his ballot is:
trammel
raines
dawson
rice
blyeven
morris
hendersonapart from rice and morris a pretty solid ballot

Ugh, if Hawk Harrelson gets in the Hall, they should burn it down.

Ugh, if Hawk Harrelson gets in the Hall, they should burn it down.

Why burn it down? A bug bomb or ten should get rid of any potential infestation.

How does the same writer go from something stupid like:

I didn’t vote for Raines last December because, among other things, he never finished higher than fifth on a Most Valuable Player ballot.

to something intelligent like:

His on-base percentages were astronomical, and he reached base more times during his career than did Tony Gwynn, who finished with 3,000 hits. He was successful on an astounding 85 percent of his stolen-base attempts

I didn’t vote for Raines last December because, among other things, he never finished higher than fifth on a Most Valuable Player ballot.

I don't know if it's "stupid." It's not a bad way to illustrate whether somebody has a HOF reputation, especially since it's a snapshot at his peak.

I'm not a big supporter of Dawson's admission, but I'd vote for Andre 10 times before I voted for Jim Rice once.

But of course none of this really matters until the grievous wrong is righted and Bert Blyleven gets in.

And the tide slowly begins to turn...

It's not a bad way to illustrate whether somebody has a HOF reputation,

No, but he admits to using it as one of his reasons to not vote against Raines-

No, but he admits to using it as one of his reasons to not vote against Raines-

I don't think it's unreasonable if it's one of many reasons. It certainly shouldn't help Raines' HOF case.

My BBTF wish for 2009 is that Primates will stop casually throwing insults around quite so much. I'm all for debate and discussion, but the way voters who are not in step with Primer consensus get routinely insulted is too bad.

The sky isn't going to fall if Jim Rice, or even Jack Morris, makes it. I would like to see Rice make it because he was a very good player that I happen to like a lot. Perhaps other people feel the same way about Jack Morris. I'm a big Hall person, so I tend to get more worked up when I'm convinced a player is getting shafted (Raines, Blyleven) than when someone I think is below the bar gets in. If Morris being elected meant Raines and Blyleven would also make it, I'd actually take that.

To me, a Hall of Famer is sort of like what the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote of pornography: I know it when I see it.

Obscenity. Obscenity!!!! Not pornography!!!!!

Trust me, Stewart knew porno when he saw it too.

No, but he admits to using it as one of his reasons to not vote against Raines-

I don't think it's unreasonable if it's one of many reasons. It certainly shouldn't help Raines' HOF case.

My problem with using it, is quite frankly that mistakes are made in MVP voting and relying on MVP voting rather than looking at seasons/careers anew simply perpetuates such mistakes.

Alan Trammel never won an MVP award, a fact which I have seen BBWAA voters mention against him- the very same voters who robbed him of one in the utterly ludicrous 1987 MVP vote.

Raines finished 5th in the MVP voting in 1983- it wasn't his best year
he had a better year the next year and finished 11th
he had an even better year the next and finished 12th (he may have been the best player in the NL that year, depends on what you think of Guerrero's Dee and missing time)
1986- finished 6th, was either best or second best player in the league that year
1987- finished 7th, reasonable- but he was better than the man who won.

Raines Prime 1983-89
2nd in runs created behind Wade Boggs
He had 795 to Rickey Henderson's 763
he had an OPS+ of 139 to Rickey's 138
he had 429 SB and just 63 CS
Rickey had 552 SB and 100 CS.

AT the time it was not 100% clear that Rickey was better than Raines.

Rickey has 3 tghings on Raines
1: The SB title
2: 1990
3: More PT-
after turning 32 Rickey had 2700 more PAs than Raines- despite not playing much better if at all- 115 OPS+ to 114.

This may sound crazy- but I think the Yankees may have royally screwed Raines HOF-wise
From 1996-98 he had 940 PAs (and a 115 OPS+)
From 1993-95 he had 1520 PAs (and that includes the strike years)
Raines "lost" some 600-750 PAs to Joe Torre
he lost some 100 runs, some 150-200 hits

his career runs scored shuld be up around these guys:
27. Mickey Mantle 1677
28. Dave Winfield 1669
29. Rafael Palmeiro 1663
30. Joe Morgan 1650

his career hit total should be over Buckner's rather than under...

Raines, who never had a 200-hit season,

Neither did Ted Williams.

Raines "lost" some 600-750 PAs to Joe Torre
he lost some 100 runs, some 150-200 hits

Worse yet, Torre screwed him by not playing him for weeks at a time after having him in the lineup regularly.

IIRC, he used the subterfuge of the DL in 96 and 97. In 98 he seems to have come up with some silly idea like resting players down the stretch in a 114 win season.

Your pal,
Gary Sheffield

In 1987, Tim Raines first played in Montreal's 22nd game of the season. That gave him a 141-game season in which to make his mark. As he was the most direct and obvious victim of baseball's 1986-87 collusion - and an arbitrator did indeed find collusion - I am certainly inclined to say that those missing 21 games were not his fault and should not be held against him. What do we get if we multiply Raines's 1987 statistical line by 162/141? (Never mind that in a no-collusion alternate universe, he probably wouldn't have been playing in Montreal.)

G: 160
AB: 609
H: 201 (Would have ranked 2nd in the league, and look - it's 200.)
R: 141 (As it was, he led the league in runs. This would have led the league by 20.)
2B-3B-HR: 39-9-21 (Would have been 4th in doubles)
RBI: 78
SB: 57-6 (Would have been 2nd, ahead of Gwynn's 56. Of course, Coleman had 109.)
BB: 103 (Would have been 4th in the league; as it was, he was 5th.)
Times on base: 309 (Would have led the league)
BA/OBP/SLB: .330/.429/.526 (His actual numbers. 3rd in BA, 3rd in OBP, 9th in SLG)
OPS+: 149 (6th in the league)
Total Bases: 321 (Would have been 4th in the league.)
Runs Created (per bb-ref): 152 (Would have led the league by a good margin.)
Power-speed number: 30.4 (Would still have just been 5th. Tough league for that.)

Does 141 runs scored grab your attention? Leading the league in times on base? 200 hits and 100 walks?

One way of doing a comps list for Raines's career: a spread of 20 points in OPS+ and 2,000 PA that places Raines right in the middle. Pretty much every better hitter than Raines on this list is a HOFer or really ought to be. When you start getting much below his career OPS+, though, the only obvious HOFers are guys like Banks, Fisk, and Roberto Alomar, who played much more key defensive positions. It's an interesting list, if only to point out what a peak candidate Raines really is (and how much his baserunning lifts him above, say, Dave Parker).

Dawson is on that list, BTW, eight slots below Raines. Just in terms of OPS+ and longevity, Dawson more resembles Harold Baines or Luis Gonzalez, though again there's some baserunning to consider, and in Dawson's case some fine CF defense in his youth.

Oh, I'm gonna get people annoyed with me again.

Tim Raines should sail easily into the HoF.

But basing an argument for him on OPS+ is not smart. He was a LF. LFs with a career 123 OPS+ and even with 2500+ games generally don't make the HoF these days. Harold Baines had 2800+ games and a 120 OPS+ and nobody here is suggesting he should be in. The only corner HoFers voted in by the writers in recent times with a worse OPS+ are Perez and Brock who most here think should not be in. Now I'll completely agree that there's no rational argument for including those two and excluding Raines but there are lots of rational arguments for excluding those two which doesn't help Raines.

Raines is going to be a tough case to make outside of saber circles. The best positive comps are Henderson and Gwynn but he definitely wasn't as good as Henderson (though pretty close in peak and rate stats) and he may have been as valuable as Gwynn but you'll never get a non-saber-oriented voter to let go of Gwynn's 338 BA and 3000 hits. His "downside" comp is Brock but "unfortunately" Brock has 3000 hits and broke Cobb's record and has 130 more SB than Raines.

And while writer ignorance of OBP and fetish for milestones are holding Raines back, he'd be in the HoF if he'd been able to play CF. As is, you can't even make the case for him as a good defensive LF ... at least not easily as he has no GG. He's also hurt by the fact that, after age 32, he had only one season in which he qualified for the batting title and just barely -- he was basically a 4th OF for the last 11 years of his career (though some of that was injury, not role). There are some HoFers with amazing peaks who stopped playing early but there can't be many who were "non-starters" for half their career. (Note, I judge career length by games played and 2500 is a lot of games ... though the last 120 or so were as a PH ... so I've got no qualms about it. But you don't need to convince me.)

Raines may be the single best example of "saber value" vs. "traditional value." LF, limited power, not a starter after 32, did poorly by MVP standards, only started two AS games, never won a GG, has poor black ink and unimpressive gray ink despite all those steals and runs, no milestones except 1500 runs which I'm not even sure is really recognized as a milestone. With Santo, Grich, Trammell, Whitaker and soon Larkin at least we had some GG and positional value to throw around -- fat lot of good it did any of them. (Larkin's got the MVP, he's got a good chance) Raines has only two things over those guys: (1) we can sell his position as "leadoff hitter" rather than LF and (2) writers are a lot more aware of OBP now so they may not laugh off the Gwynn comparison even if they won't buy it completely.

My problem with using it, is quite frankly that mistakes are made in MVP voting and relying on MVP voting rather than looking at seasons/careers anew simply perpetuates such mistakes.

I agree completely. It's a bad version of an echochamber, really. Olney used this is some debate, maybe about Blyleven, too.

The only thing that someone contemporaneous (which is what the MVP is assessing) knows that we don't today is a players rep. And to me, a rep is nearly worthless when looking at someone's value. There's outliers in either direction where someone's personality is so exceptional that you might buy that there's value there, and some in the other direction who are such flaming jerks that you might say it begins to slightly impact their value. But for the great, great, great majority of players their 'rep' is totally irrelevant and simply a product of bias.

So, we take this bias and then assume that because it existed in the past it is of value now? Why? Why not just do an analysis of value based on what we know now about how to do it, rather than throw out everything we've learned since and rely on votes from the past?

BTW, I could see a small case for relying on rep/vote on things like defense, where we have limited historical data. But for the most part, using the MVP vote argument is a crutch and a bad one.

basing an argument for him on OPS+ is not smart

Quite true, and I hope I didn't give the impression I was trying to do that. Raines's career OPS+ simply is what it is. As you point out, it's not great because it reflects a (very) long decline phase. What he was declining from, of course, was being one of the 2 or 3 best players in the NL for several years in the 1980s, which is the real core of his case.

My BBTF wish for 2009 is that Primates will stop casually throwing insults around quite so much.

Shut your retarded mouth you filthy inbred idiot!

Sorry, it's still 2008 so I wanted to get as many in as I could before the ban goes into effect. :)

The one aspect of OPS+ that does work in Raines favor is the fact that it gives more weight to SLG% rather than OBP%. Raines and Perez's career OPS+ being as close as they are is actually a strong argument in favor of Raines as his numbers are built more on OBP than slugging. Of course the voters have to actually care about this for it to have any effect on his balloting numbers. More likely than not we'll still see a plethora of he only made 2 ASG and never finished in the top 5 MVP type articles for at least a couple of years.

The one aspect of OPS+ that does work in Raines favor is the fact that it gives more weight to SLG% rather than OBP%.

Actually OPS+ is OK in this regard. Tango's modified OPS I recall as giving a weight of 1.8 to OBP. OPS+ ends up giving a weight of about 1.35 to OBP (it depends on the ratio of the mean SLG to the mean OBP). So OPS+ is about halfway between straight OPS and Tango's OPS.

But as you hint, it's a moot point. You have to go beyond OPS and OPS+ to show why OBP is more important. Might as well make that the crux of the argument rather than "converting" back to OPS+.

And to me, a rep is nearly worthless when looking at someone's value.

It shouldn't be. There are often good reasons for a player having the rep that he does, usually having to do with the shape of his performance.

-- MWE

More on HoF perception.

Raines is an odd case. He had an excellent peak. Perhaps even a great peak by fancy stat standards but certainly at least excellent by any rational standard.

He then hung around for a very long time as an above-average to good player ... yet didn't hit any major milestones other than runs.

Outside the inner circle of guys who were basically incredible for 15+ years, you have your peak cases and your excellent, long career cases. That last group are the ones who hit some milestones. I suspect that peak cases are easier to make if the guy doesn't stick around. In those cases, you have gaudy rate stats to point to and, maybe most importantly, you get to imagine what the rest of their career would have been like if only they hadn't had that injury (or whatever) that ended their career.

Raines is a guy for whom we know how his career continued. And, frankly, Raines wasn't an important player after age 29. He had value certainly, was even good. But his last AS game was at 27. That was also the last time he led the league in anything. There was nothing newsworthy about the last 15 seasons of Raines' career -- no mileston chases, AS appearances, no MVP recognition, no memorable playoff moments, no league-leading, rarely even any top 10s. The three things Raines is best known for (not necessarily in this order) in the mainstream world are being the victim of collusion, cocaine use and not being as good as Rickey Henderson. Bruce Sutter has a better HoF reputation case. :-)

This IS a classic case of what writers mean when they say "I know an HoFer when I see one" and "he wasn't viewed as an HoFer when he played." For seven seasons, Raines was incredible. For 15 seasons, he was never on baseball's center stage. The writers had a long time to get used to not thinking about Tim Raines the star ballplayer because, let's be honest, he wasn't over those years.

The writers haven't necessarily been all that friendly to peak-only cases (see the recent McGwire thread for some examples) but I'm guessing you do better if you're Greenberg, Kiner, or Koufax -- great then gone -- than if you're Tim Raines. But I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone with Raines' mix of immediate impact followed by long, solid play with no milestones.

I think the only argument for Raines that might carry the day is that he was the 2nd or 3rd best leadoff hitter of all-time (Henderson, Rose), better than Brock (this may be hard to convince people of due to milestones) and (when you include the walks) reached base as often as Gwynn. (I know, that's 3 arguments in 1)

To me, a Hall of Famer is sort of like what the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote of pornography: I know it when I see it.

And Rickey Henderson practicing his swing in the mirror qualifies as both.

Why does this question fascinate me so?

The big offense of the 50s and post-93 throws off counting stat comparisons pretty badly. So, looking 1960-1993, for ages 21-29, in terms of runs created:

Raines is 4th.

#1 and #2 are Eddie Murray (wouldn't have guessed that) and Yaz who both went on to compile long careers and major milestones.

#3 is Santo who actually did pretty good in career length -- 2243 games -- but not seasons and didn't make the HoF as a 3B.

Raines who had a long career but no milestones

#5 is Henderson who had a long career and lots of milestones.

Those 5 are all closely bunched (Henderson to Santo is just 4 RC, Murray is just 20 ahead of Santo). The ones ahead of Raines had substantially more games and he had the highest OBP so I assume he comes out #1 in RC/27 (though Henderson actually had a handful fewer games and an even higher OBP so he'd probably overtake Raines.

Then Barry Bonds (#6), Brett (#7) and Ripken (#9) meet the long career with milestones criteria.

Dick Allen (#8), Vada Pinson (#10) and the guy I was interested in, Darryl Strawberry (#11) did not and aren't in.

Straw's RC is further behind Raines' than I would have thought but his BA was much lower than I recalled at just 263 and so he's 30 points back in OBP. Still he had a 144 OPS+ through age 29 and was among the most feared hitters in the game (honest). He has a good peak-only case. He did practically nothing after age 29 (<350 games).

Pinson may be more interesting. He's not a bad comp for Raines in this sense: he did nothing of importance after age 26 yet still made it to 2469 games while achieving no milestones (not even 1500 runs). He was substantially worse in his non-peak than Raines (career OPS+ just 110) but was a CF during his prime. I'm sure you'd find that Raines has the better peak (especially rate-wise as Pinson has 130 more games) but the positional adjustment might make it close.

I think this highlights the difficulty of Raines' case. If you argue that his peak makes him an obvious HoFer, then you have to put Straw and Pinson, based purely on peak, at least in the borderline case. Frankly, I don't buy that.

So then you have to add at least part of a career value argument for Raines ... but the rest of his career wasn't that impressive, certainly not as impressive (in terms of milestones) as the similar peaks who got voted in.

And that's the tricky bit -- the Raines case is a mix of the peak and career arguments. Unless you're such a peak-ist that Strawberry is in. :-)

Of course, at #12 on that list, you get our friend Jim Rice. As we all know, there's no way Rice should be an HoFer and Raines not. But after Rice you get more peak but no milestones cases like Bobby Bonds, Greg Luzinski and Will Clark. Of course by this time you've moved pretty far away from Raines' peak (though Bonds and Clark are probably better RC/27 comps for Raines than Straw or Pinson).

And I might be wrong about peak only being better than peak plus "nice but no milestones." Strawberry and Allen are fairly close to Greenberg and Kiner who are the classic (only really) examples of pure peak corner selections. Of course both had their off-field issues.

And yes, I've gone a long way to basically end up back at "you better have some milestones if you want to make the HoF, at least as a corner OF."

Andre: Best player on RBI Baseball. Discussion over.

reached base as often as Gwynn

But not as often as Staub.

I agree with Raines for HOF but none of the arguments put forth shuts the door and there isn't, as in Rice's case, that one season arguing greatness for him. Writers can look at Rice's 1978 season and see greatness. They struggle to see it in Raines' case.

Raines is the gay marriage candidate. He needs the older, less informed, voters to croak before he'll gather enough votes.

The only thing that someone contemporaneous (which is what the MVP is assessing) knows that we don't today is a players rep.

False.

Shut your retarded mouth you filthy inbred idiot!

Sorry, it's still 2008 so I wanted to get as many in as I could before the ban goes into effect. :)

That ought to hold you until at least Friday. ;-)

I think we might finally be getting closer to the honest (and legit) push for Raines - a Koufax-esque career, with 5 to 7 (you make the call) monster seasons like Sandy's Big Six.

I've been griping for months about many BBTF Raines-backers seom to pitch him as some monster prime or career candidate, and to me doesn't wash.
He doesn't have the overwhelming career OR the long-prime numbers, frankly.

It's fair to say that his age 30+ career adds counting stats that don't guarantee entrance, while also dragging down his rate numbers.

Yet I've seen dozens of pitches on this site that concede nothing about Raines' career.
Well, concede something and you might just get somewhere.

Signed,
Original Hall of Merit Voter who voted for Raines each time in our 'Hall of Fame' version

my last post of 2008-- :)

Raines' case, even among for the HoF should be easy.

1. Tony Gwynn sailed in.
2. Raines and Gwynn played basically the same position, about as well, during the same years, in similar parks, simialr career lenght and durability; so a comparison of their hitting stats should yield a very good answer as to their comparative value.
3. Raines' R and RBI totals are as good as Tony's. He was better at scoring (SB/base running), not as good at driving them in (fewer singles) (as well as battign order differences).
4. Gwynn has no "peak" argument over Raines.

QED

and #29, older voters are not necessarily less informed. The more informed I've become informed on the subject you introduced, the more I'm against it. And I don't plan on croaking any time soon either.

And I don't plan on croaking any time soon either.

More time to educate you on the right and wrong side of that argument.

As for Raines, I agree with #32 in that he's a great player for a short period and a good one forever. Sandy Koufax for six years and Derek Lowe for another dozen. That is a HOF but not someone that sails in without thought.

As for Raines, I agree with #32 in that he's a great player for a short period and a good one forever. Sandy Koufax for six years and Derek Lowe for another dozen. That is a HOF but not someone that sails in without thought.

Why not? Didn't the actual Koufax slide in without thought? And isn't Koufax(6) + Lowe(12) better than the actual Koufax?

Why not? Didn't the actual Koufax slide in without thought? And isn't Koufax(6) + Lowe(12) better than the actual Koufax?

Sure, but I don't think Raines at his best equalled Koufax at his best (and definitely not on the surface). And the Raines as Lowe comparison is hurt because while Lowe was a rotation mainstay, Raines put up his Lowe-like numbers in less than fulltime duty for many of those seasons.

I firmly support Rock for the HOF, and think he has a chance of working his way up the ballot, but I think he's got one of the more peculiar HOF-worthy careers. It's going to take time to build support for his case.

the honest (and legit) push for Raines - a Koufax-esque career, with 5 to 7 (you make the call) monster seasons like Sandy's Big Six.

Good one. New Year's Fools Day!

Sure, but I don't think Raines at his best equalled Koufax at his best (and definitely not on the surface).

I'm sure people smarter than me have data that shows Raines' peak being near Koufax's in value, but I don't see it. And, surely, the perception between the two are not even on the same planet. Koufax had an amazing run of dominance that is overvalued by the general public due to park and era. Raines has, er, a bunch of years where he was really good and generally overlooked.

Your pal,
Gary Sheffield

ouch

Raines and Gwynn played basically the same position, about as well,

You'd have a hard time making that case. Gwynn won 5 GG and was still good enough to run out in CF for half a season at age 29 (and win a GG). Raines had no GG, spent one season in CF at age 24 but otherwise never played it with any regularity.

Not that it's going to make a big difference in the comparison, but Gwynn was likely the better defender and, even if he wasn't by some fancy standard, you'd never convince many voters to overlook the 5-0 GG difference.

By the way, I don't think making the case that Raines was as good as Gwynn is likely to succeed. Even if he was, Gwynn's got way too much aura around him for the argument to succeed. He hit 44 points higher than Raines -- sure, Raines "makes that up" with walks but equating that to a 338 lifetime BA is going to get a lot of people to roll their eyes. Also, thanks to that BA, Gwynn has the higher SLG, OPS and OPS+ (EQAs are equal). Gwynn also has 37 more points of black ink, including leading the league in batting 8 times, has 8 more AS appearances, plus the 3000 hits. I don't think you'll get anywhere if you try to convince a mainstream voter that those differences aren't important. (they'll try to have you committed to an insane asylum if you try to equate Raines' peak with Koufax's peak ... and I might join them in that effort :-)

Make the argument that he was almost as good as Gwynn. Specifically make the argument that he got on base as often as Gwynn and, since he was a leadoff hitter, that was his job.

Tim Raines -- 3rd greatest leadoff hitter of all time -- Hall of Famer.

Another cute comp for these two is that Tim Raines, Jr and Tony Gwynn, Jr have both played in the majors. Add the nepotistic call-up of Pete Rose, Jr and you have to wonder how long before we see Rickey Jr and Ichiro Jr.