 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Tim Raines for the Hall
Bone-Scorpion
December 01, 2008 at 09:25PM View BBCode
What I am saying is that without the SB's that didnt lead to many more runs, his stat line is not HOF caliber.
khazim
December 01, 2008 at 09:52PM View BBCode
Raines will always be considered a "borderline" HOFer, which is a shame. He should not be considered the low-end of the HOF. Many other players fit that margin. Raines may not be a first ballot HOFer, but he should get in, plain and simple.
ME
More advanced stats say he's far above the borderline margin. BP has done a few articles about this.
December 02, 2008 at 04:45AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bone-Scorpion
What I am saying is that without the SB's that didnt lead to many more runs, his stat line is not HOF caliber.
More advanced stats say he's far above the borderline margin. BP has done a few articles about this.
Bone-Scorpion
Well regardless I dont have a vote on the ballot so I guess we will just have to wait and see.
I would never say that Rock Raines was not a very good player just that he is not a sure fire HOFer.
December 02, 2008 at 05:14AM View BBCode
A slap hitter with good eye. He had almost no power and the only aspect of the game that he dominated was on the basepaths. If that was the case Vince Coleman would be debatable as well.Well regardless I dont have a vote on the ballot so I guess we will just have to wait and see.
I would never say that Rock Raines was not a very good player just that he is not a sure fire HOFer.
ME
December 02, 2008 at 05:46AM View BBCode
You ignored his most important skill, the one that makes him a hall of famer. His ability to get on base.
FuriousGiorge
Yikes. Coleman OBP'd .324 in ~5500 AB's. Rock OBP'd .385 in almost 9000 AB's. These are not comparable things.
December 02, 2008 at 05:50AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bone-Scorpion
A slap hitter with good eye. He had almost no power and the only aspect of the game that he dominated was on the basepaths. If that was the case Vince Coleman would be debatable as well.
Yikes. Coleman OBP'd .324 in ~5500 AB's. Rock OBP'd .385 in almost 9000 AB's. These are not comparable things.
ironhorse2ko
In that case...I take it back what I said. But to harp on your thing about runs. You say that to look at runs scored in Raines case in a roundabout way (I may be wrong) doesn't help if the teams he played on didn't give him enough run support, and if he got caught stealing. The whole point of the game is to score runs, regardless of how bad your team is at producting them. Raines suffers in his comparision to Henderson because he did not score enough...apparently. People pointed to Rickey's run record first, then the stolen bases. Had Raines scored at least 300 more runs, then could we say he would have garnered more of a look for the Hall? Tough to say. But I will agree with you about stealing runs from the team if you are caught stealing.
December 02, 2008 at 08:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
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.
In that case...I take it back what I said. But to harp on your thing about runs. You say that to look at runs scored in Raines case in a roundabout way (I may be wrong) doesn't help if the teams he played on didn't give him enough run support, and if he got caught stealing. The whole point of the game is to score runs, regardless of how bad your team is at producting them. Raines suffers in his comparision to Henderson because he did not score enough...apparently. People pointed to Rickey's run record first, then the stolen bases. Had Raines scored at least 300 more runs, then could we say he would have garnered more of a look for the Hall? Tough to say. But I will agree with you about stealing runs from the team if you are caught stealing.
Bone-Scorpion
Who am I?
I scored 101 runs less the Raines, but had 404 more RBI's.
I had 118 more AB's in 3 less seasons.
I had a career OBP of .370, and an OPS of .840 compared to Raines .385 OBP and .810 OPS.
I had many more HR's and 2b's and played Gold Glove defence and was a game changer in the field. I did not steal many bases. I only received a total of 95 votes for the HOF over 3 years and am no longer on the Ballot.
So why is Raines a better player in people's eyes? Because he stole 808 bases? Thats the only reason I can see why. In people's eyes a player that produced more runs, scored a similar amount of times and had comparable OBP. and slightly better OPS. is not HOF because he didnt steal bases? For a stat that is considered to have minimal value seems kinda silly.
I should mention that my player played in a major market.
December 02, 2008 at 01:02PM View BBCode
I wasnt comparing Raine's OBP vs Coleman's. Thats not even close. They both dominated on the basepaths. That is what I was comparing. A .385 Career OBP is quite good but is it dominating? Without a milestone type of number I find that consistancy is not rewarded with the HOF.Who am I?
I scored 101 runs less the Raines, but had 404 more RBI's.
I had 118 more AB's in 3 less seasons.
I had a career OBP of .370, and an OPS of .840 compared to Raines .385 OBP and .810 OPS.
I had many more HR's and 2b's and played Gold Glove defence and was a game changer in the field. I did not steal many bases. I only received a total of 95 votes for the HOF over 3 years and am no longer on the Ballot.
So why is Raines a better player in people's eyes? Because he stole 808 bases? Thats the only reason I can see why. In people's eyes a player that produced more runs, scored a similar amount of times and had comparable OBP. and slightly better OPS. is not HOF because he didnt steal bases? For a stat that is considered to have minimal value seems kinda silly.
I should mention that my player played in a major market.
dirtdevil
are we seriously comparing tim raines to dwight evans now? that's beyond silly. raines was a leadoff hitter, one of the best of all-time. the only reason he wasn't the best leadoff hitter of his generastion is that he had the misfortune to play in the same generation as rickey henderson. dwight evans was a middle of the order power hitter playing his home games in fenway. the two are not at all comparable. the main argument for evans was his right arm, which didn't get him into the hall any more than jesse barfield's did, nor should it.
December 02, 2008 at 01:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bone-Scorpion
I wasnt comparing Raine's OBP vs Coleman's. Thats not even close. They both dominated on the basepaths. That is what I was comparing. A .385 Career OBP is quite good but is it dominating? Without a milestone type of number I find that consistancy is not rewarded with the HOF.
Who am I?
I scored 101 runs less the Raines, but had 404 more RBI's.
I had 118 more AB's in 3 less seasons.
I had a career OBP of .370, and an OPS of .840 compared to Raines .385 OBP and .810 OPS.
I had many more HR's and 2b's and played Gold Glove defence and was a game changer in the field. I did not steal many bases. I only received a total of 95 votes for the HOF over 3 years and am no longer on the Ballot.
So why is Raines a better player in people's eyes? Because he stole 808 bases? Thats the only reason I can see why. In people's eyes a player that produced more runs, scored a similar amount of times and had comparable OBP. and slightly better OPS. is not HOF because he didnt steal bases? For a stat that is considered to have minimal value seems kinda silly.
I should mention that my player played in a major market.
are we seriously comparing tim raines to dwight evans now? that's beyond silly. raines was a leadoff hitter, one of the best of all-time. the only reason he wasn't the best leadoff hitter of his generastion is that he had the misfortune to play in the same generation as rickey henderson. dwight evans was a middle of the order power hitter playing his home games in fenway. the two are not at all comparable. the main argument for evans was his right arm, which didn't get him into the hall any more than jesse barfield's did, nor should it.
FuriousGiorge
December 02, 2008 at 02:45PM View BBCode
(Dwight Evans has a pretty good case for the Hall too.)
dirtdevil
he's a borderline guy i sort of expected to get more serious consideration than he did. he is, however, an absolutely awful comparision in any discussion of tim raines.
December 02, 2008 at 04:45PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
(Dwight Evans has a pretty good case for the Hall too.)
he's a borderline guy i sort of expected to get more serious consideration than he did. he is, however, an absolutely awful comparision in any discussion of tim raines.
whiskybear
Even if the discussion is, "Guys Outfielders who deserve consideration for the Hall of Fame"?
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
December 02, 2008 at 04:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
he is, however, an absolutely awful comparision in any discussion of tim raines.
Even if the discussion is, "
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
dirtdevil
would you prefer, "an absolutely awful comparision to use in any discussion of the legitimacy of the hof candidacy of leadoff hitters"? it's more accurate, but a bit of a mouthfull.
December 02, 2008 at 04:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by dirtdevil
he is, however, an absolutely awful comparision in any discussion of tim raines.
Even if the discussion is, "GuysOutfielders who deserve consideration for the Hall of Fame"?
would you prefer, "an absolutely awful comparision to use in any discussion of the legitimacy of the hof candidacy of leadoff hitters"? it's more accurate, but a bit of a mouthfull.
whiskybear
December 02, 2008 at 05:02PM View BBCode
Look, this whole thing falls apart completely if we make this about leadoff hitters in the abstract. Raines deserves to be in because he was a great player who happened to hit leadoff. Mike Timlin isn't going to the Hall of Fame, despite being a very good setup man.
dirtdevil
December 02, 2008 at 05:05PM View BBCode
i disagree. i think the enitre case for raines being in the hall hinges on him being a great leadoff man. otherwise he's just another OF with no power.
whiskybear
(I think he belongs in the Hall on the merit of his numbers, but it is -- stupid? -- yes, stupid to assert that the same player would belong in the Hall of Fame as a leadoff hitter but not as a No. 3 hitter.)
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
December 02, 2008 at 05:07PM View BBCode
Then he doesn't belong in the Hall.(I think he belongs in the Hall on the merit of his numbers, but it is -- stupid? -- yes, stupid to assert that the same player would belong in the Hall of Fame as a leadoff hitter but not as a No. 3 hitter.)
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
dirtdevil
December 02, 2008 at 05:17PM View BBCode
i don't think you can seperate the two like that. if he's a 3 hitter his power numbers clearly aren't going to be good enough. his numbers need to be viewed in the context of what his job was a a hitter- to get on base, disrupt the defence with his speed and score runs. you wouldn't evaluate mark mcguire or frank thomas on the basis of their obp or sb totals.
whiskybear
Manny Mota Lenny Harris a Hall of Fame pinch-hitter?
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
December 02, 2008 at 05:29PM View BBCode
Is[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
tm4559
December 02, 2008 at 05:40PM View BBCode
how did dwight evans get dragged into the tim raines thing? how?
barterer2002
December 02, 2008 at 05:41PM View BBCode
Personally I like Firpo Marberry but he's never going to make it.
khazim
6 times have was in the top 5 for the league MVP, winning it once.8 times, he was selected to the All-Star game. 373 HRs. Those are... okay. injury reduced but okay... 2,452 hits. Not bad at all, but...
This is where the problem lies for Raines and Rice both... they're "yeah, but's". Notable, but it would take a serious effort to get one elected to the HOF.
December 02, 2008 at 06:14PM View BBCode
Jim Rice... same dilemma, different problem than Raines. Rice can't get in because his numbers are just.. they just seem to be missing something.6 times have was in the top 5 for the league MVP, winning it once.8 times, he was selected to the All-Star game. 373 HRs. Those are... okay. injury reduced but okay... 2,452 hits. Not bad at all, but...
This is where the problem lies for Raines and Rice both... they're "yeah, but's". Notable, but it would take a serious effort to get one elected to the HOF.
Benne
December 02, 2008 at 06:14PM View BBCode
Willie Bloomquist for the Hall. I'm starting up a campaign website.
whiskybear
That's a Hall of Famer.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
December 02, 2008 at 06:21PM View BBCode
He's played every position except catcher and pitcher at least 30 times! He's the best utility player of all-time! And, sure, if you try to evaluate him as, I don't know, an actually productive player, or even a replacement-level one, he falls short. But he does exactly what you want a utility player to do -- play all over the place.That's a Hall of Famer.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by whiskybear]
tm4559
December 02, 2008 at 06:26PM View BBCode
yogi berra sucked as a left fielder. i mean, sucked.