411 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

Raines isn't a no doubt it guy but he is a HOFer and he is much more qualified than many guys in there and close to as qualified as many others(see Gwynn).

[Mike B]

Raines will get in next year, and he belongs.  I think I heard Gammons say that of the 17 players that got to 70%, 16 of them made the Hall the next year.

Wonder if Raines goes in as an Oriole.  He did play 5 weeks here in a Syd Thrift publicity stunt of a move.

[SportsGuy]

Im not convinced Raines gets in next year.

[mweb08]

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.

 

 Are you aware that Rolen had a better OPS+ for his career than did Dawson right? The same as Molitor's as well. Despite playing a position that doesn't typically generate as much offense (at least when Molitor moved off 2B and 3B).

 

It's pretty clear who brought more defensive value to the table too, and by a whole lot.

 

If you want to say guys like him and Raines are only great at one thing, well then you just aren't paying much attention.

 

BTW, what was Brooks great at besides defense?

 

What did you say that justifies Dawson being a no doubt about it guy (him taking 9 years to get elected flies in the face of an argument you just made and made previously)?

 

So now you're justifying Brock as a legit HOF'er so you have no right to complain about precedent being used to compare Brock to Raines. 

 

Raines was a more productive offensive player than Molitor on a rate basis. But hitz. I guess I have nothing else to say to someone that is a slave to milestones like that.

 

And real numbers like hits. Hits mean something, but it's hard to take someone seriously who says that line about real numbers and talks about me cherry picking numbers like OPS+. WTF?

 

I'm not saying that Rolen and Raines were necessarily better than Molitor and Biggio, but there isn't good justification for saying the latter are no doubt HOF'ers and the former aren't worthy. And they were better than Brock, who is a great example of lowering this precious bar of yours, yet you talk him up. 

 

And the last line is total BS man. I haven't even centered my arguments around WAR. Meanwhile, until now you've done just about nothing to justify your position on many of these players besides just state things as fact with little to nothing to back them up.

[Pedro Cerrano]

When it Raines it pours.

[mweb08]

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.

 

Yep.

 

Mike, if you were making legitimate arguments for why Raines isn't a HOF'er instead of saying some totally outlandish shit (Vince Coleman, um, he was fast, etc) as well as not using the same exact argument that can he used against no doubter according to you Andre Dawson, then I'd disagree, but I'd respect it more. 

 

I also can't stand when people talk about making it the Hall of Very Good by putting in players that clearly meet the current standard of players elected, and again, that's without even including the clearly poor decisions made in the past. And then at the same time talk up other guys as easily worthy of the Hall when it be would be difficult to argue they are much if any better than the guys said person thinks is lowering the bar. 

 

You're also getting crap, at least from me because you referenced Mussina and Schilling as part of your Hall of Very Good argument. 

[SportsGuy]

When it Raines it pours.

rainez

[Mackus]

Im not convinced Raines gets in next year.

 

I also am worried that he won't get in and gets left out unless the veterans committee corrects the mistake down the road.

 

Hopefully those that support his cause can  get the case out there and convince those who haven't seen the light and push him over the top.  He has taken major steps forward each of the past couple years.  69.8% this year, 55.0% last year, and 46.1% in 2014.

[Mackus]

rainez

 

ztolen bazez?

[Pedro Cerrano]

ztolen bazez?

Now you're just being silly

[mweb08]

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.

 

I agree that is a negative for him.

 

I think making such a big deal of 3,000 hit is wrong, though. To be clear, I agree that a big deal is made, but don't think it should be.

 

Take away 600 of Raines walks and turn them into 400 singles and he's a no doubt HOF'er right? Not a better player, though.

[mweb08]

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.

 

I do think that part of his career hurts him because it went on for so long. Lots of greats struggle for the last year or two of their careers, few have 8 years where they are mostly a part time player (even if mostly effective). That kills him with the close your eyes and do you see a HOF'er crowd. Especially since a lot of people probably didn't even see much of him when he was with the Expos.

[Russ]

Raines had lupus and a couple other injuries. He wasn't really relegated to part time role until he got to New York. He just couldn't get healthy.

[Mackus]

I like the milestones and am fine with those being sort of silver bullets that punch someone's ticket to the Hall of Fame without further question asked, as long as they remain releveant milestones as the game evolves, and more or less I think they have.

 

Agree wholeheartedly that the milestones shouldn't be prerequisites.  Raines combo of hits and walks places him near the very top in MLB history.  He had 3935 H+BB, which would place him right in between Tony Gwynn and Reggie Jackson among all HOF players.

 

Here's the top 50.

H+BB	Name
5438	Ty Cobb HOF
5264	Carl Yastrzemski HOF
5245	Rickey Henderson HOF
5229	Stan Musial HOF
5173	Hank Aaron HOF
4935	Babe Ruth HOF
4895	Tris Speaker HOF
4814	Eddie Collins HOF
4747	Willie Mays HOF
4675	Ted Williams HOF
4588	Eddie Murray HOF
4584	Mel Ott HOF
4422	Wade Boggs HOF
4419	Cap Anson HOF
4413	Paul Molitor HOF
4383	Honus Wagner HOF
4382	Joe Morgan HOF
4363	Frank Robinson HOF
4326	Dave Winfield HOF
4313	Cal Ripken HOF
4284	Al Kaline HOF
4250	George Brett HOF
4243	Paul Waner HOF
4229	Lou Gehrig HOF
4220	Craig Biggio HOF
4148	Mickey Mantle HOF
4135	Frank Thomas HOF
4108	Robin Yount HOF
4098	Jimmie Foxx HOF
4093	Ken Griffey HOF
4071	Rod Carew HOF
4051	Luke Appling HOF
4025	Charlie Gehringer HOF
3968	Rogers Hornsby HOF
3959	Reggie Jackson HOF
3931	Tony Gwynn HOF
3879	Jesse Burkett HOF
3784	Lou Brock HOF
3772	Richie Ashburn HOF
3759	Eddie Mathews HOF
3759	Nap Lajoie HOF
3756	Billy Williams HOF
3756	Roberto Alomar HOF
3741	Mike Schmidt HOF
3721	Sam Crawford HOF
3708	Brooks Robinson HOF
3705	Max Carey HOF
3695	Sam Rice HOF
3684	Goose Goslin HOF
3657	Tony Perez HOF

[Mackus]

I do think that part of his career hurts him because it went on for so long.

 

Think it does hurt or think it should hurt his case?

 

I agree it does.  I don't think it should.

[mweb08]

Think it does hurt or think it should hurt his case?

 

I agree it does.  I don't think it should.

 

Does, not should.

 

I dislike the notion that guys sticking around for 2 crappy years at the end of their careers actually helps their cases, but Raines was still effective when he played until that last year.

 

Biggio's last year for example was horrific, yet somehow that helped his HOF case because it got him to 3,000 hits, which is part of my problem with the milestone approach. A terrible year should not help one's HOF case.

[Mackus]

Raines had lupus

 

Dammit, Otto!

[Mike in STL]

Dammit, Otto!

Haha. I miss Mitch.

[Mackus]

Does, not should.

 

I dislike the notion that guys sticking around for 2 crappy years at the end of their careers actually helps their cases, but Raines was still effective when he played until that last year.

 

Biggio's last year for example was horrific, yet somehow that helped his HOF case because it got him to 3,000 hits, which is part of my problem with the milestone approach. A terrible year should not help one's HOF case.

 

If someone thinks you're good enough to play in the majors, then the numbers should count.  Why shouldn't the back-end numbers count for a guy who's a hanger-on bench player when the front-end numbers when they were a end-of-bench rookie breaking in do count?

 

Al Kaline had 3007 hits and was solid all the way until his last day in the majors.  But his first two years as a teenager he was awful, 80 OPS+ in 565 PA.  If he didn't play those years he'd have been well shy of 3000 hits.  I think those early career totals do and should help Kaline's case every bit as much as Biggio's last season totals count towards his.

[mweb08]

If someone thinks you're good enough to play in the majors, then the numbers should count.  Why shouldn't the back-end numbers count for a guy who's a hanger-on bench player when the front-end numbers when they were a end-of-bench rookie breaking in do count?

 

Al Kaline had 3007 hits and was solid all the way until his last day in the majors.  But his first two years as a teenager he was awful, 80 OPS+ in 565 PA.  If he didn't play those years he'd have been well shy of 3000 hits.  I think those early career totals do and should help Kaline's case every bit as much as Biggio's last season totals count towards his.

 

They count, but why should bad years benefit a player? 

 

I prefer to judge someone based on how good they were, not based at least partially on being a compiler. 

 

Some of that is out of the players control too. Kaline could have easily been kept in the minors until mid-way through his age 19 season. He'd be under 3,000 hits then assuming he didn't stick around longer to get to that milestone. Would he be any worse of a player then? I think the answer to that is clearly no. To me, his resume would not be worse either because the difference between 3,007 hits and 2,950 hits is not significant, especially when those extra 57 hits occur while the player sucks.