What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2009 HOF inductees -- Rickey & Rice (1 Viewer)

Tom Servo

Nittany Beavers
Rickey and Rice get Hall passes

Code:
Player Total Votes Percentage Rickey Henderson 511 94.8% Jim Rice 412 76.4% Andre Dawson 361 67.0% Bert Blyleven 338 62.7% Lee Smith 240 44.5% Jack Morris 237 44.0% Tommy John 171 31.7% Tim Raines 122 22.6% Mark McGwire 118 21.9% Alan Trammell 94 17.4% Dave Parker 81 15.0% Don Mattingly 64 11.9% Dale Murphy 62 11.5% Harold Baines 32 5.9% Mark Grace 22 4.1% David Cone 21 3.9% Matt Williams 7 1.3% Mo Vaughn 6 1.1% Jay Bell 2 0.4% Jesse Orosco 1 0.2% Ron Gant 0 0% Dan Plesac 0 0% Greg Vaughn 0 0%
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 people voted for Jay Bell? They should have their votes revoked. Career .265 hitter that only made 2 All Star teams. He had one monster power season (steroids?) and was an overall average hitter at best. Don't recall him being considered a defensive whiz either. How did he get on the ballot?

 
Rickey don't go to Cooperstown. Unless the mofo Hall of Fame moves to New York City, Rickey ain't going in no Hall.

And will all the BoSox people now shut up about Jim Rice? Please?

 
2 people voted for Jay Bell? They should have their votes revoked. Career .265 hitter that only made 2 All Star teams. He had one monster power season (steroids?) and was an overall average hitter at best. Don't recall him being considered a defensive whiz either. How did he get on the ballot?
we do this every year.The ballot lists every eligible player, as defined by the HOF procedures, excerpted here. Basically, if you had a 10+ year career, you get on the ballot. And i don't see anything wrong with, say, the Pirate beat writer throwing a vote or two to Jay Bell.3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:1. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.2. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).3. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.4. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.5. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
 
2 people voted for Jay Bell? They should have their votes revoked. Career .265 hitter that only made 2 All Star teams. He had one monster power season (steroids?) and was an overall average hitter at best. Don't recall him being considered a defensive whiz either. How did he get on the ballot?
we do this every year.The ballot lists every eligible player, as defined by the HOF procedures, excerpted here. Basically, if you had a 10+ year career, you get on the ballot. And i don't see anything wrong with, say, the Pirate beat writer throwing a vote or two to Jay Bell.3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:1. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.2. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).3. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.4. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.5. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
Thanks for the rules. Never seen those before. Was pretty shocked to see his name there but now see why. And still shocked to see him get votes.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%

Alan Trammell - 17%

Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.

 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.

 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
:goodposting:
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
Not sure Trammell is ever going to get there........Dawson and Blyleven are creeping up there though. It wouldn't surprise me to see Raines start getting some more love - he's got a small chance.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
Not sure Trammell is ever going to get there........Dawson and Blyleven are creeping up there though. It wouldn't surprise me to see Raines start getting some more love - he's got a small chance.
Yea Tram's only hope is the veteran committee.And Raines - well I'm surprised he was that low. He may never get there and that would be really, really bad. Its why the Hall is losing credibility and people just don't care as much anymore. There was a time when the Hall, gold gloves, silver sluggers - those were all huge things, huge honors. The more stupid voting there is, though, the more tarnished those awards become.
 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
<_<First year ballot, third year ballot, whatever. Your vote should not change, unless for some reason there was additional evidence you learned from the previous vote, and even then I would think your status as a voter should be removed for lack of research.And whether one guy gets in, ten guys get in or nobody gets in should make zero difference. Either you think a player is HOF worthy or you don't.
 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
<_<First year ballot, third year ballot, whatever. Your vote should not change, unless for some reason there was additional evidence you learned from the previous vote, and even then I would think your status as a voter should be removed for lack of research.And whether one guy gets in, ten guys get in or nobody gets in should make zero difference. Either you think a player is HOF worthy or you don't.
To your point . . .How many runners did Rice drive in over the 15 ballots he had to wait? I'm guessing zero, but I've never been that good at math.
 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
:coffee:First year ballot, third year ballot, whatever. Your vote should not change, unless for some reason there was additional evidence you learned from the previous vote, and even then I would think your status as a voter should be removed for lack of research.And whether one guy gets in, ten guys get in or nobody gets in should make zero difference. Either you think a player is HOF worthy or you don't.
The two jokers who turned in blank ballots this year should be mailed an empty envelope next year.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
Not sure Trammell is ever going to get there........Dawson and Blyleven are creeping up there though. It wouldn't surprise me to see Raines start getting some more love - he's got a small chance.
Yea Tram's only hope is the veteran committee.And Raines - well I'm surprised he was that low. He may never get there and that would be really, really bad. Its why the Hall is losing credibility and people just don't care as much anymore. There was a time when the Hall, gold gloves, silver sluggers - those were all huge things, huge honors. The more stupid voting there is, though, the more tarnished those awards become.
Anyone who knows baseball and watched Trammell play should be shocked by the 17%. Fantasy Baseball has ruined the sport. Alan busted his butt for the Tigers, kept his mouth shut, and produced at a Hall of Fame level year after year.
 
Anyone who knows baseball and watched Trammell play should be shocked by the 17%. Fantasy Baseball has ruined the sport. Alan busted his butt for the Tigers, kept his mouth shut, and produced at a Hall of Fame level year after year.
Not too muck up this thread too much, but I really don't see Trammell as a hall of famer. The problem with him is there is nothing that really stands out. .285 lifetime average, 185 lifetime hr's, 236 sb's, 2300 hits, 1000 rbis, 1200 runs....all pretty much run of the mill, ops +110. He doesn't really have anything that pushed him over the edge. He was a very good player, probably a Tiger HOF'er first ballot, but not really the best in the game type of player.Next year should be a very interesting year. I really think Raines needs a boost - but Larkin and Alomar are both on the ballot. I know they were both defensively superior and played in the infield, but Raines/Larking/Alomar all put up very similar offensive numbers. I think Alomar gets in eventually, not sure about Larkin.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
I am on the wrong side of the Trammel fence, but certainly open to discussion - but Raines is a shame to be so underappreciated by people who are "supposed" to know about this stuff.
 
Anyone who knows baseball and watched Trammell play should be shocked by the 17%. Fantasy Baseball has ruined the sport. Alan busted his butt for the Tigers, kept his mouth shut, and produced at a Hall of Fame level year after year.
Not too muck up this thread too much, but I really don't see Trammell as a hall of famer. The problem with him is there is nothing that really stands out. .285 lifetime average, 185 lifetime hr's, 236 sb's, 2300 hits, 1000 rbis, 1200 runs....all pretty much run of the mill, ops +110. He doesn't really have anything that pushed him over the edge. He was a very good player, probably a Tiger HOF'er first ballot, but not really the best in the game type of player.Next year should be a very interesting year. I really think Raines needs a boost - but Larkin and Alomar are both on the ballot. I know they were both defensively superior and played in the infield, but Raines/Larking/Alomar all put up very similar offensive numbers. I think Alomar gets in eventually, not sure about Larkin.
Trammell has a 118.5 HOF Monitor score. He was selected to 6 All Star teams, had 4 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 110.Larkin has the same 118.5 HOF Monitor score. He was selected to 12 All Star teams, had 3 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 116.Alomar has a 193.5 HOF Monitor Score. He was selected to 12 All Star teams, had 10 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 116. I'm guessing Alomar will get more love than either Trammell or Larkin.
 
Anyone who knows baseball and watched Trammell play should be shocked by the 17%. Fantasy Baseball has ruined the sport. Alan busted his butt for the Tigers, kept his mouth shut, and produced at a Hall of Fame level year after year.
Not too muck up this thread too much, but I really don't see Trammell as a hall of famer. The problem with him is there is nothing that really stands out. .285 lifetime average, 185 lifetime hr's, 236 sb's, 2300 hits, 1000 rbis, 1200 runs....all pretty much run of the mill, ops +110. He doesn't really have anything that pushed him over the edge. He was a very good player, probably a Tiger HOF'er first ballot, but not really the best in the game type of player.Next year should be a very interesting year. I really think Raines needs a boost - but Larkin and Alomar are both on the ballot. I know they were both defensively superior and played in the infield, but Raines/Larking/Alomar all put up very similar offensive numbers. I think Alomar gets in eventually, not sure about Larkin.
Alomar SHOULD get in without question. But should don't mean will.Between the spitting incident and his HUGE drop off the career cliff upon going to the Mets, there will be some doubt. However, for a decade, he was, without question imo, the best 2nd baseman in baseball and a true game changer in terms of his overall play on both offense and defense.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
I am on the wrong side of the Trammel fence, but certainly open to discussion - but Raines is a shame to be so underappreciated by people who are "supposed" to know about this stuff.
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.Sure, he stole a lot of bases (which IMO like saves is one of the least vital categories ever created).I get that his job was to get on base, but even so he only scored 100 runs 6 times in 23 seasons. His OPS+ is a very respectable 123, but he didn't have much power (2 seasons with 15+ HR), didn't really drive many guys in (career best of 71 RBI), and did not win a Gold Glove (in fact, his fielding % and range factors were below league average). Never won and MVP with a high of 5th in the voting. Won some rings as a backup/reserve with the Yanks. HOF Monitor score is only 89.5.I grew up in his era, and I don't ever remember even once thinking I was watching a future HOFer. IMO, Kenny Lofton with some more walks and some more steals (back when steals were the in thing) minus the Gold Gloves. Is Lofton a great HOF candidate?
 
Interestingly, my gut tells me no to Trammell, and I grew up loving the Tigers (Dad's favorite team, he grew up there). Even Tim Raines doesn't make my list. Alomar is very close. I feel like he should be in the HOF.

 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
He was, but Tom Seaver actually got the highest percentage of votes (98.8% IIRC). HTH
 
Interestingly, my gut tells me no to Trammell, and I grew up loving the Tigers (Dad's favorite team, he grew up there). Even Tim Raines doesn't make my list. Alomar is very close. I feel like he should be in the HOF.
You should stop relying on your gut, I reckon.
 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
I am on the wrong side of the Trammel fence, but certainly open to discussion - but Raines is a shame to be so underappreciated by people who are "supposed" to know about this stuff.
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.Sure, he stole a lot of bases (which IMO like saves is one of the least vital categories ever created).I get that his job was to get on base, but even so he only scored 100 runs 6 times in 23 seasons. His OPS+ is a very respectable 123, but he didn't have much power (2 seasons with 15+ HR), didn't really drive many guys in (career best of 71 RBI), and did not win a Gold Glove (in fact, his fielding % and range factors were below league average). Never won and MVP with a high of 5th in the voting. Won some rings as a backup/reserve with the Yanks. HOF Monitor score is only 89.5.I grew up in his era, and I don't ever remember even once thinking I was watching a future HOFer. IMO, Kenny Lofton with some more walks and some more steals (back when steals were the in thing) minus the Gold Gloves. Is Lofton a great HOF candidate?
first off, Raines spent a lot of years in his career on sub-par teams - you can't fault him for that. lifetime obp of .385 is very respectableOPS+ of 123 (compared with 127 for Rickey) soooo if you're saying he doesn't have any pop in his bat, I disagree. (also won a silver slugger award for OF)I think the thing that hurts Raines is that the prime of his career was spent on horrible Montreal teams (he only made the playoffs one year in his first 12 years) so he didn't get to perform on the big stage. He also hung around quite awhile playing part times (last 7 years only once did he break 400 AB's) so people sayin, but he played 23 seasons and only scored 100 runs 6 times.He was a 7 time all-star....hell he has a pretty decent resume. I'm not saying he necessarily needs to be in, but he doesn't get as much respect as I believe he should.
 
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.
Because he can write it a lot better than me, here's Keith Law's case for Raines:Raines belongs in Hall

Law By Keith Law

Scouts Inc.

Archive

If you watched baseball in the 1980s, the premise that Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer requires no justification. Yet more than three-quarters of eligible Hall voters, both this year and last year, omitted Raines from their ballots, many including inferior players Jim Rice and Andre Dawson instead.

So perhaps it's time for a little remedial education on one of the 100 greatest players in the game's history, along with a look at how the makeup of the electorate may be a factor working against Raines.

[+] EnlargeTim Raines

Jeff Carlick /Getty ImagesTim Raines may not have been as good as Rickey Henderson. That doesn't mean Raines isn't a Hall of Famer.

Raines spent much of his career as the second-best leadoff man in the game. He had the misfortune to be a contemporary of the greatest leadoff man in history, Rickey Henderson, who was elected to the Hall on Monday with 94.8 percent of the vote.

Henderson, of course, retired as the all-time leader in walks drawn, stolen bases and runs scored. He passed the "magic" 3,000-hit barrier ("magic" in that it nearly guarantees election) and fell just three homers short of 300. He wasn't just the greatest leadoff man in history; he was one of the greatest players in history, and there is no shame in being second-best behind him.

Raines, of course, did many things well on the diamond, none better than stealing bases, where he might have been the best base stealer in the game's history. Yes, Henderson had 1,406 steals to Raines' 808, but those extra steals came at a higher cost: Henderson was caught more than twice as many times as Raines, posting an 81 percent success rate compared to Raines' 85 percent.

In fact, Raines has the highest stolen base success rate of any base stealer with at least 300 career steals for whom we have caught-stealing data. He's second-highest if we drop the bar to 200 career steals, behind Carlos Beltran. For an institution that elected Lou Brock, an extremely limited player whose career OBP is more than 40 points below Raines', Raines' stolen base numbers should boost his candidacy.

Speaking of getting on base, Raines ranks 41st all time in times on base, just ahead of a fellow named Tony Gwynn, who isn't in the Hall for any reason other than an ability to produce base hits.

In fact, not only did Raines reach base slightly more times than Gwynn did, he had more homers and triples than Gwynn and had almost 500 more stolen bases with just 21 more times caught stealing. Gwynn could always hit but didn't work to keep himself in shape and was more or less done as a serious base stealing threat after age 30. Meanwhile, Raines did work on his conditioning and remained a productive base stealer until he was nearly 40.

Raines' durability aside, he was one of the best players in the National League during the 1980s. For several years in the middle of the decade, he was the league's best player, passing one of the various litmus tests for Hall of Famers.

Raines finished first or second in the NL in VORP from 1984 to 1987, leading the league in 1986 and finishing second in 1987 despite missing the month of April due to MLB owners' collusion efforts. When you also consider his above-average defense in left field, Raines comes out as the best player in the NL at least in 1985 and 1986, and probably in 1987 as well.

Raines' career numbers were also affected by baseball's labor strife in the 1980s and early 1990s, a period that overlaps perfectly with his peak years. The strikes in 1981 and 1994 (the latter spilling into 1995) cost him around 120 games, and collusion cost him another 20 games at the start of 1987, when he was arguably the best player in the National League, hitting .330/.429/.526 after his return from exile on May 2. Given back those 140-odd games, Raines would have passed 4,000 times on base and finished with perhaps as many as 2,700 hits, since the work stoppages and collusion all took place during good or great Raines seasons.

Supporters of certain Hall candidates like to allude to arbitrary end points, saying, for example, that Jack Morris led the majors in wins in the 1980s (while ignoring that he also led in earned runs allowed, 73 runs ahead of the runner-up, Jim Clancy). Setting a low bar of 3,000 plate appearances for the years 1980-89, Raines comes up fifth in the majors in OBP, behind Hall of Famers Wade Boggs, George Brett and Henderson. He was eighth in the majors in that decade in times on base, behind four Hall of Famers, with Henderson included. And setting these particular arbitrary end points doesn't necessarily do Raines any favors, since he didn't become a full-time player until 1982, and loses his age 30-32 seasons because they're after the cutoff. (All data courtesy of Baseball-Reference and its indispensable Play Index.)

So Raines was perhaps the best base stealer in the game's history, the second-best leadoff hitter, one of the best hitters at reaching base (the most important thing a hitter can do, after all) and a good defensive player. One common excuse for omitting Raines from Hall ballots is his admitted cocaine use in the 1980s, including his infamous confession to sliding headfirst to avoid breaking the vials of snow in his back pocket. Raines was clean for the majority of his career and became known both as someone who talked about his recovery from addiction and just generally a good character guy, yet voters are still bringing up the drug use from the first two or three years of his career.

Yet another candidate who reached the ballot with similar off-field indiscretions, Paul Molitor, sailed into the Hall on the first ballot with more than 85 percent of the vote and 299 more votes than Raines received in his first year. Molitor also played the first few years of his career with a serious cocaine problem. So why does Molitor get a free pass while Raines struggles to reach even a quarter of the vote? It's not about their playing careers; Raines was the better offensive player and played a thousand more games in the field than Molitor did. Molitor accumulated more bulk statistics at the plate, but his inability to play a position was a big part of extending his career. No, it might be about something far more insidious.

The electorate for the Hall, comprising BBWAA members who have at some point held their badges for 10 consecutive years (although they need not be active badge holders now), is overwhelmingly white; the organization's secretary, Jack O'Connell, did a quick count of African-American voters and came up with 19 in the history of the organization, at least one of whom (Hall of Famer Larry Whiteside) is deceased. Even if O'Connell undercounted current African-American voters by 50 percent, that would give us 36, out of a total electorate of over 550. Are we just looking at an example, then, of a white electorate treating drug use by a white player differently than it would treat drug use by an African-American player? Many academics, including Princeton professor Cornel West, have written about the way that the American media treats white drug users differently from African-American drug users; perhaps this inequity has seeped into its treatment of baseball players with distant histories of drug use as well, because any gap between Raines' and Molitor's on-field performances could not begin to justify the gap in their Hall of Fame vote totals. This is not to say that any individual voter is racist, but that pervasive societal stereotypes may be hurting Raines' Hall chances.

Of course, the electorate is changing, and the new guard of voters is more willing to consider the types of performance metrics that show how Tim Raines is Hall-worthy and Jim Rice isn't. As much as I'd like to include Raines on my Hall ballot when I become eligible in December of 2018, I'm hopeful that the electorate at large will put him in before I get the chance, because he's clearly deserving of baseball's highest honor.

 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
I am on the wrong side of the Trammel fence, but certainly open to discussion - but Raines is a shame to be so underappreciated by people who are "supposed" to know about this stuff.
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.Sure, he stole a lot of bases (which IMO like saves is one of the least vital categories ever created).I get that his job was to get on base, but even so he only scored 100 runs 6 times in 23 seasons. His OPS+ is a very respectable 123, but he didn't have much power (2 seasons with 15+ HR), didn't really drive many guys in (career best of 71 RBI), and did not win a Gold Glove (in fact, his fielding % and range factors were below league average). Never won and MVP with a high of 5th in the voting. Won some rings as a backup/reserve with the Yanks. HOF Monitor score is only 89.5.I grew up in his era, and I don't ever remember even once thinking I was watching a future HOFer. IMO, Kenny Lofton with some more walks and some more steals (back when steals were the in thing) minus the Gold Gloves. Is Lofton a great HOF candidate?
first off, Raines spent a lot of years in his career on sub-par teams - you can't fault him for that. lifetime obp of .385 is very respectableOPS+ of 123 (compared with 127 for Rickey) soooo if you're saying he doesn't have any pop in his bat, I disagree. (also won a silver slugger award for OF)I think the thing that hurts Raines is that the prime of his career was spent on horrible Montreal teams (he only made the playoffs one year in his first 12 years) so he didn't get to perform on the big stage. He also hung around quite awhile playing part times (last 7 years only once did he break 400 AB's) so people sayin, but he played 23 seasons and only scored 100 runs 6 times.He was a 7 time all-star....hell he has a pretty decent resume. I'm not saying he necessarily needs to be in, but he doesn't get as much respect as I believe he should.
I liked Raines as a player, but I'm not sure he was an elite player even in his best years. I agree that playing in the graveyard known as Montreal won't help him any.I think there are some similar players from his era that may not have played as long. Lofton, Butler, Lonnie Smith, Dykstra, Coleman, Wilson, Cedeno, LeFlore, Grissom, Samuel, etc. Raines was better and played longer than those guys, but does longer = better = HOF? He's probably an unappreciated player . . . whether that makes him a HOFer is another thing.Another Montreal guy that will be debatable soon will be Larry Walker. I think I started a HOF thread on him a couple years ago.
 
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
:popcorn:First year ballot, third year ballot, whatever. Your vote should not change, unless for some reason there was additional evidence you learned from the previous vote, and even then I would think your status as a voter should be removed for lack of research.And whether one guy gets in, ten guys get in or nobody gets in should make zero difference. Either you think a player is HOF worthy or you don't.
To your point . . .How many runners did Rice drive in over the 15 ballots he had to wait? I'm guessing zero, but I've never been that good at math.
Yep, it's zero. But I do think the perception of the previous generation of ball players has changed because of the steroid era.
 
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.
Because he can write it a lot better than me, here's Keith Law's case for Raines:Raines belongs in Hall

Law By Keith Law

Scouts Inc.

Archive

If you watched baseball in the 1980s, the premise that Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer requires no justification. Yet more than three-quarters of eligible Hall voters, both this year and last year, omitted Raines from their ballots, many including inferior players Jim Rice and Andre Dawson instead.

So perhaps it's time for a little remedial education on one of the 100 greatest players in the game's history, along with a look at how the makeup of the electorate may be a factor working against Raines.

[+] EnlargeTim Raines

Jeff Carlick /Getty ImagesTim Raines may not have been as good as Rickey Henderson. That doesn't mean Raines isn't a Hall of Famer.

Raines spent much of his career as the second-best leadoff man in the game. He had the misfortune to be a contemporary of the greatest leadoff man in history, Rickey Henderson, who was elected to the Hall on Monday with 94.8 percent of the vote.

Henderson, of course, retired as the all-time leader in walks drawn, stolen bases and runs scored. He passed the "magic" 3,000-hit barrier ("magic" in that it nearly guarantees election) and fell just three homers short of 300. He wasn't just the greatest leadoff man in history; he was one of the greatest players in history, and there is no shame in being second-best behind him.

Raines, of course, did many things well on the diamond, none better than stealing bases, where he might have been the best base stealer in the game's history. Yes, Henderson had 1,406 steals to Raines' 808, but those extra steals came at a higher cost: Henderson was caught more than twice as many times as Raines, posting an 81 percent success rate compared to Raines' 85 percent.

In fact, Raines has the highest stolen base success rate of any base stealer with at least 300 career steals for whom we have caught-stealing data. He's second-highest if we drop the bar to 200 career steals, behind Carlos Beltran. For an institution that elected Lou Brock, an extremely limited player whose career OBP is more than 40 points below Raines', Raines' stolen base numbers should boost his candidacy.

Speaking of getting on base, Raines ranks 41st all time in times on base, just ahead of a fellow named Tony Gwynn, who isn't in the Hall for any reason other than an ability to produce base hits.

In fact, not only did Raines reach base slightly more times than Gwynn did, he had more homers and triples than Gwynn and had almost 500 more stolen bases with just 21 more times caught stealing. Gwynn could always hit but didn't work to keep himself in shape and was more or less done as a serious base stealing threat after age 30. Meanwhile, Raines did work on his conditioning and remained a productive base stealer until he was nearly 40.

Raines' durability aside, he was one of the best players in the National League during the 1980s. For several years in the middle of the decade, he was the league's best player, passing one of the various litmus tests for Hall of Famers.

Raines finished first or second in the NL in VORP from 1984 to 1987, leading the league in 1986 and finishing second in 1987 despite missing the month of April due to MLB owners' collusion efforts. When you also consider his above-average defense in left field, Raines comes out as the best player in the NL at least in 1985 and 1986, and probably in 1987 as well.

Raines' career numbers were also affected by baseball's labor strife in the 1980s and early 1990s, a period that overlaps perfectly with his peak years. The strikes in 1981 and 1994 (the latter spilling into 1995) cost him around 120 games, and collusion cost him another 20 games at the start of 1987, when he was arguably the best player in the National League, hitting .330/.429/.526 after his return from exile on May 2. Given back those 140-odd games, Raines would have passed 4,000 times on base and finished with perhaps as many as 2,700 hits, since the work stoppages and collusion all took place during good or great Raines seasons.

Supporters of certain Hall candidates like to allude to arbitrary end points, saying, for example, that Jack Morris led the majors in wins in the 1980s (while ignoring that he also led in earned runs allowed, 73 runs ahead of the runner-up, Jim Clancy). Setting a low bar of 3,000 plate appearances for the years 1980-89, Raines comes up fifth in the majors in OBP, behind Hall of Famers Wade Boggs, George Brett and Henderson. He was eighth in the majors in that decade in times on base, behind four Hall of Famers, with Henderson included. And setting these particular arbitrary end points doesn't necessarily do Raines any favors, since he didn't become a full-time player until 1982, and loses his age 30-32 seasons because they're after the cutoff. (All data courtesy of Baseball-Reference and its indispensable Play Index.)

So Raines was perhaps the best base stealer in the game's history, the second-best leadoff hitter, one of the best hitters at reaching base (the most important thing a hitter can do, after all) and a good defensive player. One common excuse for omitting Raines from Hall ballots is his admitted cocaine use in the 1980s, including his infamous confession to sliding headfirst to avoid breaking the vials of snow in his back pocket. Raines was clean for the majority of his career and became known both as someone who talked about his recovery from addiction and just generally a good character guy, yet voters are still bringing up the drug use from the first two or three years of his career.

Yet another candidate who reached the ballot with similar off-field indiscretions, Paul Molitor, sailed into the Hall on the first ballot with more than 85 percent of the vote and 299 more votes than Raines received in his first year. Molitor also played the first few years of his career with a serious cocaine problem. So why does Molitor get a free pass while Raines struggles to reach even a quarter of the vote? It's not about their playing careers; Raines was the better offensive player and played a thousand more games in the field than Molitor did. Molitor accumulated more bulk statistics at the plate, but his inability to play a position was a big part of extending his career. No, it might be about something far more insidious.

The electorate for the Hall, comprising BBWAA members who have at some point held their badges for 10 consecutive years (although they need not be active badge holders now), is overwhelmingly white; the organization's secretary, Jack O'Connell, did a quick count of African-American voters and came up with 19 in the history of the organization, at least one of whom (Hall of Famer Larry Whiteside) is deceased. Even if O'Connell undercounted current African-American voters by 50 percent, that would give us 36, out of a total electorate of over 550. Are we just looking at an example, then, of a white electorate treating drug use by a white player differently than it would treat drug use by an African-American player? Many academics, including Princeton professor Cornel West, have written about the way that the American media treats white drug users differently from African-American drug users; perhaps this inequity has seeped into its treatment of baseball players with distant histories of drug use as well, because any gap between Raines' and Molitor's on-field performances could not begin to justify the gap in their Hall of Fame vote totals. This is not to say that any individual voter is racist, but that pervasive societal stereotypes may be hurting Raines' Hall chances.

Of course, the electorate is changing, and the new guard of voters is more willing to consider the types of performance metrics that show how Tim Raines is Hall-worthy and Jim Rice isn't. As much as I'd like to include Raines on my Hall ballot when I become eligible in December of 2018, I'm hopeful that the electorate at large will put him in before I get the chance, because he's clearly deserving of baseball's highest honor.
I had read similar info on Raines recently and still am not swayed. Comparing him to Molitor seemed like a bit of a stretch. I understand that the statistical analyis options have gotten more sophisticated over the years, but Molitor hit .300 11 times and bettered Raines in most yearly and career numbers. Yes, Raines had a comparible OPS+ but that was based almost entirely on him having more walks. As I said earlier, stolen bases is not one of the top offensive categories and IMO if somewhere were using his SB total to his advantage he would have scored a ton of runs (like Henderson). Since Molitor walked less he hit more . . . and thus had all those hits that got him in.Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Molitor in the HOF either, as he got in more on longevity than being a dominant player for a long stretch. With almost 1200 games at DH, that also makes my somewhat skeptical on Molitor.

 
SofaKings thinks that those are two well deserving candidates but he is also mystified with how low Raines is on the ballot results. SofaKings spent about 15 minutes talking to Raines in 1991 after a spring training game. SofaKings accosted him as he was getting into his Porsche 944. Timmy Jr was jumping in and out of the sunroof but Tim Sr was very polite and answered all my stupid questions and made small talk. SofaKings thinks he is a class guy.

 
Tim Raines -- 22%Alan Trammell - 17%Sad. Oh well. Not the first time baseball writers are dumb and won't be the last.
I am on the wrong side of the Trammel fence, but certainly open to discussion - but Raines is a shame to be so underappreciated by people who are "supposed" to know about this stuff.
I'm trying hard to get the HOF vibe for Raines, but I'm having a hard time finding it.Sure, he stole a lot of bases (which IMO like saves is one of the least vital categories ever created).I get that his job was to get on base, but even so he only scored 100 runs 6 times in 23 seasons. His OPS+ is a very respectable 123, but he didn't have much power (2 seasons with 15+ HR), didn't really drive many guys in (career best of 71 RBI), and did not win a Gold Glove (in fact, his fielding % and range factors were below league average). Never won and MVP with a high of 5th in the voting. Won some rings as a backup/reserve with the Yanks. HOF Monitor score is only 89.5.I grew up in his era, and I don't ever remember even once thinking I was watching a future HOFer. IMO, Kenny Lofton with some more walks and some more steals (back when steals were the in thing) minus the Gold Gloves. Is Lofton a great HOF candidate?
first off, Raines spent a lot of years in his career on sub-par teams - you can't fault him for that. lifetime obp of .385 is very respectableOPS+ of 123 (compared with 127 for Rickey) soooo if you're saying he doesn't have any pop in his bat, I disagree. (also won a silver slugger award for OF)I think the thing that hurts Raines is that the prime of his career was spent on horrible Montreal teams (he only made the playoffs one year in his first 12 years) so he didn't get to perform on the big stage. He also hung around quite awhile playing part times (last 7 years only once did he break 400 AB's) so people sayin, but he played 23 seasons and only scored 100 runs 6 times.He was a 7 time all-star....hell he has a pretty decent resume. I'm not saying he necessarily needs to be in, but he doesn't get as much respect as I believe he should.
I liked Raines as a player, but I'm not sure he was an elite player even in his best years. I agree that playing in the graveyard known as Montreal won't help him any.I think there are some similar players from his era that may not have played as long. Lofton, Butler, Lonnie Smith, Dykstra, Coleman, Wilson, Cedeno, LeFlore, Grissom, Samuel, etc. Raines was better and played longer than those guys, but does longer = better = HOF? He's probably an unappreciated player . . . whether that makes him a HOFer is another thing.Another Montreal guy that will be debatable soon will be Larry Walker. I think I started a HOF thread on him a couple years ago.
Raines was cetainly an elite player in the NL during his peak. He was the NL's version of Rickey. He's possibly the second best leadoff hitter of all time. He was murder on the basepaths, but he just didnt have anyone worth a damn to drive him in and he didnt have Rickey's power so he rarely drove himself in. Now, you can argue that his peak wasnt long enough or his seasons outside of his peak we're productive enough, but he was a truly dominant player during the mid 80s.
 
Interestingly, my gut tells me no to Trammell, and I grew up loving the Tigers (Dad's favorite team, he grew up there). Even Tim Raines doesn't make my list. Alomar is very close. I feel like he should be in the HOF.
You should stop relying on your gut, I reckon.
I take it you believe both Trammell and Raines should be in the HOF?
Raines for sure - no brainer. Trammell is close but over the line imo.But the main point of my comment - and I know it came out ####tily and I didn't mean it to - is that (especially in baseball) there's no reason to rely on your gut. We can quantify how good a player was. There are TONS of baseball statistics -- some better than others. There's no reason, therefore, to rely on your gut.And obviously it's ok if on a silly message board where we are debating that you do that. My annoyance is really with the BBWAA guys - they should take their job more seriously. I think WAY too many of those guys rely on their gut - that's how we come up with arguments like Jim Rice was "feared."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SofaKings thinks that those are two well deserving candidates but he is also mystified with how low Raines is on the ballot results. SofaKings spent about 15 minutes talking to Raines in 1991 after a spring training game. SofaKings accosted him as he was getting into his Porsche 944. Timmy Jr was jumping in and out of the sunroof but Tim Sr was very polite and answered all my stupid questions and made small talk. SofaKings thinks he is a class guy.
MrPhoenix would like to second Sofa's comments about Raines being a classy guy. MrPhoenix would like to mention that Raines held MrPhoenix as a baby. MrPhoenix may be biased, but MrPhoenix believes Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame because Raines' numbers are very similar to Rickey Henderson's and Raines got unlucky playing for bad teams.
 
Raines vs. Henderson:

-824 runs

-450 hits

-80 doubles

-127 HR

-135 RBI

-598 SB

-860 BB

- 1 Gold Glove

- 3 All Star selections

Are those numbers "very similar?"

 
SofaKings thinks that those are two well deserving candidates but he is also mystified with how low Raines is on the ballot results. SofaKings spent about 15 minutes talking to Raines in 1991 after a spring training game. SofaKings accosted him as he was getting into his Porsche 944. Timmy Jr was jumping in and out of the sunroof but Tim Sr was very polite and answered all my stupid questions and made small talk. SofaKings thinks he is a class guy.
:golfclap:
 
Anyone who knows baseball and watched Trammell play should be shocked by the 17%. Fantasy Baseball has ruined the sport. Alan busted his butt for the Tigers, kept his mouth shut, and produced at a Hall of Fame level year after year.
Not too muck up this thread too much, but I really don't see Trammell as a hall of famer. The problem with him is there is nothing that really stands out. .285 lifetime average, 185 lifetime hr's, 236 sb's, 2300 hits, 1000 rbis, 1200 runs....all pretty much run of the mill, ops +110. He doesn't really have anything that pushed him over the edge. He was a very good player, probably a Tiger HOF'er first ballot, but not really the best in the game type of player.Next year should be a very interesting year. I really think Raines needs a boost - but Larkin and Alomar are both on the ballot. I know they were both defensively superior and played in the infield, but Raines/Larking/Alomar all put up very similar offensive numbers. I think Alomar gets in eventually, not sure about Larkin.
Trammell has a 118.5 HOF Monitor score. He was selected to 6 All Star teams, had 4 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 110.Larkin has the same 118.5 HOF Monitor score. He was selected to 12 All Star teams, had 3 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 116.Alomar has a 193.5 HOF Monitor Score. He was selected to 12 All Star teams, had 10 Gold Gloves, and had an OPS+ score of 116. I'm guessing Alomar will get more love than either Trammell or Larkin.
Trammell should have a 126 since he was robbed in 1987 of an MVP award but he would need a serious campaign with just 7 more tries to even get close. Right now Miguel Tejada has about the same score as Trammell and I'm not sure he's ever going to get in. Alomar will get in but it won't be next year. Larkin will get more love than Trammell for really no particular reason and probably have more votes his first time next year. Edgar Martinez is really the only other legit candidate to ever make it of the 2010 eligibles so I see Blyleven and Morris both getting a nice boost next year but it's possible no one goes in next year. Andre Dawson and Blyleven will both have a decent chance, but neither is a slam dunk.
 
Rickey is the greatest of alltime...the HOF would not be complete without him.

Those who didn't vote Rickey should have their vote revoked.

It was a tremendous honor for 94.8% of the voters just to be able to write Rickey Henderson on those ballots.

 
Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.

 
Kinda surprised McGwire's vote total is going backwards, especially in a year where there were not a ton of new candidates. I thought the message of the voters initially was to take a shot across the bow of the steroids era guys. Looks like that was more than just a warning shot.
He'll never get in via writer's vote.The curious cases to me will be Bonds and Clemens.
 
wow Jack Morris 6th on the list.

what do you need like 70% of the vote.

Did people actually not vote on purpose? two blank ballots?? in the name of some dumb tradition. only in baseball

 
Last edited by a moderator:
About time for Rice. And the whole nobody gets 100% of the vote because Babe didn't is a joke at this point. Rickey Henderson is a first ballot absolute lock for the hall. Not voting for him is comical and the person should lose their right to vote. We get it. Babe was the best. He still will be if someone gets all the votes for the Hall. Move on.
He was, but Tom Seaver actually got the highest percentage of votes (98.8% IIRC). HTH
Yeah I know. And the reason he didn't get 100% was because of the Ruth factor.
 
Raines vs. Henderson:-824 runs-450 hits-80 doubles-127 HR-135 RBI-598 SB-860 BB- 1 Gold Glove- 3 All Star selectionsAre those numbers "very similar?"
Yeah but Henderson was CS almost twice as many times!! :confused:The comparison to Gwynn is equally bizarre. He had more home runs and triples than Gwynn! No kidding.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top