Place your votes for the 2008 Hall of Fame Class

[Baldkin]

A couple of pro-Raines articles.

 

The first one contained this interesting tidbit:

"2007 was the first time in the Brew Crew's 38 seasons in Milwaukee that they finished over .500 without Molitor playing at least 50% of the team's games."

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-path-to-cooperstown-tim-raines-and-the-tablesetters/

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/cooperstown-needs-a-piece-of-the-rock/

[Gopher74]

I think Gossage and Blyleven should be locks. But that won't happen.

It simply makes no sense that those two players are not in the Hall of Fame already. Absolutely ridiculous IMO. What, if Blyleven would have gotten 11 more wins, or 13, whatever it is, he's a lock, but because his teams weren't that good, he doesn't get in? Please. He was an absolute stud.

 

Gossage would save 50 games a year if he pitched right now.

Lee Smith DID save about 40 a year.

Jim Rice was in the top 5 for MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty special.

McGwire was on Roids, but if we're going to leave out a guy with a career OBP near .400 and almost 600 HR's, then who DOES get in from this era? Career .982 OPS. That's sick.

Andre Dawson-Again, the guy's only shot coming was his OBP, but if we're going to look on the numbers from today so critically, then how can we dismiss the players in the past? What exactly is Dawson on Roids? Sammy Sosa with more tools?

 

 

 

 

 

And now after the arguments made for Raines, I've included him. Honestly, I'm not normally the "Hall of Very Good" type, but I just think that all of these players deserve to be in. Big Mac was a HOF'er before he was outed, a first ballot HOF'er, and a no doubter. Well, roids take away from what you do/did, but not to that degree. Not to the degree that you go from a 90 pct+ to a 23 pct.

My heart also tells me that Trammel was, but my head tells me that despite being a very good SS for very long, he's just not in there.

 

[Fatter than Joey]

In my opinion, Lee Smith had a better career than Sutter too, so he should be in also.

 

Lee Smith was about half the pitcher Sutter was. Sutter/Gossage/Fingers were all on the same level -- Smith was more like Jeff Reardon, a pitcher that benefited from the save stat. I think Dan Quisenberry was a better pitcher than Smith.

 

Big Mac was a HOF'er before he was outed, a first ballot HOF'er, and a no doubter.

 

Maybe. He really had some bad years -- Killebrew wasn't a first ballot HOFer, I think he had a better career.

 

Not to the degree that you go from a 90 pct+ to a 23 pct.

 

Well -- I think that some of the voters were waiting for things like the Mitchell report, I think that a lot of writers just want to let a lot of the steroid smoke clear before they start casting votes. I don't think they are voting "no" on Mac at this point (some are).

[gregmag]

Blyleven and Raines are easy for me.

 

Dawson, Murphy, Rice, Parker, and Baines strike me as having roughly similar credentials, and they all fall short IMHO. Most are big peak guys who got to play key years in band boxes and didn't do much outside their peaks; Baines is one of those relentless career guys with a limited peak. Oddly, they all have OPS+ totals between 119 and 121, except Rice (128), who lags a bit behind the others in counting stats. Raines is only at 123, but he also stole 800 bases in fewer than 1000 attempts, and he was a good-to-great player for longer than anyone else in the group.

 

I have a hard time evaluating the relievers. Gossage was great in the role in an era when the role was being defined, but his career numbers don't scream "Hall of Fame" to me. Also, I'm not sure how Gossage can be in and not Lee Smith. Smith was a phenomenal closer for a bit longer period than Gossage, and although saves are a dubious stat, he came by the career record honestly in his time. My bottom line is that I can't think of ten better relief careers in MLB history, so they're both in.

 

Trammell, for me, is the most interesting case. He was a very good hitter for a long time while playing a premium defensive position very well. Guys like that, in my view, tend to get shafted. You could certainly play the "X is in, so he should be in" game with Trammell, where X = Phil Rizzuto, but obviously that's the problem with that game -- some undeserving guys get in, and we shouldn't compound the mistake (see also Perez, Tony). I can't remember if Splitter ever did a HoF trial for Trammell, but I'd love to see one. Barry Larkin, who's up in a couple of years, is a very similar player. It also makes me wonder how Lou Whitaker fell off the ballot so easily. Lou, as a hitter, was a hair better than Trammell over his career, and he had greater longevity at nearly as tough a defensive position.

 

Then there's McGwire. How the hell do we do this? Do we (a) disqualify him, (b) attempt to take the juice out of his achievements and measure him as the player we think he really was, or © take his achievements at face value? I'm inclined toward (b), simply because I don't think you can lock out a whole generation of players for such a prevalent sin. The problem is that we have no reliable basis for doing (b), and I think most of us find the idea of defaulting to © intolerable. My wishy-washy gut says he really was one of the great hitters of his generation, but we should string him along for a couple more years.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

I think McGwire's big issue with the voters is his total sidestep that day before Congress. He couldn't have come off any worse, and that image has stuck in the hearts and minds.

[DrWood]

regarding the comparisons for blyleven, I think it's unfair to compare him to guys like ryan or seaver. He clearly wasn't in that category. You don't need to be one of the top 15 pitchers all-time to get in the hall. IMO, he should get in, regardless of stats, by having one of the top curveballs, ever in major leagues.

 

Dawson also should get special treatment because of his freakish abilities. It shouldn't be the "hall of guys that stayed productive a long time but never were particularly special."

 

I'm warming on Raines.

[splitterpfj]

DrWood, if Blyleven was only compared to Ryan, Carlton, Seaver, etc, it would be an unfair test - but he's not. In the comparisons I did, Bert is compared to every Hall of Fame starting pitcher who was active during his career, it does include the top end, but it also includes Catfish Hunter, Don Sutton, etc. I think comparing a candidate to his peers who are already in is the fairest way to judge him, because it removes much of the subjectivity, and hopefully it prevents "lowering the bar."

 

In my opinion, those comparisons show that Bert holds his own when compared to his peers. He Kd more, walked fewer, and beat the group in career shutouts, the fact that monsters like Ryan, Carlton, etc are included in the comparison makes that all the more impressive.

 

Bert had an arm injury which wiped out almost his entire 1982 season, without that, he would have been either at, or nearly at, 300 wins when he retired. The Marlins offered him a spring training invite for the 93 season, which he graciously declined, saying he "Didn't want to take away a kid's chance to pitch in the big leagues." If he had been within 5 wins of 300, you can bet he'd have been signed somewhere, and he'd have gotten those last few wins. Had that happened, he'd have been elected to the Hall years ago.

 

Do the voters really believe Bert would be more deserving if he had slopped his way through another year, or a year plus, and gotten 13 more wins?

 

That's just stupid, the writers should be fired.

[Phenomenal Smith]

I'm not sold on either Blyleven or Raines. Blyleven has nice career totals in wins and k's, but a lot of that is because he came up when he was 19, and was an "above average" pitcher for around 20 years. Good, but not great. Kind of a similar career as Don Sutton, but he's in, so what do I know? Raines was on a Hall of Fame path until about 1987, but he didn't do much after that point. I wouldn't even consider him for the Hall, so I'm surprised he is getting as much love as he is. In my opinion Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, Don Mattingly and Dave Parker are all better candidates than Raines, but they all fall just short because they didn't sustain their primes quite long enough.

 

What? Blyleven and Raines are the only two no-brainers on this list. Blyleven was awesome for a long time and Raines is just a notch below Rickey Henderson.

 

[DrWood]

splitter,

lets say you compared babe ruth's peers with his stats?

none of those peers would get in because ruth's hr totals would dwarf everyone else's.

 

when there are enough guys for comparison, it seems the appropriate comparison would be to the lower 50 percentile of current hall guys. If a guy fits in with those guys, he should be in (based on stats). Otherwise, the hall should fix the maximum number of guys in the hall, and only allow guys in that warrant pushing another guy out. If a guy is as good as current guys in the hall, he should be in, he shouldn't have to be as good as the top 25% of guys in the hall.

[splitterpfj]

We don't agree on this one, DrWood. I don't believe a guy should have to be as good as the top 2-3 guys ever at his position, but I also don't think a player should only be compared to the "weak" members at his position either. To me, you've got to compare a guy to his peers from his era, because those players faced the same competition, in the same ballparks, same travel conditions, etc. If someone falls flat against those peers, so be it, I don't feel comfortable removing the very best from the control group.

 

My point with Blyleven is, I think he measures up as it is, he doesn't need anyone to do him favors. When you look at him vs the entire group from his own era, his totals are very impressive.

 

Gossage, Smith, etc are interesting in this regard. The closer position as it now exists, has only been around since the late 80s. You can't really compare guys like Fingers, Sutter and Gossage with guys like Eckersley, Hoffman and Smith. The standard for election at this position is still evolving, leaving plenty of room for debate. I think Gossage should be compared to Fingers and Sutter, but from there, it is unfair to compare the guys who were asked to pitch one inning at a time, Smith's save total has nothing to do with Fingers' save total, etc.

 

If there is a magic number for closers, what is it? Fingers retired as the all-time saves leader, but that total is nothing compared to the current leaders. That said, Fingers' save total is more impressive in many ways, because he actually pitched in scenarios where his team needed him to finish, not just in ninth innings with leads of three runs or less.

 

There is not a current control group to compare Lee Smith to, in my opinion. If gets in, I will view him as the beginning of something new, rather than the next reliever in the Hall of Fame.

[RockCoCougars]

What? Blyleven and Raines are the only two no-brainers on this list. Blyleven was awesome for a long time and Raines is just a notch below Rickey Henderson.

I disagree. Strongly on Raines, who I never considered to be Hall of Fame caliber. No way is he just a notch below Rickey Henderson. Maybe he was in 1983, but Raines went downhill and was not a star player after his late 20's. What sets Raines apart as a HOF besides stolen bases? The fact that he was a leadoff hitter for a good chunk of his career? With a player like him, that should have aided his stats as opposed to hindering them. Honestly, I would say Raines is closer to Vince Coleman than Rickey. I'm very surprised that people are so high on him.

 

Blyleven has a better case, but is hardly a no brainer. Like I said, he piled up nice stats, but that was because he was around forever. I wouldn't be upset that he got in (Sutton is, and they were about the same guy) but he is not a slam dunk candidate as everyone says he is. The 300 win thing is overrated to me, but the 13 wins short thing gets him a lot of love. Blyleven never won a Cy Young, never led his league in any important statistical category, and was basically 1.5 games over 500 per season for his career. Maybe he should be in, or maybe he shouldn't, but him being out is hardly the travesty that he and his followers have made it to be. In my opinion his best stat is the 60 shutouts. That's pretty good, even though half were thrown before he was 26 in the soft offense years of the early/mid seventies.

 

Bottom line, I remember a good chunk of Blyleven's career and all of Raines' career. I never considered them Hall of Famers when they played and don't now.

[Fatter than Joey]

Do the voters really believe Bert would be more deserving if he had slopped his way through another year, or a year plus, and gotten 13 more wins?

 

I think they just feel that he wasn't a HOF pitcher.

 

Bottom line, I remember a good chunk of Blyleven's career and all of Raines' career. I never considered them Hall of Famers when they played and don't now.

 

Agree 100% especially with the Sutton/Coleman comparison's

 

You can't really compare guys like Fingers, Sutter and Gossage with guys like Eckersley, Hoffman and Smith.

 

Sure you can -- Smith is the worst pitcher in that group.

[bando1234]

I would say Raines is closer to Vince Coleman than Rickey.

 

While I cant say Raines is in Rickys league but he was much better than Coleman. I would think a fair comparison would be Kenny Lofton.

[gregmag]

I'm going to leave the "Lee Smith sucks" charges alone until someone backs them up, and we could argue all night about whether Blyleven is as good as Sutton, a little bit better, or quite a bit better.

 

But let's nip this Raines / Coleman thing in the bud before somebody starts believing it:

 

Vince Coleman had a career OPS+ of 83. He had a .324 OBP and slugged .345 over a 13-year career (5970 PA). He was effectively done at age 34.

 

Tim Raines had a career OPS+ of 123. He had a .385 OBP and slugged .425 over a 23-year career (10,359 PA), contributing through age 38.

 

It's rare to be able to make a statement like this without hyperbole: Tim Raines was at least twice as good as Vince Coleman (if we peg replacement level OPS+ at anything above 43) for nearly twice as long. Unless you choose not to bother with any detail past "they were both fast black guys who played in the 1980s," you will notice immediately that they do not, in any respect perceptible to the human consciousness, resemble each other -- any more than, say, the Empire State Building and a sparrow, or Drew Barrymore and the Hundred Years' War.

 

So let's talk about Kenny Lofton and Rickey Henderson by the same metrics. Lofton superficially looks quite a bit like Raines. He has OBPd (we need a verb for that) .372 and slugged .423 in a 17-year career (9234 PA). However, he has played in a much more offense-happy era, resulting in an OPS+ of only 107. Also, he's gotten caught stealing 15 more times than Raines while stealing 180 fewer bases. He's a good player, and he could even last as long as Raines, but he's not in the same zip code quality-wise.

 

Tim Raines, in turn, isn't Rickey Henderson. Rickey played longer (25 years, 13,346 PA), was a bit better hitter (127 OPS+), and stole a lot more bases (1406) -- although he was caught 335 times, enabling a good argument that Raines' baserunning actually helped his teams almost as much. What Rickey has over Raines is mainly career length. As between Rickey and Lofton, Raines to me looks a lot closer to Henderson.

 

Greg.

[RockCoCougars]

To be clear, I know that Raines was heads and shoulders above Coleman. Henderson was a much better player for Raines for much longer. Raines is somewhere in between Coleman and Henderson, probably closer to Coleman in my opinion. I would consider Rickey one of the top 10-15 all time greats though, so I probably overrate him a tad.

 

The Lofton comparison is very good, but I really believe that Lofton has had a better career. He was 3-5 years behind Raines because he got a later start on his career, but has aged much better than Raines did. Like I said, I think Lofton has been better, but is Lofton a HOF? In my opinion, he falls short. Raines actually put up his best stats in a less "offense happy" era. It's kind of ironic that once offense really started to take hold 1987-on, Raines went into decline, even though he should have been hitting his prime.

[splitterpfj]

I think they just feel that he wasn't a HOF pitcher.

 

That's fine, FTJ, but we both know they'd take him if he had 300 wins, even though thirteen wins over a twenty-year career should not be the difference maker. I have a feeling Bert will wind up being elected by the Veterans Committee someday.

[Fatter than Joey]

I'm going to leave the "Lee Smith sucks" charges alone until someone backs them up

 

No one said Lee Smith sucks.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Bottom line, I remember a good chunk of Blyleven's career and all of Raines' career. I never considered them Hall of Famers when they played and don't now.

Please read this and this and this.

 

 

 

 

 

[gregmag]

I'm going to leave the "Lee Smith sucks" charges alone until someone backs them up

 

No one said Lee Smith sucks.

Quite right. I was generalizing about several comments, but in fact no one has said "Lee Smith sucks." What you said was:

"Lee Smith was about half the pitcher Sutter was. Sutter/Gossage/Fingers were all on the same level -- Smith was more like Jeff Reardon, a pitcher that benefited from the save stat. I think Dan Quisenberry was a better pitcher than Smith."

So, standing duly corrected, I'll leave that set of assertions alone until you back it up.

Greg.

 

[Fatter than Joey]

That's fine, FTJ, but we both know they'd take him if he had 300 wins, even though thirteen wins over a twenty-year career should not be the difference maker.

 

I wouldn't have voted for Sutton. Then Kaat should get in as well as he has 283 wins, or Tommy John with 288 -- as I don't see a difference between Blyeven's 13 and John's 12 or Kaat's 17.

 

I have a feeling Bert will wind up being elected by the Veterans Committee someday.

 

I think under the old vets committee maybe, under the new vet committee I am not so sure.

 

So, standing duly corrected, I'll leave that set of assertions alone until you back it up.

Fair enough.

[RockCoCougars]

Please read this and this and this.

Interesting stuff, but I'm still not convinced. I'm not going to lose any sleep if Blyleven and Raines get in though..... Heck, I think the hall has already been watered down in recent years with guys like Sutter, Tony Perez, and Cepeda getting in. I'm still trying to figure out the Sutter thing.

 

If I had to vote this year, I would go with Gossage and Dawson and that's it. I'd give a lot of thought to Jack Morris and Lee Smith, but I'd pass there for now.

[Baldkin]

Why does everyone want Dawson in the Hall?

 

I just don't get it. Can anyone explain his candidacy?

 

I mean, I understand he was a freak of nature and a force and a great defensive outfielder until his knees gave out.

 

So was Bo Jackson, until his hip needed to be replaced.

Or Eric Davis before his body broke down on the turf in Cincinnati.

[RockCoCougars]

Dawson should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. He hit 400 homers back when it actually meant something. He was probably the best defensive outfielder of his era (piled up gold gloves)... one of the best arms ever. He won 1 MVP award, and finished second twice. He was a Rookie of the Year. Stole 300 bases. One of the best five tool guys ever. Over half his career was played on trashed knees, but he still produced, and didn't go DH somewhere until the end.

 

Jackson and Davis probably would have both had a good shot at being Hall of Famers if their bodies hadn't broken down on them.

 

The only reason not to like Dawson is that he didn't take many walks..... I'm sure that kills him with a lot of the formulas that people are stuck on. I bet the 9 hole hitter on my little league team would have scored pretty good with these formulas though. He took a ton of walks (although the coach didn't let him swing the bat).

[danzig6767]

Tim Raines would be an easy call for me to be in the Hall. He almost gets penalized for talking so many walks which helped him carry such a stellar OBP. If he hadn't been so unselfish at the plate to be sure he got on base, you could add a few hundred more hits to his totals. Paul Molitor for example had a career .306 batting average vs .294 with Raines, but Molitor had a career .369 OBP vs .385 for Raines.

 

Of all the players on this list, Raines would be the easiest for me to put in and Blyleven be second. Bert was a really great pitcher his first ten years and with some better luck, would have racked up enough more wins to reach the 300 mark which would have in in the Hall already.

[apirk]

I know he won't get in but I really would love to see Donnie baseball make it. He is by far and away my fovorite player outside of the Brewer's organization.