411 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

No it doesn't.

One is a set of rules laid out for the court system and the other is a museum to honor the game of baseball. Your making a Shack argument, comparing apples and oranges. But even those are more closely related than our legal system and the HOF.

Not putting Raines in is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

If anything the Hall is full of distingushing cases because each players case is very different given so many variables and numbers in the game of baseball. That's probably even a stretch trying to compare the Hall to our legal system.

In the case of Raines vs. BBWAA 2016, based on precedent in the eight cases of Raines vs. BBWAA 2008 through 2015, Raines is still not a HOFer.

However....I'm willing admit that he gets in in 2017. Last year on the ballot, he's close enough he'll get a few more votes to get in. You'll get your wish. Rub it in my face. Whatever.

I'd rather raise the bar. Or to be honest, the bar is fine right where it is given the class just elected. Steroid users aside. You would rather elect a class of 27 guys based on bad precedent. You even made a case for Scott Rolen for god sake.

To each their own. I'm moving on.

 

I'm not advocating electing guys off bad predecent. Like I said, I'm willing to ignore the clearly poor decisions that have been made. 

 

Raines, Mussina, and Schilling easily meet the accepted standard that has been set even when removing the absurd players.

 

And Scott Rolen was a damn good player man. If you think Lou Brock was better than Tim Raines and Scott Rolen, then I don't know what to tell you. It would be nice if you actually justified these types of comments though rather than just bashing guys while saying others are clearly Hall of Famers based on little to nothing. 

[Mackus]

Mike you said that Paul Molitor is undoubtedly one of the all-around greatest and a without question a HOF player.

 

What's the major difference between him and Raines?

 

I would agree that Molitor has the stronger resume.  He played longer.  He had one season where he was one of the best players on a WS winner.  He reached counting milestones that matter, 3000+ hits and 500+ SB.

 

But I don't see how you can argue he's so overwhelmingly far ahead of Raines that he's a no-brainer and Raines doesn't even deserve to be in.  There has to be some level between "unquestioned HOFer" and "falls just short", otherwise the unquestioned guys would be on the borderline.

 

Same question in regards to Biggio versus Raines as well.

[mweb08]

Mike you said that Paul Molitor is undoubtedly one of the all-around greatest and a without question a HOF player.

 

What's the major difference between him and Raines?

 

I would agree that Molitor has the stronger resume.  He played longer.  He had one season where he was one of the best players on a WS winner.  He reached counting milestones that matter, 3000+ hits and 500+ SB.

 

But I don't see how you can argue he's so overwhelmingly far ahead of Raines that he's a no-brainer and Raines doesn't even deserve to be in.  There has to be some level between "unquestioned HOFer" and "falls just short", otherwise the unquestioned guys would be on the borderline.

 

Same question in regards to Biggio versus Raines as well.

 

Same question with Dawson for me as we well.

 

Regarding Molitor vs Raines, the former's advantage is solely more playing time IMO, which he absolutely should get credit for, so I'd agree that he has a slightly better resume than Raines (I don't care as much about 3,000 hits), but I don't think he was a better player if that makes sense.

 

Anyway, the sentence in bold is key and a point I've made several times in the past.

[Mike in STL]

Rolen was a great defender. But hey. You like putting guys in the hall who are great at one thing.

His counting stats are okay and far from HOF quality in the hitters era. His rate stats are good. He was hurt a lot. Not sure how he got an AS nod with a .676 OPS in only 65 games in 2011.

I mean you want me to give resumes on all these other guys like Dawson (already did, you can look it up, he's no doubt in) Biggio and Molitor and Brock? 3,000 hits is a milestone, like it or not. Rose, Jeter, A-Rod, Palmerio are the only 3,000 hit guys not in.

Brock retires as the steals king. 3,000 hits Elected on the first ballot. Not sitting around for 9 years waiting. So in his era, before you and I were around, the writers must have thought Brock was one of the all time greats. Even long after his playing days, baseball experts nominated him to the all century team in 1999 as one of the top 100 players of all time. Funny. Didn't see Raines on that list, who was fresher in the minds of those who put the list together. So not only is he one of the 215 players in the hall, he's top 100 in the 20th century. FWIW first player with 20 homers and 50 steals in a season.

Biggio was all around great. I don't think I need to go into much detail since he played in our era, we watched him, he is no doubt a HOFer and you can't really tell me he isn't. The hits. The Gold gloves. The steals. Power from a catcher and 2nd basemen earning silver sluggers at both. Counting stats are elite. Rate stats are good. Defense is really good

Molitor is top 10 all time in hits. If you don't think that is good enough...I don't know what to tell you. Counting stats are elite. Only he, Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner have 3000 hits, 600 doubles and 500 steals. Rate stats are really good. Not known for defense but regarded as a great base runner Dude hit .341 in his age 39 season. Didn't have a peak like Raines. He was a top flight hitter for his whole career. Where as Raines was pretty medicore in a lot more seasons than he was great.

All this probably means nothing to you because I didn't cherry pick these guys dWAR, or OPS+, or BABIP and completely ignore what it takes to rack up real numbers like 3,000 hits and other counting stats.

But hey. You wanna convince me that Biggio, Molitor, Brock, are worse than Scott Rolen and Tim Raines...be my guest. I need a good laugh.

And try to point to something other than WAR alone. A lot of really good players have lower WARs for whatever reason. Rolens WAR is higher than Tony Gywnn for example and no one will even call Rolen better than Gwynn.

[Mike in STL]

I don't know why I'm catching so much heat for not considering Raines as a hall of famer when for 9 years, many baseball experts and baseball writers (and a hand full of idiots) also do not consider him a HOFer. Its not some outlandish statement.

[Mackus]

All this probably means nothing to you because I didn't cherry pick these guys dWAR, or OPS+, or BABIP and completely ignore what it takes to rack up real numbers like 3,000 hits and other counting stats.

But hey. You wanna convince me that Biggio, Molitor, Brock, are worse than Scott Rolen and Tim Raines...be my guest. I need a good laugh.

 

These comments seems pretty needlessly insulting.

 

Also, they are not representative of the arguments Mike and I are making.  Nobody has argued that Raines has a better HOF resume than Biggio or Molitor.  Brock, yes, because it seems pretty obvious that he does.  We're mainly saying that if Biggio and Molitor clearly belong without question (and everybody seems to agree that they do), then Raines is nearly as good as them and therefore also belongs.

[Mackus]

I don't know why I'm catching so much heat for not considering Raines as a hall of famer when for 9 years, many baseball experts and baseball writers (and a hand full of idiots) also do not consider him a HOFer. Its not some outlandish statement.

 

We're offering up explanations and comparisons and analysis to try to show why we think you are wrong now and why those writers have been wrong for a long time.

 

The Ravens drafted Breshad Perriman in the first round this year and you hated it (well before he got injured).  Experts sometimes do things that many others who also have knowledge and interest in a topic would consider misguided.

 

I think if you had a more support for your case against Raines besides "he hasn't gotten in yet" and "he isn't a guy you consider an all-time great at first thought", then we'd have an easier time accepting your argument and agreeing to disagree.  At least I would.

[RShack]

I don't know why I'm catching so much heat for not considering Raines as a hall of famer when for 9 years, many baseball experts and baseball writers (and a hand full of idiots) also do not consider him a HOFer. Its not some outlandish statement.

 

It's mainly because you're not making a good case, that's all...

 

If you just said, "Well, I don't think he should be in but I can't tell you why I think that", then you wouldn't get extended heat... but you keep pushing back without offering anything to push back with...

[Mike in STL]

Lol

[Mike in STL]

Well, since apparently I don't say it well enough, here is part of a piece from CBS Sports.

"Raines' production really fell off in the latter half of his career. He put up a .308/.395/.446 (134 OPS+) batting line and averaged 81 steals per 162 games from 1979-87, but from 1988 through the end of his career, he hit .282/.378/.408 (115 OPS+) with 32 steals per 162 games. Raines was obviously very good from 1988-2002, but a 115 OPS+ with 30-ish steals per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production. His case is built primarily around that 1981-87 peak.

Raines never did win a major award -- he was a seven-time All-Star and received MVP votes in seven different seasons, topping out at fifth in the voting in 1983 -- and he doesn't really have a "signature moment" that stands out in everyone's mind. If anything, becoming part of the second father-son duo to play for the same team in the same game -- Raines and his son Tim Jr. both played late in the season for the 2001 Orioles -- stands out as his signature moment.

It's also worth noting Raines was primarily a left fielder and not a particularly good defensive left fielder at that (career -9.5 dWAR)."

I see the case for him, All the steals, OBP, didn't strike out a lot.

But the case against him is stronger, IMO.

Carry on.

[Mackus]

Just gonna throw this out there:

 

Raines was obviously very good from 1988-2002, but a 115 OPS+ with 30-ish steals per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production.

 

Craig Biggio's entire career was a 112 OPS+ with 24 SB per year (162 games).  He played more valuable (i.e. less offensively inclined) positions and did it reasonably well plus he played a good deal longer.  So there are some additional differences between the two

 

But if the "downside" of Raines' career compares very admirably to the duration of Biggio's offensively and if Biggio clearly belongs (he does), I would argue that the "blah blah blah per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production" part of that article you found is suspect.

[RShack]

"Raines' production really fell off in the latter half of his career. He put up a .308/.395/.446 (134 OPS+) batting line and averaged 81 steals per 162 games from 1979-87, but from 1988 through the end of his career, he hit .282/.378/.408 (115 OPS+) with 32 steals per 162 games. Raines was obviously very good from 1988-2002, but a 115 OPS+ with 30-ish steals per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production.

Raines never did win a major award -- he was a seven-time All-Star and received MVP votes in seven different seasons, topping out at fifth in the voting in 1983 -- and he doesn't really have a "signature moment" that stands out in everyone's mind.
 

 

You could say essentially the same things about Eddie... the Oriole first half of his career vs the 2nd half...

 

I realize Eddie has some impressive career totals, and I'm not saying Eddie's the same as Raines... but the crux of those 2 points fit Eddie like a glove...

[SportsGuy]

Well, since apparently I don't say it well enough, here is part of a piece from CBS Sports.

"Raines' production really fell off in the latter half of his career. He put up a .308/.395/.446 (134 OPS+) batting line and averaged 81 steals per 162 games from 1979-87, but from 1988 through the end of his career, he hit .282/.378/.408 (115 OPS+) with 32 steals per 162 games. Raines was obviously very good from 1988-2002, but a 115 OPS+ with 30-ish steals per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production. His case is built primarily around that 1981-87 peak.

Raines never did win a major award -- he was a seven-time All-Star and received MVP votes in seven different seasons, topping out at fifth in the voting in 1983 -- and he doesn't really have a "signature moment" that stands out in everyone's mind. If anything, becoming part of the second father-son duo to play for the same team in the same game -- Raines and his son Tim Jr. both played late in the season for the 2001 Orioles -- stands out as his signature moment.

It's also worth noting Raines was primarily a left fielder and not a particularly good defensive left fielder at that (career -9.5 dWAR)."

I see the case for him, All the steals, OBP, didn't strike out a lot.

But the case against him is stronger, IMO.

Carry on.

So he was excellent in his prime years and above average in his declining years.

 

What's the problem?  Isn't that the case for most HOFers?

[Mackus]

You could say essentially the same things about Eddie...

 

I realize Eddie has some impressive career totals, and I'm not saying Eddie's the same as Raines... but the crux of those 2 points fit Eddie like a glove...

 

Yep.  Basically everyone in the HOF except for the all time, top-10 best ever type guys have about seven to ten years of dominance and then seven to ten years of very good.

 

Eddie Murray '77-85 144 OPS+ 31 HR/year (162 games)

Eddie Murray '86-'97 116 OPS+ 24 HR/year (162 games)

[Mike in STL]

Craig Biggio's entire career was a 112 OPS+ with 24 SB per year (162 games).  He played more valuable (i.e. less offensively inclined) positions and did it reasonably well plus he played a good deal longer.  So there are some additional differences between the two
 
But if the "downside" of Raines' career compares very admirably to the duration of Biggio's offensively and if Biggio clearly belongs (he does), I would argue that the "blah blah blah per year isn't Hall of Fame caliber production" part of that article you found is suspect.

That's a good point. I put more stock in my argument that for the last eight years of his career he was practically a part time player. Not so much that he was any kind of subpar performer, because he was was good. Certainly worth consideration. Certainly worthy of debate though too.

[RShack]

Yep.  Basically everyone in the HOF except for the all time, top-10 best ever type guys have about seven to ten years of dominance and then seven to ten years of very good.

 

Eddie Murray '77-85 144 OPS+ 31 HR/year (162 games)

Eddie Murray '86-'97 116 OPS+ 24 HR/year (162 games)

 

What's weird about Eddie's career is the way fate conspired to make him completely award-less...

 

The last straw was freak way he lost his NL batting crown... that one convinced me that the gods just didn't want him to have one...

[Mackus]

I think "only" having about 10.5k career PAs is the biggest "knock" against Raines.  Had he been able to play longer (well, more often really, he played in MLB as both a 19 y/o and a 42 y/o).  If he had been able to get to 12k he likely would've gotten damn close to 3k hits and been a shoo-in.

 

 

10k isn't low, by any means.  He's in the mix with Alomar, Gwynn, Boggs, and Carew.  Plenty of no-doubters have way less, but of course those guys had more dominant offensive numbers (as you'd expect given their relatively short careers that still led to no-doubt status) and/or were highly regarded defenders.

[Mike in STL]

He averaged 95 games per year in his 11 non-Montreal years. That hurt his chances at puting up 3000 hits, more doubles, more steals. Unfortunate, cause that's what he needed to be in by now. With those numbers he's in seven years ago.

Id say most Hall guys are not part timers for half of their career.

But, as the trend goes, he's probably in next year being this close.

[Mackus]

Yeah, after he left Chicago he was pretty much limited to a part time role.  Only 1327 PA over his final 7 years (6 seasons, didn't play at all in 2000).  Strange was that he was still very effective (280/385/406 for a 107 OPS+) when he did play.  I don't recall well enough if he had trouble staying healthy or if teams just thought he couldn't handle an everyday role anymore (he never needed platoon protection).

 

I wonder if he'd have gotten more love as one of those "he had to hang 'em up too soon" type of guys sort of like Kirby Puckett if he had not played at all after leaving the White Sox.

 

Raines through Age 35 had 9032 PA, a 296/385/428 slash line, 126 OPS+, 146 HR, 777 steals (85%), and a 64.9 WAR.

Puckett through Age 35 (his whole career) had 7831 PA, a 318/360/477 slash line, 124 OPS+, 207 HR, 134 SB (64%), and 50.9 WAR.

 

Seems unfair that continuing to play well, albeit sporadically, for several years at the back end of your career could hurt a player's chances.  If he played poorly, that'd be one thing, but he was still an above average player.  Like Neil Young said, better to burn out than to fade away, perhaps.

[RShack]

Raines through Age 35 had 9032 PA, a 296/385/428 slash line, 126 OPS+, 146 HR, 777 steals (85%), and a 64.9 WAR.

Puckett through Age 35 (his whole career) had 7831 PA, a 318/360/477 slash line (124 OPS+), 207 HR, 134 SB, and 50.9 WAR.

 

Well, damn...