Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice elected to the HoF

[Oldcity]

I'm not seeing a huge difference.

[Fatter than Joey]

Agreed -- I think he had pretty big pipes in 1981.

[TheRealMattKain]

3) Tim Raines was as big of a juicer as McGwire or anyone else. Just look at any baseball card of his after the age of 31. Hmmm... Mr. Raines, how did your SLG steadily decline from 1988 to 1991, then suddenly jump from .345 (yes, that is SLG) in 1991 to .405 in 1992 (at the age of 32) to .480 in 1993 (at the age of 33) and stay over .400 through the age of 37? How did you get the nickname "Rock" after the age of 31? And even if he wasn't juicing, which is a smaller chance than that of that asteriod hitting the Earth in 2029, I am not deceived by the number of walks and strikeouts that a guy 5'8" who crouches down in his batting stance gets.

 

Wah? So because Raines found a little bit of extra power in his 30s he must have juiced? Mind you, we're not talking about Brady Anderson power here, we're talking about a guy who peaked at 16 homers during the "suspicious" seasons that you mention. So we automatically assume that anyone that hits a few extra dingers in their 30s MUST be a juicer?? Anyway, I spent about 10 minutes on baseball-reference, and (using your logic) I found some more guys that surely juiced:

 

Paul Molitor: Career high in homers at age 36. Slugged over .500 only 3 times during career - 2 of those were at ages 36 and 37.

Carlton Fisk: Career high in homers at age 37 (11 more than previous high). Second highest slugging percentage of career at age 40.

Wade Boggs: Slugged .353 and .378 at ages 34 and 35. Slugging suddenly jumped to .433 at age 36 when he had his second highest career homerun total.

Tony Gwynn: Hit 17, 16, and 10 homeruns at ages 37, 38, and 39. Prior to this he had only had 2 seasons with double-digit homeruns. Two highest slugging percentage numbers of his career came at ages 37 and 34.

Dave Parker: Had the highest single season home run totals of career at ages 34 and 35.

Craig Biggio: Highest single-season home run totals at ages 38 and 39.

Al Oliver: Career high of 22 homers at age 35 (had hit 4 the year before). Also had the only season in career with a slugging percentage over .500 at age 35 (his career slugging was .451 - that's 50 points higher than his career line).

Julio Franco: Career high in homers and slugging at age 35 (he slugged almost 100 points higher than his career line at age 35).

Omar Vizquel: Career high of 14 homers at age 35 (that's the same as the total number of homers that he had in all three seasons before this)

 

 

 

[TheRealMattKain]

How did you get the nickname "Rock" after the age of 31?

One more little thing. Raines had the "Rock" nickname long before he turned 31 (not sure where you got that from). I found this 1981 source about the "Rock" nickname on wiki:

 

"Raines received this nickname at an Expo rookie camp when he was seventeen, based on his physique."

- Abel, Allen (1981-05-28), "Raines defies Doubleday", The Globe and Mail

 

He looked pretty buff as an Expo back in the '80s:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/baseball/mlb/11/29/bp.raineshalloffame/t1_timraines_si.jpg

[MJLiverock]

Henderson and Raines were two of my favorite players as a kid in the early 80's. I still remember the famous Raines quote of admitting he slid headfirst into second so he wouldn't break the cocaine vials in his back pocket.

 

Maybe this is why I am so lassaize faire regarding the steroid issue. All my favorite players as a kid seemed to have coke problems, Raines, Gooden, Strawberry, Molitor, Dave Parker, Mario Soto. Well at least I still have Yount as far as anyone knows.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

I would put Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven in the hall. In my mind there has been a bias against players from the 70s and 80s vs. players of the 50s and 60s. There are a number of players in the 70s and 80s whose statistics are better than Bill Mazeroski, for example. I think it has do with the romanicized coverage of baseball in the 50s and 60s vs. the way the sport is covered now.

[kramnoj]

It's worth noting that Mazeroski was selected by the Veteran's Committee, not the writers. It should also be noted that he had an excellent defensive reputation and an important WS HR. He wasn't really selected for his career offensive statistics.

 

But that doesn't change your first point that Dawnson and Bert should get in. History has shown us that just about everybody that gets over 60% will get in. I don't believe there are any first balloters debuting next year, so the writers would do Cooperstown a favor by voting those two in next year so that we don't have a year without an induction.

[ILuvDaBush]

Raines....84% success rate on 800+ SB's. If not for Rickey Henderson, wouldn't he be at worst a third to fifth ballot? Then again, what do you expect from an electorate that doesn't even unanimously believe the Halls should be open for the greatest basestealer of all-tie? Raines was underappreciated because he didn't have the American spotlight north of the border. If he would have broken in with New York (well then he may have gone the way of Doc Gooden), he would be Bernie Williams/Paul O'Neill (sans Seinfeld cameo)/Derek Jeter combined. We have been reprogrammed to appreciate the subtle things a timely walk, stolen base, and eventual run can bring to a game. Unfortunately, on a team like the 'spos, his talents were wasted. Just imagine what type of early success he could have had on Jeter's Yanks or Rickey's A's.

[davego]

If you could have one guy on your team for his entire career, would you pick Rains or Dawson?

[Outlander]

Raines

[LouisEly]

After further review, I probably undervalued Raines as a player. And I'll take back the steriods accusation.

 

But I still don't think he's HOF worthy, and I'd take Dawson over him. Here's why.

 

Raines had some great seasons from 1983-1987 (and even for 1987 it was a great year). However only once after the age of 26 did he play in as many as 150 games in a season. Only three times after the age of 26 did he play in as many as 140 games in a season. The one season he played in at least 150 games after the age of 26 he had the worst OBP and SLG of any season with more than 150 plate appearances. I need more than five great seasons from a guy for him to be HOF worthy, or five great seasons plus another 10 good/decent seasons. Other than his first year in Chicago, after the age of 26 he wasn't durable. Injuries have kept many people out of the HOF; had Raines been durable enough to play at least 145 games for most seasons until at least the age of 35 I would think he would have a much better case. But he didn't.

 

Dawson on the other hand had at least 10 years that I would describe as great or very good, plus another five good/decent seasons. Dawson only had one season with less than 130 games played prior to the age of 37, and taking out the strike shortened year of 1981 only had four seasons prior to age 37 where he played than less than 140 games. After Dawson left Montreal, Raines' production went down; taking out the abberation of 1987, in 1988-1990 post-Dawson years Raines scored 66, 76, and 65 runs. Getting on base is great, but it doesn't matter if you don't cross the plate. You need to have guys hitting behind them with power to drive them in, and after Dawson left Raines didn't have that and thus his runs scored went way down. People see the OBP for Raines and get excited, but they often don't look over to the games played and runs scored and realize that it wasn't that great of a season.

 

I know this is a rudimentary measure and the statisticians here will poke holes big enough to drive Mack trucks through it, but the bottom line in baseball is scoring runs. You either score them or you drive them in. And for his career Dawson scored or drove in more than 400 more runs than Raines. Now if we want to isolate a five year period, prior to the age of 26 I would say that Raines was the better player (the year they were 26 was a wash - both had fantastic seasons at that age). But after the age of 26 Dawson was far more productive and durable. And I think that is why he is getting 60% of the vote and Raines is less than 25%.

[kramnoj]

You need to have guys hitting behind them with power to drive them in, and after Dawson left Raines didn't have that and thus his runs scored went way down. People see the OBP for Raines and get excited, but they often don't look over to the games played and runs scored and realize that it wasn't that great of a season.

 

It looks to me like you are acknowledging that Raines Runs scored are dependent on the players behind him, but are still punishing him for not succeeding. I think you need to dig deeper into the stats again. Are you assuming that Raines was a leadoff hitter in 89? In 89 Raines started more games hitting cleanup than he did leadoff. That obviously is going to have an impact on runs scored. In 89, the Expos scored 632 Runs. I think you need to adjust for his scoring environment before saying that he didn't score enough.

[splitterpfj]

I did a Hall of Fame Trial for Raines in '05. Prior to that, I had never considered him a Hall of Fame caliber player, but after I compared him to his peers who are in, I changed to a yes vote.

 

First off, when trying to build a control group of Hall of Famers to compare him to, I realized there are very few leadoff types in the Hall from the Post World War II era. To get it done, I had to include Rickey, even though he wasn't in yet, and I had to include Ozzie Smith, based purely on the fact that stolen bases are central to Raines' candidacy, and Smith is among the top HOF base stealers from recent generations.

 

I knew Ozzie's offensive numbers would pull the averages down, but I also knew the positively freakish numbers Rickey put up would offset Ozzie's impact. Here's what I found....

 

S=seasons, again, 162 games played=1 season

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVG OPS

15.4 102 169 28 7 11 63 52 .294 .810 Raines

16.7 101 171 29 5 11 62 48 .282 .774 Group

 

The control group is Henderson, Molitor, Brock, Joe Morgan, and Ozzie...Raines is right on them in every category, except for batting average and OPS, where he has a comfortable lead. Among leadoff guys and dominant base stealers....Raines certainly looks like a Hall of Famer to me.

[LouisEly]

Are you assuming that Raines was a leadoff hitter in 89? In 89 Raines started more games hitting cleanup than he did leadoff. That obviously is going to have an impact on runs scored.

 

Well, then .286/.395/.418 with 9 HRs and 60 RBI for a cleanup hitter is poor. For a leadoff hitter (76 runs scored) or a cleanup hitter, that was not a HOF-worthy season. So shall we classify it as a mediocre season for a leadoff hitter, or a poor season for a cleanup hitter?

 

It looks to me like you are acknowledging that Raines Runs scored are dependent on the players behind him, but are still punishing him for not succeeding.

 

What it does is add more proof that power hitters like Dawson are more valuable to a team then guys like Raines.

 

Bottom line is that Raines was nothing special after the age of 27. Other than finishing 17th in MVP voting in 1989, he has no accolades after the age of 27 - no All-Star, no significant finish in MVP voting. That is not HOF-worthy to me. If you want to draw a comparison, the guy I think he compares closest to if you put their careers next to each other is Kenny Lofton. In fact, I thought that before looking at Baseball-Reference's list at the bottom of the page that said that Lofton was #2 in terms of a career comparison. Raines got an earlier start because Lofton chose to pursue basketball at Arizona, but Lofton was a better player into his 30's. But something tells me that not a lot of people around here would vote for Lofton because they remember him a lot better than Raines.

 

Don't get me wrong, he was a great player up until the age of 27. Had he been able to extend even some of that greatness into his 30's then I would say that he is HOF-worthy. If there was Hall of the Very, Very Good then I would vote yes for that. But five great seasons to me does not put a guy in the HOF.

[PKBadger]

Well, then .286/.395/.418 with 9 HRs and 60 RBI for a cleanup hitter is poor. For a leadoff hitter (76 runs scored) or a cleanup hitter, that was not a HOF-worthy season. So shall we classify it as a mediocre season for a leadoff hitter, or a poor season for a cleanup hitter?

 

It's a little unfair to classify that as a "mediocre season for a leadoff hitter", considering that if a Brewer put up a .286/.395/.418 season from the #1 spot we would throw a parade.

[kramnoj]

But five great seasons to me does not put a guy in the HOF.

 

Can you point out the 6+ great seasons that Rice had, using your cut off of 150 games? I would argue that Rice had a 3 season peak and had other valueable seasons that range from goodish to very good.

 

That's the problem with Rice's election, now that he is in, the writers will have a tough time explaining why he's in and others are out. Raines had a career OPS+ of 123, while Rice had a career OPS of 128+. When you take into account that Raines had great value on the bases while Rice did not and the probability that Raines had more defensive value and that Raines played in over 400 more games, it would be tough to explain why Rice is in and Raines is out. Raines career OPS+ is actually higher than Dawson, who only has a 119+. I would be curious which 6+ years you consider to be Dawson's great seasons in which he played 150 games or more.

 

Well, then .286/.395/.418 with 9 HRs and 60 RBI for a cleanup hitter is poor. For a leadoff hitter (76 runs scored) or a cleanup hitter, that was not a HOF-worthy season. So shall we classify it as a mediocre season for a leadoff hitter, or a poor season for a cleanup hitter?

 

Are you really going to call a season in which a player has a .395 OBP, which was 71 points higher than what a league average player would have put up in that environment poor or mediocre? His OBP was 5th in the NL that year. I would guess that Raines didn't rack up big numbers in either RBI or Runs because he batted both leadoff and cleanup that year. 71 games hitting cleanup and 65 games leading off.

 

As to your comparison to Lofton, he only hit the mark of 150 games played twice. He doesn't belong in this conversation. He does belong in a discussion of centerfielders and if the BBWAA does a good job of selecting CF to the HoF.

[TooLiveBrew]

It's pretty pointless to try & argue a player's worth based on team-dependent stats like RBI & R.

 

 

That's the problem with Rice's election, now that he is in, the writers will have a tough time explaining why he's in and others are out.

 

I totally agree. This is what I don't like. I think for a more contemporary example, this would be a bit like Andres Galarraga or Chili Davis getting in.

[LouisEly]

Can you point out the 6+ great seasons that Rice had, using your cut off of 150 games? I would argue that Rice had a 3 season peak and had other valueable seasons that range from goodish to very good. [/]

 

I never said that Rice was HOF worthy.

 

Raines career OPS+ is actually higher than Dawson, who only has a 119+. I would be curious which 6+ years you consider to be Dawson's great seasons in which he played 150 games or more.

 

Well, let's start with the MVP season and the two years he finished #2 (Raines never finished higher than 5th). Then add in the five other years he was an All-Star, then add in the year he finished 7th in the MVP voting. So how about nine great seasons. Second, Raines career OPS is inflated by his walks, which is inflated by his lack of height and crouched batting stance. It was Dawson's job to drive in runs, not walk, thus he didn't get on base as much, but still scored or drove in 400 more runs than Raines in his career. No one has ever walked their way into the HOF, and no one ever will. Dawson had 1000 more total bases than Raines in his career. Eight times Dawson finished in the top 10 in power/speed ratio, and is #8 all-time in that department; Raines did it only four times. Dawson was also a better defender - he won eight Gold Gloves; Raines won none.

 

This is getting old. Over 75% of the writers do not think Raines is HOF worthy, and they are not an uninformed group. You are in the minority on this one. Like I said, had Raines extended his greatness into his 30's he would be in, but he flamed out after the age of 27, and that is what is keeping him out.

[TooLiveBrew]

Second, Raines career OPS is inflated by his walks, which is inflated by his lack of height and crouched batting stance.

 

Tell that to Aaron Miles, David Eckstein, etc. Height has nothing to do with it. Clearly Raines had great BB skill, and clearly you are just unwilling to change your stance on him. He was a better player than Rice in all but a handful of seasons once you take defense (& SB value) into consideration. The reason Raines wouldn't get in the Hall is a career SLG of .425. Raines was significantly better at getting on base, which is job one of any batter, and why it correlates better to runs scored. They're probably both right on the fringe of being HoF players... but if I had to pick, I'd pick Raines.

 

 

No one has ever walked their way into the HOF, and no one ever will.

 

A huge part (arguably the biggest factor) of why Rickey Henderson got in is his skill at walking. Not sure how you can make that claim. It implies that the only value Raines brought was via the BB, which is just inaccurate.

 

 

Eight times Dawson finished in the top 10 in power/speed ratio

 

Power/speed number is almost 100% a novelty stat. It doesn't really tell you much about a player's value.

 

 

Dawson was also a better defender - he won eight Gold Gloves; Raines won none.

 

Rafael Palmiero won a GG during a season in which he was a DH. Derek Jeter has won a GG. This describes their fielding impact about as much as Fldg. %

 

 

This is getting old. Over 75% of the writers do not think Raines is HOF worthy, and they are not an uninformed group.

 

Actually, the ignorance within the BBWAA is astounding at times. Just go over Haudricourt's sickeningly idiotic 'justifications' on his MVP voting for 2008 if you need some tangible proof. Unfortunately, TH's way of thinking is not rare within that group. What gets old to me is people placing arbitrary boosts/penalties on players due to team stats & (often uninformed) awards voting. We have the raw data, and at this point we have the best understanding of it to date. What their teammates do should be immaterial at this point, but sadly that's often not the case.

[kramnoj]

I never said that Rice was HOF worthy. and But five great seasons to me does not put a guy in the HOF.

 

There are two issues here. One is what your personal thoughts are regarding the HoF. The other is now that Rice is in the HoF, how can one intelligently make the case that Raines shouldn't be in. By your personal standard, a player needs 6+ great seasons to get in the HoF. The writers either don't agree, or don't understand what a great season is. You also seem to have set a standard of 150 games for Raines but don't hold that standard for Dawson.

 

No one has ever walked their way into the HOF, and no one ever will.

 

The first part is true, the second part doesn't need to be. One of the problems that Raines faces is that he walked so often that he didn't get 3k career hits, even though he had a .294 batting average and played in over 2500 games. I don't think the writers know how to value those 1330 walks that Raines has.

 

This is getting old. Over 75% of the writers do not think Raines is HOF worthy, and they are not an uninformed group. You are in the minority on this one.

 

I would definitely dispute that the writers are fully informed when it comes to how to judge the value of players over their career. The fact that it took the writers 15 years to vote in Rice indicates that the writers have problems judging HoF talent. Either he should have gone in far earlier or he shouldn't have been voted in.

 

As to me being in a minority, that seems pointless. You should be arguing the merits of my points, not assuming that because I am in the minority that my points don't have value.