 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Tim Raines for the Hall
ironhorse2ko
How many players can you currently think of that can match an 85% success rate while stealing bases (stealing over 800), while scoring over 1570 plus runs, and get like over 2,600 hits. Raines was simply a victim of circumstance. First he had to compete with Henderson, then Coleman.
Tim Raines for the Hall
November 30, 2008 at 12:22AM View BBCode
[color=Black]It made me wonder...[/color]How many players can you currently think of that can match an 85% success rate while stealing bases (stealing over 800), while scoring over 1570 plus runs, and get like over 2,600 hits. Raines was simply a victim of circumstance. First he had to compete with Henderson, then Coleman.
ME
November 30, 2008 at 12:56AM View BBCode
Vince Coleman sucked and shouldn't be mentioned along with Raines and Rickey who were actually, well, Hall of Fame caliber players.
Benne
November 30, 2008 at 07:12AM View BBCode
If the writers really care about gritty, hustling, get-dirt-on-uniform players as much as they say they do, then they would be goddamn hyprocites to not let Tim Raines into the HOF.
happy
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
November 30, 2008 at 01:39PM View BBCode
um, you know that black players are never hustle/gritty players right?[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
ironhorse2ko
I'm going to ignnore that quote.
November 30, 2008 at 05:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
um, you know that black players are never hustle/gritty players right?
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
I'm going to ignnore that quote.
Bone-Scorpion
November 30, 2008 at 06:18PM View BBCode
My knock on Raines is that for such a high OBP and SB success rate it didnt create a ton of runs. He scored runs in a bit more then 60% of his games. In comparison Henderson was close to 75%. I know he played for some poor teams but it just jumps out at me that he only scored over 100 runs 6 times in his career (would probably be 7 w/o the 94' strike). Great player, great basestealer and leadoff guy but IMO not a clear cut HOF player. He will make it in, but it will probably take quite a few tries.
ironhorse2ko
As happy pointed out about his SB%, yes he might have paid too much attention to it, and his reluctance to run in all situations like Henderson may have hurt his chances. But to be fair lets admit it, the running gm today was nothing like it was in the 80's. Guys like Raines, Henderson, Willie Wilson, and yes even Coleman were able too add at least 7-10 more runs due to their speed. Lets see Damon, Pierre, Ryes, Jeter, even Ichiro do that today. Also, if you compare both Raines and Henderson during their prime years (1983-90), Raines holds the cards in BA, OBP, and SLG. Raines was all out hustle, and his numbers reflect that fact.
November 30, 2008 at 06:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Benne
If the writers really care about gritty, hustling, get-dirt-on-uniform players as much as they say they do, then they would be goddamn hyprocites to not let Tim Raines into the HOF.
As happy pointed out about his SB%, yes he might have paid too much attention to it, and his reluctance to run in all situations like Henderson may have hurt his chances. But to be fair lets admit it, the running gm today was nothing like it was in the 80's. Guys like Raines, Henderson, Willie Wilson, and yes even Coleman were able too add at least 7-10 more runs due to their speed. Lets see Damon, Pierre, Ryes, Jeter, even Ichiro do that today. Also, if you compare both Raines and Henderson during their prime years (1983-90), Raines holds the cards in BA, OBP, and SLG. Raines was all out hustle, and his numbers reflect that fact.
barterer2002
November 30, 2008 at 06:21PM View BBCode
Look here's the thing. Tim Raines was the second best leadoff hitter during his career (behind Henderson). He's also one of the top five leadoff hitters of all time. His misfortune is to have been overshadowed by the top leadoff hitter of all time.
dirtdevil
November 30, 2008 at 06:57PM View BBCode
and to have played the bulk of his best years in motreal.
ironhorse2ko
November 30, 2008 at 07:34PM View BBCode
You're both right. Montreal in french-speaking Canada never flourished as a baseball fan base. He didn't get that much expose. Had he played in New York, that would be a different story. Also, having your career overshadowed by the best lead-off hitter ever during your career hurts you more. In time...he'll get in.
ME
I think teams and players today just realize how important stolen base % rather than simply running wild without regards to getting caught. Jimmy Rollins this past year (47 steals, 3 caught stealings) could have stolen 70 or 80 bases, but those extra steals would not have been worth the 15 or 20 additional caught stealings.
November 30, 2008 at 08:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
Originally posted by Benne
If the writers really care about gritty, hustling, get-dirt-on-uniform players as much as they say they do, then they would be goddamn hyprocites to not let Tim Raines into the HOF.
As happy pointed out about his SB%, yes he might have paid too much attention to it, and his reluctance to run in all situations like Henderson may have hurt his chances. But to be fair lets admit it, the running gm today was nothing like it was in the 80's. Guys like Raines, Henderson, Willie Wilson, and yes even Coleman were able too add at least 7-10 more runs due to their speed.
I think teams and players today just realize how important stolen base % rather than simply running wild without regards to getting caught. Jimmy Rollins this past year (47 steals, 3 caught stealings) could have stolen 70 or 80 bases, but those extra steals would not have been worth the 15 or 20 additional caught stealings.
happy
lets do some simple math, shall we? A caught stealing essentially erases 3 SBs off the board, because a 75% SB rate is break even (as in, if you have 3 SB and 1 CS, you would have done equally as well had you never tried to steal at all)
(SB - (CS*3)) = total SB value
Raines (808 - (146*3)) = 370
Henderson (1406- (335*3)) = 401
im not saying Raines is a better basestealer than Henderson, im saying its a lot closer than traditional analysts realize.
Furthermore, because Henderson stole much more, he most likely also stole in less valuable situations, meaning that the 370 marginal steals for Raines were probably more valuable than this simple math may show (aka Henderson most likely stole 3rd much more, which not only is less valuable when you succeed, but is more harmful when you fail).
Remember when Henderson stole 130? 42 CS. that means 2 total marginal steals. i mean, the team would have had almost the exact same amount of wins if he had not even bothered trying to steal that year.
In today's game, as ME pointed out, people know that SB% is very important. Raines was ridiculed for it, but the fact is that he was ahead of his time, and his baseball intelligence is just another reason to let him into the hall.
Bonescorpion -- You cant blame him because the guys behind him didnt hit him in? What is he supposed to do? get on base, steal second, and then hit for the batter behind him? His teams sucked. Henderson's did not. I respect him for sticking with the worthless expos for so long.
December 01, 2008 at 12:42AM View BBCode
Ironhorse, both of my posts were sarcastic. Moving on.lets do some simple math, shall we? A caught stealing essentially erases 3 SBs off the board, because a 75% SB rate is break even (as in, if you have 3 SB and 1 CS, you would have done equally as well had you never tried to steal at all)
(SB - (CS*3)) = total SB value
Raines (808 - (146*3)) = 370
Henderson (1406- (335*3)) = 401
im not saying Raines is a better basestealer than Henderson, im saying its a lot closer than traditional analysts realize.
Furthermore, because Henderson stole much more, he most likely also stole in less valuable situations, meaning that the 370 marginal steals for Raines were probably more valuable than this simple math may show (aka Henderson most likely stole 3rd much more, which not only is less valuable when you succeed, but is more harmful when you fail).
Remember when Henderson stole 130? 42 CS. that means 2 total marginal steals. i mean, the team would have had almost the exact same amount of wins if he had not even bothered trying to steal that year.
In today's game, as ME pointed out, people know that SB% is very important. Raines was ridiculed for it, but the fact is that he was ahead of his time, and his baseball intelligence is just another reason to let him into the hall.
Bonescorpion -- You cant blame him because the guys behind him didnt hit him in? What is he supposed to do? get on base, steal second, and then hit for the batter behind him? His teams sucked. Henderson's did not. I respect him for sticking with the worthless expos for so long.
Duff77
I think happy actually makes an interesting point here. Why are all the small, tough, gritty guys who get more done with less talent always white? Or are they? It sure seems that way. This isn't the best evidence, but I'm trying to pull the name of a black player generally considered "gritty" off the top of my head, and it's not happening.
December 01, 2008 at 12:47AM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
um, you know that black players are never hustle/gritty players right?
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
I think happy actually makes an interesting point here. Why are all the small, tough, gritty guys who get more done with less talent always white? Or are they? It sure seems that way. This isn't the best evidence, but I'm trying to pull the name of a black player generally considered "gritty" off the top of my head, and it's not happening.
barterer2002
Compare two athletes-call them Michael Jordan and Danny Ainge. Which is the better athlete. The truth of the matter is that Danny Ainge is a much better overall athlete. He's a scratch golfer, made the major leagues in baseball and was an all star in basketball. Now, Jordan was a better basketball player but over all athletics Ainge is better
Yet Ainge was often described as scrappy (basketball for hustle). while Jordan was "the worlds greatest athlete" There is a lot of race involved in the descriptions we give players.
December 01, 2008 at 03:01AM View BBCode
Its not happy's point. Bill James made it at least a decade ago.Compare two athletes-call them Michael Jordan and Danny Ainge. Which is the better athlete. The truth of the matter is that Danny Ainge is a much better overall athlete. He's a scratch golfer, made the major leagues in baseball and was an all star in basketball. Now, Jordan was a better basketball player but over all athletics Ainge is better
Yet Ainge was often described as scrappy (basketball for hustle). while Jordan was "the worlds greatest athlete" There is a lot of race involved in the descriptions we give players.
dirtdevil
it's because 'gritty' is code for 'white guy with no talent'. black players with no talent don't make the majors. white players with no talent get to call themselves gritty and play middle infield. they then become scrappy managers.
December 01, 2008 at 03:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Originally posted by happy
um, you know that black players are never hustle/gritty players right?
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
I think happy actually makes an interesting point here. Why are all the small, tough, gritty guys who get more done with less talent always white? Or are they? It sure seems that way. This isn't the best evidence, but I'm trying to pull the name of a black player generally considered "gritty" off the top of my head, and it's not happening.
it's because 'gritty' is code for 'white guy with no talent'. black players with no talent don't make the majors. white players with no talent get to call themselves gritty and play middle infield. they then become scrappy managers.
Cubsfan13
ORLY
(just kidding. I agree, basically)
edit: less gigantic image
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by Cubsfan13]
December 01, 2008 at 04:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
it's because 'gritty' is code for 'white guy with no talent'. black players with no talent don't make the majors.
ORLY
(just kidding. I agree, basically)
edit: less gigantic image
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by Cubsfan13]
whiskybear
Jesus Christ,Duff Mike, what the hell is wrong with you? Do they not have Fire Joe Morgan in Wyoming? Do they have blogs? Tell me they have blogs.
December 01, 2008 at 04:59AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Originally posted by happy
um, you know that black players are never hustle/gritty players right?
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by happy]
I think happy actually makes an interesting point here. Why are all the small, tough, gritty guys who get more done with less talent always white? Or are they? It sure seems that way. This isn't the best evidence, but I'm trying to pull the name of a black player generally considered "gritty" off the top of my head, and it's not happening.
Jesus Christ,
Duff77
F*ck this, I am not posting in sports talk ever again.
December 01, 2008 at 07:18AM View BBCode
Long rambling post deleted, and replaced by:F*ck this, I am not posting in sports talk ever again.
Bone-Scorpion
I think that those are pretty good players to be hitting behind you.
Not saying its his fault for not scoring a ton of runs, but why celebrate SB's if it didnt help his team score more runs?
December 01, 2008 at 08:29PM View BBCode
Andre Dawson, Andres Galarraga (young but still solid), Hubie Brooks (a rather underatted player IMO), Gary Carter (early in Raines Career), Tim Wallach, Al Oliver had a monster season in 1982 (wonder why he doesnt get much hall of very good consideration), Frank Thomas in his prime (White Sox years), Robin Ventura as well.I think that those are pretty good players to be hitting behind you.
Not saying its his fault for not scoring a ton of runs, but why celebrate SB's if it didnt help his team score more runs?
dirtdevil
by contrast, henderson played on 8 teams that made the post season and 12 that won 85+ games, including 3 years he was traded. so i think it's pretty clear from that that raines played on inferior teams than what henderson did. that takes nothing at all away from henderson, but it does provide some interesting information on raines' run totals, which after all, are as much a function of being driven in as they are his skill.
December 01, 2008 at 09:10PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
it's not really about who was hitting behind him, it's about the quality of the teams he was playing on. in the 14 years in which raines appeared in 100+ games (or would have had there not been a strike) he played on only 5 teams with 90+ wins (including the two strike years where the teams didn't get to 90, but would have) and 7 that won fewer than 85. the fact that some of these teams had one or two top quality players doesn't changed the fact that they weren't very good.
by contrast, henderson played on 8 teams that made the post season and 12 that won 85+ games, including 3 years he was traded. so i think it's pretty clear from that that raines played on inferior teams than what henderson did. that takes nothing at all away from henderson, but it does provide some interesting information on raines' run totals, which after all, are as much a function of being driven in as they are his skill.
happy
what's your point?
Scoring runs is caused in the following fashion: get on base. Advance. Dont get out.
he got on base a lot. he advanced himself thru stealing a lot. he did not get out very often. If we agree to all this, I dont really know why the runs scored matters.
i mean, what are you arguing? That players like Henderson simply willed themselves to the plate by bringing upon some sort of supernatural external force to help players hit when they are on base?
another thing to consider. the reason why a 75% SB% is about break even is not because thats the breakeven point for the chance that YOU score, its because getting out not only lowers your own chance to score (to 0%) but it also lowers other players on your team's chance to score. every single out that Henderson made on a CS not only caused his runs scored to go down, it also caused other players on his team's runs scored to go down. I mean, if you steal 75 bases and get caught 25 times, most likely YOU will have more runs scored, but YOUR TEAM will score about the same number of runs, because the 25 times you got out, other players missed their opportunity to get on base and score.
runs scored is a terrible stat to rely upon. it is not one that properly judges the actual value of the player.
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by happy]
December 01, 2008 at 09:14PM View BBCode
Ok, here is the question:what's your point?
Scoring runs is caused in the following fashion: get on base. Advance. Dont get out.
he got on base a lot. he advanced himself thru stealing a lot. he did not get out very often. If we agree to all this, I dont really know why the runs scored matters.
i mean, what are you arguing? That players like Henderson simply willed themselves to the plate by bringing upon some sort of supernatural external force to help players hit when they are on base?
another thing to consider. the reason why a 75% SB% is about break even is not because thats the breakeven point for the chance that YOU score, its because getting out not only lowers your own chance to score (to 0%) but it also lowers other players on your team's chance to score. every single out that Henderson made on a CS not only caused his runs scored to go down, it also caused other players on his team's runs scored to go down. I mean, if you steal 75 bases and get caught 25 times, most likely YOU will have more runs scored, but YOUR TEAM will score about the same number of runs, because the 25 times you got out, other players missed their opportunity to get on base and score.
runs scored is a terrible stat to rely upon. it is not one that properly judges the actual value of the player.
[Edited on 12-1-2008 by happy]