victim of park effects)

For his prime, DA has Raines 6th in range among the qualifying LF, but far and away the best at limiting extra bases ( 82 better than average over the 8 years we have DA -- 31 ahead of second place)

Put it together and DA has Raines at +60 runs from 1988-95. Third for LF in the DA era (Luis Gonzalez and Barry Bonds are #1 and #2

A fairly big difference to what WAR has for him. And to be honest, I'll put my money of DA if I had to.

One interesting feature in Lofton's resumé is that his best year, by far, was the 1994 strike year. He actually has more WAR in absolute terms in 1994 than in any other single season. It was going to be a great year for him anyway, but relative to other players of 1994 (when Lofton led AL position players) it's based on just 70% of a full season. Not a "fluke" exactly, but perhaps analogous to the home run title that Dwight Evans and Bobby Grich (among others) shared in 1981. Would Lofton's lead in WAR have held up over a full 1994 season, or would he have dropped behind the truly great players in the league, Thomas and Griffey? We don't know either way, so I'm not knocking Lofton's achievement too much, mind you.

As was noted above, Raines too lost a portion of his greatest season due to labor-management strife, the first month of 1987, a season in which he hit .330/.429/.526, and led the league in runs with 123 in just 139 games played. That, plus missing 40 or so games from his outstanding rookie year of 1981 hurts him considerably. Suppose there was no strike in 1981. Raines steals 100 bases and wins the ROY. Is he in the HOF now? Suppose no collusion in 1987 and he scores 145 runs and does better than 7th in the MVP. Is he in the HOF now? Without those two chunks of missing time in two of his best seasons due to management problems, he probably adds at least 3 WAR to his career total, and more importantly, gets up to about 6.0 in 1981 and 7.5 in 1987. Is he a HOFer now?

@60: this brings up an interesting point. I give war credit (is there anyone who doesn't?) but I don't give strike credit. I suppose one could argue that an individual player had no choice but to strike once the union called it, but the counter is that as a member of the union, a player can be assumed to have supported the strike and therefore to have missed time voluntarily, for personal gain. No different from a holdout, really. Just that there were hundreds of them.

I think your last paragraph mixes things up a little. The voters don't care about WAR, and for the people who do care about WAR, Raines is at least a borderline HOFer, and often much better than that. But, yeah, you give him all those extras and he stands out a little more to voters. 145 runs scored jumps out and might draw more attention to his formidable skills. I don't think all of that makes him a 1st ballot HOFer to the writers, but it would probably smooth the path a fair bit.

I think that Raines has a significantly greater "peak" case than you do, Morty (and perhaps than some others do). Raines, as I noted above, led the league in aggregate WAR over two three-year periods, centered on 1985 and 1986.

And then, he was done. This thread has caused me to reconsider. I had thought Raines was an obvious albeit low end HOFer. Now I'm not so sure. He was thoroughly ordinary for two thirds of his career and his peak, while impressive, wasn't great. His best OPS+ was Pujols's worst, for instance. It's hard to imagine Raines added more on the bases than Pujols did on defense.

Raines was done as an elite player at age 27. There was nothing historically great about his peak. That's a very tough sell.

Raines was done as an elite player at age 27. There was nothing historically great about his peak. That's a very tough sell.

And yet, he's as good or better than many, many HOF corner OF. Look at the list in #50. It's hardly full of mistakes. Is Raines less deserving than all of them? Than any of them? Due to peak value, I'd maybe rate Stargell higher, but that's about it. If you are a tiny HOF guy, then fine, Raines and all the others are not deserving. But in the here and now, in the world where Dave Winfield and Willie Stargell are first ballot guys, where Billy Williams is a solid, non controversial HOFer, Raines is absolutely not a tough sell.

#62 Dale Stephenson's peak lists make it clear that this is nothing unusual. In fact Raines ranks 8th in peak value among LF and 6th in value outside of peak (Offense only that is and Dale's using adjusted batting wins -- IOW the baseline is average)

Only the truly elite players add substantially to their HOF case outside of their prime.

Dale's peak lists (Through the end of the 2002 season. Musial is listed as a RF since more of his peak happened there than any place else)

Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years without caught stealing totals.

Peaks for Prominent Leftfielders


And for firstbasemen (note how well Thome ranks before adding another decade to his career)

Peaks for Prominent First Basemen

Raines was done as an elite player at age 27.

As was his teammate Dawson (okay Dawson was done at 28, but then Raines had a mini-renaissance at 32).

To me, Raines is an easy sell for the Hall of Fame given its current size. If you were to make it smaller then it becomes more dicey.

this brings up an interesting point. I give war credit (is there anyone who doesn't?) but I don't give strike credit.

I don't give war credit. (I don't give strike credit either.)

#61 What about collusion credit? Raines lost a month of his best season to collusion, He has the cash, but it takes away from the real wow! year that might clinch the deal for him.

this brings up an interesting point. I give war credit (is there anyone who doesn't?) but I don't give strike credit.

I give strike credit, at least when comparing two players and if I'm relying on War. I don't see how you can't, of course I think you should also adjust for 154 game schedule to 162, but that is a tad more time consuming. The strike credit argument is only necessary for about a dozen players.

#61 What about collusion credit? Raines lost a month of his best season to collusion, He has the cash, but it takes away from the real wow! year that might clinch the deal for him.

Feh. Raines CHOSE to be come a free agent. He could have just accepted the take it or leave it lowball offer from the Expos.

And yet, he's as good or better than many, many HOF corner OF. Look at the list in #50. It's hardly full of mistakes.

Uh. Yes it is. Most of them are crappy VC selections. Of the none VC selections you have:

Dave Winfield - who got a ton of GG, but WAR has him at -9.2 wins defensively. If you rate him as even average defensively, he's easily a better choice than Raines, and most Writers apparently thought he was better than that...

Willie Stargell - Peakalicious

Billy Williams - pretty weak, does have a 133 OPS+ and lots of ink

Joe Medwick - pretty weak, doeas have 134 OPS+ and an MVP, and a better peak than Raines

Ralph Kiner - obvious mistake

Lou Brock - 3000 + count the stealzzz

Jim Rice - really?


So yeah, from that list I would probably vote for Stargell, and uhm... Winfield, if somebody convinces me that he was a good defender.

Willie Stargell - Peakalicious

Stargell top WAR: 8.1, 8.1, 5.9, 5.2, 4.6

Raines top WAR: 7.5, 6.8, 6.0, 5.7, 5.4

Yeah, 16.2 is better than 14.3 I suppose. But is 1 win per year for their top 2 seasons enough to make an otherwise unworthy player a HOFer? I'll repeat an earlier question. If Raines hadn't suffered the curtailing of two of his greatest years to management strife, and his top WAR looked like this:

7.5, 7.5, 6.0, 6.0, 5.7, his peak would be at least as great as Stargell's, and a better career.

Billy Williams - pretty weak, does have a 133 OPS+ and lots of ink

I love Billy Williams, but a lot of his ink is for playing time (not that that's not valuable), and Raines has just as much ink. Aside from the games and PA, Williams has 1 R, 1 H, 1 BA, 1 SLP, 1 OPS, 1 OPS+, and 3 TB. Raines has 2 R, 1 2B, 4 SB, 1 BA, and 1 OBP. Again, I don't see a case for one but not the other.

So yeah, from that list I would probably vote for Stargell, and uhm... Winfield, if somebody convinces me that he was a good defender.

So you're a tiny hall guy. Fine. You wouldn't vote for Raines, but that doesn't mean Raines is unworthy in the real life Hall which exists outside your mind.

I love Billy Williams, but a lot of his ink is for playing time (not that that's not valuable), and Raines has just as much ink. Aside from the games and PA, Williams has 1 R, 1 H, 1 BA, 1 SLP, 1 OPS, 1 OPS+, and 3 TB. Raines has 2 R, 1 2B, 4 SB, 1 BA, and 1 OBP. Again, I don't see a case for one but not the other.

I was looking more at the ROY nd two runner up MVP's in the ink part there.


So you're a tiny hall guy. Fine. You wouldn't vote for Raines, but that doesn't mean Raines is unworthy in the real life Hall which exists outside your mind.

I never said I wouldn't vote for Raines, that's your conjecture. I think he's a tough call, and right around where I would place the borderline.
The point I was making was only that the list in #50 isn't some dort of ringing endorsement for Raines' HOF bona fides. Honestly, of those 17 players, how many would YOU vote for?

Honestly, of those 17 players, how many would YOU vote for?

That depends. Am I starting the HOF from scratch and keeping the same size? Or am I voting on some platonic ideal of a HOF and whatever size it comes out to be, so be it? If it's the former, certainly Winfield, Stargell and Williams, probably Medwick, Slaughter, and Kiner also. If it's the latter, I have no idea. Maybe none of them.

Ralph Kiner - obvious mistake

No he wasn't. He's a peak pick.

#74 And partially a narrative pick. 7 straight home run titles. Not padded by playing in an easy park for home runs. (though you wouldn't know it by looking at his home/road splits -- and yes, I'm aware that they tinkered with Forbes in his day. Still wasn't an easy HR park for the other players in the league.)

[70] How is Ralph Kiner an obvious mistake?

He led the majors in HR in 6 seasons and his league in 7.
He batted .279 with 369 HR and over 1,000 RBI in 10 seasons--pretty good career averages.
When Kiner retired in 1955, he was the #6 career home run hitter, ahead of DiMaggio and Mize. Today he is still ranked #7 on career AB per HR, behind McGwire, Ruth, Bonds, Howard, Thome and Pujols.

He's an obvious mistake if your position is there should be no peak picks, which seems to be popular on the internet.

Who has the most MLB HR titles that isn't in the HOF? Does anyone have even 3?

If you grew up in the late 1940s/early 1950s, the same guy was the HR king every year. If you're going to a museum that commemorates each era, you probably want to see something honoring that guy. To say he's an "obvious mistake" boggles the mind.

In a SABR-minded approach where he gets dinged hard for defense and the "narrative" isn't in play, Kiner still made it into the Hall of Merit (albeit on his 26th try), whereas 50+ HOFers have not.

He's an obvious mistake if your position is there should be no peak picks, which seems to be popular on the internet.

Yep, this is what I seem to find weird sometimes when we have these mvp talks, they almost all start with career war, and many times they also end there.

Who has the most MLB HR titles that isn't in the HOF? Does anyone have even 3?

well obviously Mark McGwire, but outside of that I can't seem to find any that have more than two(well Lip Pike whoever he was from 1871), plenty have two though. And if Sosa doesn't make the hall, he'll have the funny distinction of hitting 60+ homeruns twice in his career and leading the league in homeruns twice in his career, but they weren't the same years.

And if Sosa doesn't make the hall, he'll have the funny distinction of hitting 60+ homeruns twice in his career and leading the league in homeruns twice in his career, but they weren't the same years.

Close, but it's actually 3 seasons of 60-plus homers, two seasons leading the league and nary a train meeting.

Close, but it's actually 3 seasons of 60-plus homers, two seasons leading the league and nary a train meeting.

Teaches me not to look something up.

Who has the most MLB HR titles that isn't in the HOF? Does anyone have even 3?

No, no one has 3 besides McGwire, not in the lively ball era anyway. A whole bunch have 2 (Canseco, Kingman, Fielder, Gonzalez, McGriff, Murphy, Gorman Thomas, Dick Allen.

Sorry to have had to have been away while the thread continued smartly.

FPH in 70 and 72 covers the ground I would have in response to Misirlou's 63. Fwiw, I'm not a small Hall guy. The current size seems reasonable to me. So would 50 fewer players. 50 more and I think you'd have to start putting in guys we tend around these parts to consider the worst current HOFers, guys who just weren't elite ballplayers, or were for too short a time.

All of which is to say, as I stated in posts 61 and 62, "And then, he was done. This thread has caused me to reconsider. I had thought Raines was an obvious albeit low end HOFer. Now I'm not so sure."

That's all. (Not that anyone will lose any sleep over how I figure this.) I really do appreciate, though, the tone of the criticism and questions I've gotten. Ron's table in 64 is a big help, and shows Raines in a better light than I had been seeing him. The simple statement that it's rare for even HOFers to do much outside their peak, along with the supporting information, is extremely helpful.

Wrt Misirlou's reference to the list in 50, I'm obliged on the grounds of intellectual honesty to make a comparably sized list of corner OFers I'd include in my personal Hall, and see how Raines fits. I'll likely cheat and refer to the Hall of Merit arguments quite a bit, but that seems to me like the honorable way to go when I have time.

One of the things that's interesting to me is that Raines will probably make it in. If me and a few others, who are more than willing to look behind the obvious numbers (and so much of Raines's case lies behind the obvious numbers), still don't consider Raines a shoo-in, it's impressive that the BBWAA will probably put him in in another decade. I thought it wasn't impossible he'd go the Alan Trammell route. Raines's peak was early, and perhaps forgettable to writers since Raines never came close to the MVP. Trammell's "peak" was very spread out and perhaps equally as forgettable to someone who needs a neat narrative. If you concentrate his peak over eight years Trammell has a case much more visible to the MSM. His value is much more obvious.

As for collusion credit, now that you mention it, Ron, yes. Giving a player credit for time lost when the owners were up to their evil shennanigans seems more than reasonable to me. If I give credit in borderline cases such as when a player was clearly ready to play in the majors but was kept too long in the minors, or credit when segregation disrupted or destroyed a career, then surely I have to give credit for time missed due to collusion. Good point.

Fwiw, cfb, I still see strike time as time the players, collectively, chose to miss. I'm open to discussion, but actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are painful. Raines would have a better case with full seasons in those years, but the plain fact is he simply doesn't have them. He effectively chose to miss time in order to make more money. Nothing wrong with that, but those are indeed hits he didn't get and bases he didn't steal. I did write a post a couple of years ago countering someone's argument that Raines missed too much time, that he wasn't durable. I pro rated Raines's games played to full seasons and he looks much, much better that way.

CBird: why don't you give war credit? Just curious.

edit: crap. It's raining. In my living room. More later if anyone cares to respond.