Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Keith Olbermann: Hall of Famers and Numbers Without Wings

WTF?! You don’t need Mac Stipanovich’s knife to poke holes in this ballot (if it actually existed)!

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. I’m not judging Alomar on the spitting incident, I’m judging him on the fact that for whatever reason, 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. The bad taste may fade with time, but right now I couldn’t vote for him.

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) has gotten in, or will, or is Pete Rose.

Barry Larkin: A great player and one of my favorites, but I don’t recall ever during his playing career having had even that Alomarian sense that this could be a Hall-of-Famer. If we’re looking to put a Reds shortstop in Cooperstown, it should be David Concepcion.

Mark McGwire: Hall of Fame? For what? For pretending to Congress that nothing happened before that steroid hearing? Fine. You got your wish. Nothing happened. Your lifetime numbers are 0-0-.000. And by the way, why is it ok for him to just waltz back in as batting coach of the Cardinals? Would we let Bonds come back in? This is unacceptable, and it gives credence to the very disturbing claim that race is at play when it comes to the punishment of steroid cheats. Mark McGwire is a steroid cheater.

Jack Morris: Another beneficiary of a little perspective. 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. Aye.

Tim Raines: No. It is very close. Maybe the steals should earn him a spot. The rest of the offensive production just doesn’t.

Repoz Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:14 PM | 111 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: announcers, hall of fame, history, television

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:37 PM (#3397998)
Between Olbermann and Pearlman, this morning Repoz is in fine nausea-inducing form.
   2. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:41 PM (#3398000)
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.
   3. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:42 PM (#3398001)
Worst. Ballot. Ever?
   4. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:45 PM (#3398003)
Wow.
   5. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:47 PM (#3398004)
Just awful.
   6. alkeiper Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:49 PM (#3398005)
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?
   7. adenzeno Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:49 PM (#3398006)
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. :-)
   8. Juan V Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:57 PM (#3398009)
Fail.
   9. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 28, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3398010)
If nothing else, Olberman and Pearlman's pretend ballots show that, in fact, things could be worse.
   10. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:06 PM (#3398012)
After seeing this ballot, I'm pleased to see that Olbermann doesn't have an actual vote.
   11. LargeBill Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:08 PM (#3398013)
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.
   12. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:11 PM (#3398016)
I now have another reason to dislike Olbermann. I take the opposite of every one of his.
   13. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:12 PM (#3398017)
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.
   14. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:18 PM (#3398020)
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.
   15. salvomania Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:20 PM (#3398021)
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.
   16. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:20 PM (#3398022)
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.
   17. GregD Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:22 PM (#3398025)
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.
   18. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:23 PM (#3398026)
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.
   19. bob gee Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM (#3398029)
well, someone finally made the BBWAA writers look good.
   20. 1k5v3L Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3398030)
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.
   21. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3398033)
*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.
   22. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:30 PM (#3398034)
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.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:30 PM (#3398035)
Keith, stick to bashing Limbaugh. This is indeed the worst ballot ever. Dumber than O'Reilly. I mean, this is cultivated ignorance.
   24. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:39 PM (#3398038)
Now I'm wondering what Bill O'Reilly's HOF vote would look like.
   25. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:43 PM (#3398043)
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).
   26. AROM Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:45 PM (#3398047)
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.
   27. 1k5v3L Posted: November 28, 2009 at 04:57 PM (#3398054)
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.
   28. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:02 PM (#3398055)
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.
   29. Darren Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3398060)
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.
   30. Baldrick Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:20 PM (#3398063)
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.
   31. Repoz Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:29 PM (#3398065)
SABR member Olbermann was an early Abstract dude, wrote the foreword for BPro 2009...and now this.
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:30 PM (#3398066)
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.
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:31 PM (#3398067)
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.
   34. Dan In Toronto Posted: November 28, 2009 at 05:49 PM (#3398076)
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).
   35. bobm Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:07 PM (#3398095)
[33]: and TLR
   36. Colby Rasmus' Bad Teen Mustache Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3398098)
Worst Fake Ballot in the World!
   37. RobertMachemer Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:20 PM (#3398104)
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.
   38. Cuban X Senators Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:28 PM (#3398108)
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.
   39. Rich Rifkin Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:30 PM (#3398110)
"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.
   40. bobm Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3398113)
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
   41. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3398114)
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.
   42. bobm Posted: November 28, 2009 at 06:58 PM (#3398117)
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.
   43. pyrite Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:05 PM (#3398121)
Let's see how Keith's picks match up with Sean Smith's WAR data (from baseballprojection.com):

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 
   44. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:06 PM (#3398122)
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.
   45. DCA Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:14 PM (#3398124)
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.
   46. DanG Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:31 PM (#3398136)
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

So here is the complete list of all players since 1871 with 135HR430SB and 2100H in their career:

Player       **HR**     SB      H
+-----------------+-------+----+----
Barry Bonds   762     514    2935
Ri
Henderson 297    1406    3055
Joe Morgan    268     689    2517
Paul Molitor  234     504    3319
Rober Alomar  210     474    2724
Tim Raines    170     808    2605
Lou Brock     149     938    3023 
   47. Tuque Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:32 PM (#3398137)
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.
   48. Cuban X Senators Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:33 PM (#3398138)
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.
   49. bobm Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:36 PM (#3398139)
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
   50. RJ in TO Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3398140)
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.
   51. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3398142)
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.
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:44 PM (#3398145)
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.
   53. puck Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3398148)
[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.)
   54. bobm Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:50 PM (#3398149)
[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
   55. Something Other Posted: November 28, 2009 at 07:58 PM (#3398154)
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.
   56. Shibal Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:00 PM (#3398156)
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.
   57. LargeBill Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:06 PM (#3398159)
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.
   58. Chipper Jonestown Massacre Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:06 PM (#3398160)
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!!!)
   59. GEB4000 Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:10 PM (#3398164)
It pains me to see Jeter listed with those excellent defensive shortstops.
   60. Snowboy Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:20 PM (#3398166)
Reading down the list of poster's...finally, something we can all agree on.
What a horrible ballot.
   61. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3398170)
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.
   62. AndrewJ Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:34 PM (#3398172)
Pass.
   63. Blackadder Posted: November 28, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3398182)
I guess it doesn't quite say enough for a primey, but I really liked #43.
   64. AndrewJ Posted: November 28, 2009 at 09:06 PM (#3398188)
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.
   65. John DiFool2 Posted: November 28, 2009 at 09:19 PM (#3398196)
.363 Lou Whitaker


Santo .362.

Can I put away the razor blades once I realize that he doesn't really have an actual vote?
   66. pyrite Posted: November 28, 2009 at 09:20 PM (#3398198)
[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.
   67. Jeff K. Posted: November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM (#3398215)
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.
   68. A triple short of the cycle Posted: November 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM (#3398226)
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.
   69. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: November 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM (#3398237)
Puck,

You could be looking at a park effect with the low ROE totals. That might explain Rose's as well.
   70. DanG Posted: November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM (#3398266)
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.
   71. pinball1973 Posted: November 29, 2009 at 12:36 AM (#3398267)
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.
   72. Buzzards Bay Posted: November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM (#3398271)
#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
   73. pkb33 Posted: November 29, 2009 at 01:48 AM (#3398298)
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.
   74.   Posted: November 29, 2009 at 01:51 AM (#3398300)
All of [57] and plus: a .36 difference in ERA over 4,000 innings is not at all insignificant.
   75. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:02 AM (#3398305)
Olbermann has to be trolling here. You can't be wrong on every single player unless it's on purpose.
   76. Shalimar Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:21 AM (#3398357)
He didn't get every single one wrong. He got Blyleven right, probably just to let everyone know he was ####### with them.
   77. The District Attorney Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:33 AM (#3398364)
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.
   78. bob gee Posted: November 29, 2009 at 04:27 AM (#3398396)
31 repoz - olbermann also wrote the 1975? sspc backs...
   79. Marcel Posted: November 29, 2009 at 04:51 AM (#3398406)
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!
   80. Jesus Melendez Posted: November 29, 2009 at 05:27 AM (#3398424)
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
   81. Jesus Melendez Posted: November 29, 2009 at 05:28 AM (#3398425)
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 
   82. Jesus Melendez Posted: November 29, 2009 at 05:30 AM (#3398426)
What the what?!? Sorry for the double-post sans hyperlink...not sure what's going on with this computer.

Oh well. I sleep now.
   83. Walt Davis Posted: November 29, 2009 at 05:57 AM (#3398431)
"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.
   84. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 29, 2009 at 06:32 AM (#3398437)
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.
   85. Howie Menckel Posted: November 29, 2009 at 06:44 AM (#3398439)
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.
   86. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 29, 2009 at 07:12 AM (#3398449)
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.
   87. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 29, 2009 at 08:17 AM (#3398460)
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.
   88. Walt Davis Posted: November 29, 2009 at 09:17 AM (#3398466)
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.
   89. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:02 PM (#3398491)
Nine years of Bush Derangement Syndrome has finally erased the one worthy part of Olby's brain: his sports knowledge. Sad.
   90. Alex_Lewis Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:14 PM (#3398497)
Yeesh.
   91. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:21 PM (#3398500)
Today's worst... ballot.......... in the wooooorrrrrrlddddddd!
   92. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:30 PM (#3398503)
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.
   93. Shalimar Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:01 PM (#3398510)
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?
   94. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:02 PM (#3398511)
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.
   95. Shalimar Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:14 PM (#3398516)
crippled by Calvinist guilt


That little jerk blames Hobbes for everything.
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 29, 2009 at 03:43 PM (#3398526)
That little jerk blames Hobbes for everything.


...when we all know it's the fault of his Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.
   97. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: November 29, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3398553)
Is this a parody?
   98. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 29, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3398574)
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.
   99. Jeff K. Posted: November 29, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3398707)
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.
   100. OCF Posted: November 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM (#3398734)
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?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(20 - 5:29pm, Sep 02)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogRule change means more players to choose from for postseason roster
(13 - 5:29pm, Sep 02)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(274 - 5:29pm, Sep 02)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(75 - 5:27pm, Sep 02)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(5 - 5:22pm, Sep 02)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(1 - 5:21pm, Sep 02)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(36 - 5:14pm, Sep 02)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(18 - 5:12pm, Sep 02)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(2 - 5:12pm, Sep 02)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSpector: Negative run differential doesn't tell whole story for first-place Cardinals
(4 - 4:56pm, Sep 02)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(6 - 4:54pm, Sep 02)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(27 - 4:50pm, Sep 02)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogYankees To Sign Chris Young
(3 - 4:47pm, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(9 - 4:46pm, Sep 02)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(1004 - 4:33pm, Sep 02)
Last: ursus arctos

Page rendered in 0.9070 seconds
52 querie(s) executed