OT - New Hall of Famers: Bagwell, Raines and Ivan Rodriguez

[Bosox Blair]

Apparently the results are just in:

http://www.espn.com/live/

Cheers,
Blair

[btcarfagno]

All three very deserving. Hopefully more of those in the 50% and higher range get in eventually. Vladdy hopefully makes it next year. I'm not a fan or relievers, so I'm meh on Trevor Hoffman ever getting in.

Congrats to Pudge, Bagpipes and Rock!

Tom C

[h2oya311]

Apparently the results are just in:

http://www.espn.com/live/

Cheers,
Blair

Thanks for the heads-up! Bagwell, Raines, and I-Rod.

[Exhibitman]

Yay Raines! Go Expos!

[CMIZ5290]

All well deserving, glad C. Jones didn't get in. I'm a life long Braves fan but this guy has been an ass hole his entire career, especially to the media and fans. You don't think that matters in the end? He is a rich man's J.D. Drew...

[icollectDCsports]

All well deserving, glad C. Jones didn't get in. I'm a life long Braves fan but this guy has been an ass hole his entire career, especially to the media and fans. You don't think that matters in the end? He is a rich man's J.D. Drew...

Chipper Jones? He's on the ballot for the first time next year and will get in first ballot.

[90feetaway]

Just my opinion. Neither dominated the sport. Pudge was dominant at catcher which is a thin position. I think Vlad deserves a spot.

[conor912]

"Sold" listings for Raines' RC on Ebay in the last couple hours are pretty impressive.

[Shoebox]

Chipper Jones? He's on the ballot for the first time next year and will get in first ballot.

Yeah I laughed pretty hard at that post too.

[Pilot172000]

1991 Topps Stadium club RC of Jeff Bagwells was one of my first "Big Cards" to pull. Being a Rangers fan, I got to see Pudge play in 94. I love this class. If would have been perfect is Vladdy had made it.

[z28jd]

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

[Moyni]

Tonight's announcement also makes these cards even cooler. The only two catchers elected on their first ballots. :)

https://sportscardalbum.com/c/02p71752x450.jpg (https://sportscardalbum.com/card/02p71752)

https://sportscardalbum.com/c/e7m8khvsx450.jpg (https://sportscardalbum.com/card/e7m8khvs)

[conor912]

This was a fun read...some interesting tidbits about the voting in the early days.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/213825572/best-hall-of-fame-classes-2017-inductions

[triwak]

Not to veer too far OT, but has anyone found anything card-wise of John Schuerholz yet? Selig is easy.

[BeanTown]

Great choices for the HOF and those players have some hard minor league cards to collect. Cape Cod for Bagwell. Vladimir is a great player who was the best bad ball hitter to ever play! Plus he used to live with his Mom and Brother early in when he played in Montreal. A great guy and class act. Chipper is a first ballot HOFer and loyal to his team. Some of his off field choices he made while being married were not the best, but a great guy otherwise. He loves to hunt and enjoys his kids not too mention his Hooters wife as that was one of his consequences he made long ago. Lol.

[seanofjapan]

Really glad to see Raines finally getting in, its ridiculous that he had to wait until his last shot.

Its a bit bittersweet, he is probably the last guy who will go in as an Expo (except maybe Vladi, but he might go in as an Angel). Which is sort of the last big MLB related thing we had to look forward too that involved the team.

Well, until Montreal gets a new team at least.

[Stampsfan]

Really glad to see Raines finally getting in, its ridiculous that he had to wait until his last shot.

Its a bit bittersweet, he is probably the last guy who will go in as an Expo (except maybe Vladi, but he might go in as an Angel). Which is sort of the last big MLB related thing we had to look forward too that involved the team.

Well, until Montreal gets a new team at least.

+1

Maybe the best leadoff hitter ever outside of Ricky Henderson. OBP is through the roof.

Hoping he goes in with an Expos cap.

[Gary Dunaier]

Keeping it card-related, Raines joins a select group: members of the Baseball Hall of Fame whose first Topps card was a multi-player rookie card.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/415Is3PB4eL.jpg

[Tabe]

+1

Maybe the best leadoff hitter ever outside of Ricky Henderson. OBP is through the roof.

Hoping he goes in with an Expos cap.

His OBP was .385 - 135th all-time. Not exactly through the roof.

Meanwhile, Edgar Martinez - with his .418 OBP (21st all-time) and 147 OPS+ - still waits.

[Joshchisox08]

Kind of surprised how easily Bagwell got in. Non of his numbers are anything crazy. Meanwhile Baines, Edgar, and McGriff just sit there and rot.

[Joshchisox08]

+1

Maybe the best leadoff hitter ever outside of Ricky Henderson. OBP is through the roof.

Hoping he goes in with an Expos cap.


13 years in Montreal vs 5 in Chi-town. I don't think there will be any doubt he'll go in with an Expo cap.

[btcarfagno]

Not to veer too far OT, but has anyone found anything card-wise of John Schuerholz yet? Selig is easy.

I had a signed team issue postcard/smaller photo from his days with the Royals.

Tom C

[Huck]

Really glad to see Raines finally getting in, its ridiculous that he had to wait until his last shot.

Its a bit bittersweet, he is probably the last guy who will go in as an Expo (except maybe Vladi, but he might go in as an Angel). Which is sort of the last big MLB related thing we had to look forward too that involved the team.

Well, until Montreal gets a new team at least.

I think the 80's MLB drug scandal (cocaine) hurt Raines.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/hof07/columns/story?id=2726275&columnist=crasnick_jerry

[Huck]

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

From what I gather from talk radio, for some reporters what defines a PED user is if the player confessed or was mentioned in any report. If that is the case the reporter votes "no". The evidence has to be more than, "look at how much bigger he is." There has to be some evidence no matter how weak. Some say there already is a PED user in the HOF. It would be interesting to see a player who is voted in, is handed his plaque and months later reveals he was a PED user.

As the older members of the BBWAA die off the known PED users with HOF credentials will be inducted.

[bxb]

I expected Trevor Hoffman to get in this time.

Over 600 saves! I thought it was his year.

[glynparson]

I THINK ITS A JOKE TO PUT PUDGE,PIAZZA,BIGGIO,AND BAGWELL IN BEFORE BONDS AND CLEMENS. OOPs didn't mean to caps lock. I am as confident they all were juicers. Id vote for all of them but think its funny that we seem to be ok with juicers unless you were too good and broke records see McGwire, Sosa, Bonds.

[clydepepper]

All four now HOFers:

Piazza and Griffey - Class of 2016

Bagwell - Class of 2017

Bagwell and Thomas - both born 5/27/1968 & both 1994 MVPs

pretty cool...

258258

[slidekellyslide]

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

I completely agree with this..it's either all or none. But we are talking about the BBWAA. I believe it was 9 of them in 1982 that didn't think Hank Aaron was a first ballot hall of famer. :rolleyes:

[Joshchisox08]

I THINK ITS A JOKE TO PUT PUDGE,PIAZZA,BIGGIO,AND BAGWELL IN BEFORE BONDS AND CLEMENS. OOPs didn't mean to caps lock. I am as confident they all were juicers. Id vote for all of them but think its funny that we seem to be ok with juicers unless you were too good and broke records see McGwire, Sosa, Bonds.

I think the biggest test will be A-Rod.

If he gets in then .....................................

[bnorth]

From what I gather from talk radio, for some reporters what defines a PED user is if the player confessed or was mentioned in any report. If that is the case the reporter votes "no". The evidence has to be more than, "look at how much bigger he is." There has to be some evidence no matter how weak. Some say there already is a PED user in the HOF. It would be interesting to see a player who is voted in, is handed his plaque and months later reveals he was a PED user.

As the older members of the BBWAA die off the known PED users with HOF credentials will be inducted.

Pedro Martinez did it last year. I seen an interview with him shortly after being elected. He talked about doing PED's with Manny Ramirez before games. The interviewer was doing everything he could to change the subject ASAP. Then some how it was/has never been brought up again.

[Snapolit1]

All three very deserving. Hopefully more of those in the 50% and higher range get in eventually. Vladdy hopefully makes it next year. I'm not a fan or relievers, so I'm meh on Trevor Hoffman ever getting in.

Congrats to Pudge, Bagpipes and Rock!

Tom C

I'm in the same boat re: relievers. The save rule is so badly flawed that I will never consider it a real marker of greatness. As a Mets fan, I saw John Franco many years. Overall impression? Meh. Seemed to me that he was very impressive one out of every five appearance, middling in three, and lousy or flat out awful in 2. And in many of those 5 spots he got a save. Of he blew a lead and wasn't charged with anything as the game continued. Would never consider him to be a great player. He was a good player. Most of the time he did what he was asked to do. The only relief pitcher I watched regularly that I would say is hall of fame material was Mariano, and that's coming from a modern day Yankee hater. Never watched Hoffman enough but if you are going to throw number of saves in my face I'm unimpressed.

[Joshchisox08]

Pedro Martinez did it last year. I seen an interview with him shortly after being elected. He talked about doing PED's with Manny Ramirez before games. The interviewer was doing everything he could to change the subject ASAP. Then some how it was/has never been brought up again.

Funny the way that works. What' sad is Manny was a hundred times the hitter Fat Sloppy is and he'll get in no problem. The biggest mouth ever for someone who failed a drug test. Boston writers even trash that guy, yet he appears to be getting a free pass for god knows what reason.

[bn2cardz]

Bagwell and Raines not HOF material

Just my opinion. Neither dominated the sport. Pudge was dominant at catcher which is a thin position. I think Vlad deserves a spot.

Kind of surprised how easily Bagwell got in. Non of his numbers are anything crazy. Meanwhile Baines, Edgar, and McGriff just sit there and rot.

I don't understand where they anti-bagwell sentiments come from. Of those on the ballot he ranked 4th for WAR7 behind Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling.

With WAR being a cumulative number (more years the higher it can go), I tend to look at WAR average for their playing. He ranks 3rd in this behind Bonds and Clemens.

Black Ink measures how much you lead in certain stats. His Black Ink is 24, this is a per year average of 1.6, 4th behind Bonds, Clemens, and IRod.

His Gray Ink, a stat to measure his top 10 performances is at 157 with his per year average ranking him 4th behind Bonds, Mussina, and IROD.

Considering there was no evidence of PED, just speculation based on size, he seems to be the only one worthy for the anti-ped voters.

[tiger8mush]

Pedro Martinez did it last year. I seen an interview with him shortly after being elected. He talked about doing PED's with Manny Ramirez before games.

Do you have a link? I don't recall Pedro ever admitting to doing PEDs ...

[EvilKing00]

i have no issue with any of the 3 getting in - BUT

Pudge and baggs get in on 1st ballot and Vlad dosnt? lol

Pudge gets in and Bonds dosnt??? Um both on peds

why does Sheffield get no love? his numbers are sick, yea yea peds but others did too

seems its more of a popularity contest than a baseball skills club

[sycks22]

I'm with Bagwell / Pudge, but against Raines. His first year of voting he got 24% and never got higher than 5th in MVP voting. He also never had 200 hits in a year, but had over 700 abs in 4 years. He played forever to get his 2800 hits and averaged only 163 hits per season. The last 13 years of his career he never received an MVP vote, never made an all-star team. He was good, but never great.

[packs]

The Posada shunning makes no sense to me. I don't know if Posada is a HOFer but he deserved more than 17 votes and a one and done appearance on the ballot. Aside from Pudge and Piazza (one definite, one likely cheater) who was a better offensive catcher than Posada? Nobody.

[rdixon1208]

Kind of surprised how easily Bagwell got in. Non of his numbers are anything crazy. Meanwhile Baines, Edgar, and McGriff just sit there and rot.

Those guys don't measure up to Bagwell statistically.

[Exhibitman]

I used to be in the group of PEDs = never even if only based on hunches like body type or acne. At this point, with Selig enshrined, I'd draw the line at actually caught cheating or admitted to cheating: McGwire, A-Rod, Palmiero, and especially Manny. How f'ing dumb was that guy to get caught twice. I am still on the fence re Bonds and Clemens. I think the evidence in the criminal trials was enough to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, Bonds even moreso than Clemens. He is a smart man and only an absolute idiot would have believed that the Balco concoctions were vitamins and oils. He engaged in what Nixon used to call "plausible deniability". That said, he and Clemens were legit HOF caliber players without the PEDs, so I expect to see them in the HOF eventually.

As for Raines, he was unfortunate enough to play for mostly crappy teams and play in the shadow of the greatest leadoff man in history. If he had played in any other era he would have been considered the best leadoff guy in baseball, but there was Rickey. Most of his cumulative numbers are in the top 150 players of all time. 5th all time in SB, 38th all time in walks. His SB average was the best ever for anyone with 400+ SB. He had seven consecutive seasons over 70 SB. No one else has ever done that. His 162 game average was 102 runs scored. He wasn't a Rickey or a Ty or a Willie, but he clearly belongs among the top 200 players of all time. IMO that's HOF material.

[darwinbulldog]

Vladimir is a great player who was the best bad ball hitter to ever play!

Best I've seen probably, but I've read some crazy things about Lajoie.

[bnorth]

Do you have a link? I don't recall Pedro ever admitting to doing PEDs ...

No I don't and it seems like stuff like that has a weird way of disappearing. I did find this link but the actual video is also no longer available. The interview I seen was at the beginning of a sporting event and he was the guest. It was also in the time frame of him trying to peddle his book. In the interview I saw he also told the story of the Viagra crushed up in a drink but added there was another PED in it that Manny would bring back from the Dominican Republic.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/pedro-martinez-manny-ramirez-spiked-red-sox-drinks-with-viagra/

[bbcard1]

As for Raines, he was unfortunate enough to play for mostly crappy teams and play in the shadow of the greatest leadoff man in history.

You are correct of course concerning the teams Raines played on, but in the twilight of his career he was still good enough to be a contributor to arguably one of the greatest teams of all time.

He was also really the only player who lost peak playing time due to the collusion of major league owners.

[pclpads]

I'm in the same boat re: relievers. The only relief pitcher I watched regularly that I would say is hall of fame material was Mariano, and that's coming from a modern day Yankee hater. Never watched Hoffman enough but if you are going to throw number of saves in my face I'm unimpressed.

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves? :confused:

[Moyni]

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves? :confused:

This is a joke right? I hate the Yankees, but there is zero doubt that Rivera is heads and shoulders more worthy that Hoffman.

BTW, I think Hoffman should be in too.

[packs]

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves? :confused:


Seriously? Have you looked at Rivera's numbers in the post season? Are you aware that he was as close to an automatic win as there has ever been in baseball? The guy threw one pitch. Every batter he ever faced knew it was coming. None of them could hit it. That's greatness.

[Snapolit1]

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves? :confused:

How does Hoffy's post-season record match up to this?

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/1/17/5314222/mariano-rivera-yankees-postseason

[rats60]

I used to be in the group of PEDs = never even if only based on hunches like body type or acne. At this point, with Selig enshrined, I'd draw the line at actually caught cheating or admitted to cheating: McGwire, A-Rod, Palmiero, and especially Manny. How f'ing dumb was that guy to get caught twice. I am still on the fence re Bonds and Clemens. I think the evidence in the criminal trials was enough to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, Bonds even moreso than Clemens. He is a smart man and only an absolute idiot would have believed that the Balco concoctions were vitamins and oils. He engaged in what Nixon used to call "plausible deniability". That said, he and Clemens were legit HOF caliber players without the PEDs, so I expect to see them in the HOF eventually.

As for Raines, he was unfortunate enough to play for mostly crappy teams and play in the shadow of the greatest leadoff man in history. If he had played in any other era he would have been considered the best leadoff guy in baseball, but there was Rickey. Most of his cumulative numbers are in the top 150 players of all time. 5th all time in SB, 38th all time in walks. His SB average was the best ever for anyone with 400+ SB. He had seven consecutive seasons over 70 SB. No one else has ever done that. His 162 game average was 102 runs scored. He wasn't a Rickey or a Ty or a Willie, but he clearly belongs among the top 200 players of all time. IMO that's HOF material.

Bonds admitted under oath to doping. I don't see how you can be on the fence about Bonds and say no to McGwire when Bonds admitted to cheating.

[howard38]

The Posada shunning makes no sense to me. I don't know if Posada is a HOFer but he deserved more than 17 votes and a one and done appearance on the ballot. Aside from Pudge and Piazza (one definite, one likely cheater) who was a better offensive catcher than Posada? Nobody.
I agree but would add that Posada may have been a better hitter than Pudge. He had a higher slugging average and was significantly higher in OBP, OPS and OPS+. Pudge had a higher BA and ran better but Posada walked a lot more and had more power.

[howard38]

You are correct of course concerning the teams Raines played on, but in the twilight of his career he was still good enough to be a contributor to arguably one of the greatest teams of all time.

He was also really the only player who lost peak playing time due to the collusion of major league owners.
The Expos teams Raines played for were actually pretty good. The problem was not bad teams but the fact that they were north of the border.

[irv]

1991 Topps Stadium club RC of Jeff Bagwells was one of my first "Big Cards" to pull. Being a Rangers fan, I got to see Pudge play in 94. I love this class. If would have been perfect is Vladdy had made it.

Not surprising, but glad to see they are getting some love. I remember buying many packs of 91 Stadium Club cards and was always thrilled whenever I pulled a Bagwell. One of my favorite players during that, and no mention/talk of PED's. :)
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_productid=99415772&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

I'm with Bagwell / Pudge, but against Raines. His first year of voting he got 24% and never got higher than 5th in MVP voting. He also never had 200 hits in a year, but had over 700 abs in 4 years. He played forever to get his 2800 hits and averaged only 163 hits per season. The last 13 years of his career he never received an MVP vote, never made an all-star team. He was good, but never great.

You are missing a few points for some reason? :confused:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-320-trump-dossier-medical-marijuana-vs-opioids-obama-s-legacy-in-syria-the-simpsons-and-more-1.3929008/tim-raines-is-down-to-his-last-chance-to-make-the-baseball-hall-of-fame-1.3929035

[campyfan39]

I'll take Gil and Shil over all three of them!

[Bruinsfan94]

No I don't and it seems like stuff like that has a weird way of disappearing. I did find this link but the actual video is also no longer available. The interview I seen was at the beginning of a sporting event and he was the guest. It was also in the time frame of him trying to peddle his book. In the interview I saw he also told the story of the Viagra crushed up in a drink but added there was another PED in it that Manny would bring back from the Dominican Republic.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/pedro-martinez-manny-ramirez-spiked-red-sox-drinks-with-viagra/

Yep giant conspiracy to protect Pedro. Of course you have no link.

[bnorth]

Yep giant conspiracy to protect Pedro. Of course you have no link.

Why would I have a link to a interview I seen on live TV when Pedro was trying to sell a book?

[ronniehatesjazz]

I think the 80's MLB drug scandal (cocaine) hurt Raines.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/hof07/columns/story?id=2726275&columnist=crasnick_jerry

Always found his nickname "Rock" to be funny in regards to this lol. Glad to see him get in though. Well deserved for an underrated player.

[seanofjapan]

As for Raines, he was unfortunate enough to play for mostly crappy teams

I hate to nitpick (well, OK really I love to), but this statement is the complete opposite of reality. Throughout his career he was almost always on winning teams.

He spent the first 12 seasons of his career with the Expos (1979 to 1990), during which time the team only had two seasons with losing records (1984 and 1986, and even then they were close to 500). While they only made the playoffs once in that time frame they were constant contenders and had a lot of 2nd place finishes - they were arguably one of the best teams in the NL throughout the 80s (though they didn't get much attention for it), hardly a "crappy" team.

Then he spent the next 5 seasons with the White Sox, in 4 of which the Sox had winning seasons including 2 first place finishes.

Then three seasons with the Yankees, in every one of which they made the playoffs and in two of which they won the World Series.

Then he had two more part time seasons with a few teams, some of which were crappy, but are hardly significant parts of his career.

Really he played most of his career for great teams, but for various reasons he was either a big fish in a little pond (his Expos years) or a little fish in a big pond (his Yankees days) so he didn't get the spotlight much.

[toledo_mudhen]

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

+1

[sycks22]

You are missing a few points for some reason? :confused:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-320-trump-dossier-medical-marijuana-vs-opioids-obama-s-legacy-in-syria-the-simpsons-and-more-1.3929008/tim-raines-is-down-to-his-last-chance-to-make-the-baseball-hall-of-fame-1.3929035[/QUOTE]


I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

[rats60]

You are missing a few points for some reason? :confused:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-320-trump-dossier-medical-marijuana-vs-opioids-obama-s-legacy-in-syria-the-simpsons-and-more-1.3929008/tim-raines-is-down-to-his-last-chance-to-make-the-baseball-hall-of-fame-1.3929035


I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great[/QUOTE]

He walked a lot. That is somehow supposed to make up for him not being a great hitter. 135th in OBP right between Earl Torgeson and Tim Salmon, two great players. He wasn't a good defensive player. He was fast and stole a lot of bases. Let's start a campaign to elect Eddie Yost and Darrell Evans to the hof.

[rdixon1208]

I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

I agree with this. He was pretty good, but not a HOF player in my opinion. Baseball-Reference also has him as below average HOF in every statistical category (black ink, grey ink, HOF standards, etc.).

[conor912]

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

[JollyElm]

I can't believe Raines got in. We all saw him play his entire career. While he was on the field, did anyone ever think, "He's a sure Hall of Famer"???? No frickin' way. Like others have said, he was a decent player who stole bases, but far from a 'great.'

[bn2cardz]

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS (http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/24/75-best-hall-famers-ever-babe-ruth-walter-johnson). He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

[ejharrington]

Schilling is a Hall of Fame player is every way (core stats, WAR, and big time performances). The sportswriters who did not vote for him because they don't like him personally are abusing the huge power they have been granted.

[sycks22]

I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

He walked a lot. That is somehow supposed to make up for him not being a great hitter. 135th in OBP right between Earl Torgeson and Tim Salmon, two great players. He wasn't a good defensive player. He was fast and stole a lot of bases. Let's start a campaign to elect Eddie Yost and Darrell Evans to the hof.[/QUOTE]

agree

[conor912]

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS (http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/24/75-best-hall-famers-ever-babe-ruth-walter-johnson). He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

Perhaps, though I'd recommend reading the article I linked in post #13. All Here's a line from it:

"Until 1946, BBWAA members could vote for literally any player -- living or dead, active or retired."

All three of your examples fall before 1946. There literally was no ballot or set criteria, which is why voting was so wonky and all over the place. If you give a few hundred writers each a limited number of votes, and tell them they can vote for any player who ever played (or is still playing), the chances of any one player getting 75% are fairly nil.

[Runscott]

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

[bravos4evr]

you old guys crack me up, the thing is, most voters don't use stats like batting avg anymore because they are kinda worthless and incomplete statistics that can create a false image of a player's ability.

How Raines compares with other LF'ers (where he played the majority of his career) all time :

14th in fWAR

2nd in stolen bases

1st in stolen base %

40th in OBP

Raines is perhaps the 2nd greatest base stealer and all around bade runner of all time. considering that he was also good at getting on base and an avg fielder his total production is pretty high.

He isn't an inner circle HOF'er,but he's in the same tier as Kirby Puckett, Tony Gwynn and Craig Biggio.

[bravos4evr]

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

[Runscott]

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

[bravos4evr]

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS (http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/24/75-best-hall-famers-ever-babe-ruth-walter-johnson). He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

the early years of HOF voting were also hurt because so many really great players were eligible and not in, so with a limit of 10(out of maybe 60 future HOF players) to choose from, a lot of guys kept getting left off ballots.

[bravos4evr]

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

I think it would accomplish 2 things:

1- clear the logjam of players and thus make it easier for guys to get in earlier in the future

2- by requiring a response on each player it would avoid voters from pulling the dick move and leaving guys off because they think "he's not a first ballot HOF'er" so we wouldn't have the goofy travesties of guys like Maddux and Griffey Jr not being unanimous selections because one guy has some sort of beef.

[rats60]

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS (http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/24/75-best-hall-famers-ever-babe-ruth-walter-johnson). He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

DiMaggio was still playing in 1945. He had just retired in 1951, getting elected was faster than the now 5 year wait guys.

Rogers Hornsby was still active in 1936, playing his last game in 1937, elected 4 years after retirement.

No player has ever been elected while still an active player.

Cy Young wasn't elected because of confusion about the ballot. Voters weren't sure if he should be included with pre 1900 or post 1900 players.

Arky Vaughan is one of 3 players who in my opinion slipped through the cracks and had to be elected by the Veterans Committee. 300 game winner Eddie Plank and Johnny Mize with his OPS+ of 158, but low counting stats due to missing 3 years serving in WW2 are the others. I think Vaughan's tragic death in 1952 before he was even on the ballot also hurt his case.

[midwaylandscaping]

HOF's and voting are highly subjective. Bagwell should have gotten in sooner, but, at least he's in. Rodriguez looks like a first ballot HOF'er, and became one. My only gripe with Ivan has to do with Mike Piazza. Who also should have been a first ballot HOF'er. One could craft an easy narrative that Piazza's wait led to Ivan's first ballot induction.

Raines, well, I can see both sides. I like to use traditional and advanced stats. I think it's the best way to go about things. Of course this also means I don't find batting average(or RBI for that matter) to be worthless stats, or only having worth within context. To me that's a false narrative.
But anyway, I use advanced and traditional and my own noggin, and don't condescend or take pot shots at those who use primarily one set. That's counter productive. I would not have voted for him myself, there are far too many superior players on the ballot to Raines, in my opinion. Tim didn't measure up by any standard to Rickey Henderson, that's obvious, but who does. The main name thrown up when Tim's name is mentioned. Rickey is an inner circle HOF'er. There's a wide gap between the two, and something of a false equivalency. As a Yankee fan I enjoyed Tim's time with the Yanks, and he was a key contributor in limited spots for the 96 and 98 World Series winners. There are worse players in the Hall than Raines, there are better players not in. I can understand some, not all, of the arguments for Tim's induction. Just wouldn't have advocated for it myself, nor voted for him after a lot of thought.

[RCMcKenzie]

It would be fun for someone to open up a museum down the street from the Hall with Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Shoeless Joe Jackson in there. They could put in Bill Dahlen, Hal Chase, Roger Maris etc..

As a kid, Fred Lynn was my favorite player. He is in the Red Sox HOF and that's where I would put Raines, Bagwell and Pudge, in the Expos, Astros and Rangers HOF. Up there with Cesar Cedeno, Bob Watson, Jose Cruz, Terry Puhl and JR Richard.

[Tabe]

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves? :confused:
What makes him more worthy? Seriously?

One guy's ERA+ was 205. The other's was 141.

One guy had 11 seasons with an ERA under 2.00. The other had 2.

One guy is the best reliever in postseason history (0.70 ERA in 141 IP). The other guy was below average for a reliever (3.46 ERA).


I have an extremely high standard for closers to be in the HOF. Because they pitch so little - sometimes as little as 50 innings - they had better be incredibly dominant in those innings to be worthy of the Hall. Rivera was. Hoffman wasn't. If we're looking for an NL reliever from Hoffman's time to put in the Hall, look at Billy Wagner. He was a LOT better.

[Tabe]

Put me also in the camp wondering why Raines got in. To me, nothing about his career screams "great". He had a nice, long productive career but great?

OBP? 135th all-time.

2600 hits in 23 seasons - 110 a year. Not great.

No power.

Career OPS+ of 123. Not great.

Terrible defense even by the low standards of LF.

How many great seasons did he have? 3? Maybe less. His best season was 1987 when he hit .330 with 18 HRs and an OPS of .955, 6th in the NL.

Honestly, his whole case is "he stole a lot of bases!" He finished with 808, 5th all-time. And that's nice and all - except we know that stolen bases aren't all that important.

So what are we left with? A terrible defensive LF who stole a lot of bases, got on base at a decent (but not great) rate and had little power.

That sure doesn't sound like a HOFer to me.

[pclpads]

[QUOTE=Tabe;1622636]What makes him more worthy? Seriously?

One guy's ERA+ was 205. The other's was 141.

One guy had 11 seasons with an ERA under 2.00. The other had 2.

One guy is the best reliever in postseason history (0.70 ERA in 141 IP). The other guy was below average for a reliever (3.46 ERA).

Yeah, seriously! Hoffy is like Lee Smith, who killed it for bad ball clubs ending with 478 saves. Doesn't get a sniff for HOF. Like Smith, Hoffy killed it for lousy Pudres teams - minus the '98 WS - with, like Smith, a bunch of scrubs supporting him. That makes what Hoffy and Smith accomplished as remarkable as Rivera and all his WS stuff with much better support than Hoffy or Smith ever had.

[alanu]

I'm glad Raines got in.

Kind of surprised with Bagwell and Pudge with their PED suspicions.

I remember Bagwell shrinking considerably after his injury that caused him to retire.

[irv]

There is no doubt the HOF is flawed, but just look at the differences of opinions in this thread alone.

I, for one have griped about them and the fact so many greats have been left out (Minoso) and so many undeserving's have made it in, but where do you draw the line who makes and who doesn't?

I know Raines' numbers don't scream a shoe-in, but if there are worse players in the hall, how do you leave him, and other's out?

If we all had to pick 3-5 players who should be in and 3-5 who shouldn't, we'd all come up with different players.

[Joshchisox08]

Seriously? Have you looked at Rivera's numbers in the post season? Are you aware that he was as close to an automatic win as there has ever been in baseball? The guy threw one pitch. Every batter he ever faced knew it was coming. None of them could hit it. That's greatness.

There is a commercial stating more people have walked on the moon than scored against Rivera in the post-season lol.

[Tabe]

Yeah, seriously! Hoffy is like Lee Smith, who killed it for bad ball clubs ending with 478 saves. Doesn't get a sniff for HOF. Like Smith, Hoffy killed it for lousy Pudres teams - minus the '98 WS - with, like Smith, a bunch of scrubs supporting him. That makes what Hoffy and Smith accomplished as remarkable as Rivera and all his WS stuff with much better support than Hoffy or Smith ever had.
Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

[Snapolit1]

Went to the NY Baseball Writers dinner last night. Congratulated Raines on the HOF in the men's room as he was trying in vain to dry his hands in one those lousy air blowers. A bit odd but I'll take it.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

[bravos4evr]

Of course this also means I don't find batting average(or RBI for that matter) to be worthless stats, or only having worth within context. To me that's a false narrative.

the thing is that stats are either valuable or not valuable regardless of your opinion. Please explain, in as much detail as possible, why batting avg and RBI's are important stats for explaining player production.

I will retort when you are done.

[pclpads]

Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

ROFLMAO! :eek:

[bravos4evr]

Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

No, he wasn't as good, BUT, if you look at the top 10 of relief WAR all time Hoffman is 3rd in far less innings than #4 and 5 (Fingers, Lee Smith)

Billy Wagner was better on rate stats than Rivera (K/9 BB/9 and played far less innings because he chose to retire young, he has HOF stats too.

I agree that relievers should be held to a high standard, but adding Hoffman and Wagner would maintain a high standard.

[EvilKing00]

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

Agree 100%

[nat]

Adding no relievers at all would set a better standard, what with them pitching far fewer innings than starting pitchers.

[JustinD]

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

Agree 100%, great post.

[bravos4evr]

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

I'm not 100% he's a HOF'er at all. His numbers are in the borderline of inclusion.

29th in career RF fWAR (below Berkman, luis Gonzales)

23rd in career RF wRC+ (below Reggie Smith , Sheffield and Larry Walker)

50th in career RF OBP

14th in career RF ISO (isolated power)

12th in career RF home runs


idk, he's a top 30 right fielder of all time, but is that hall of fame worthy?

[JasonD08]

Vlad is not a HOFer.

[sycks22]

Vlad is not a HOFer.

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

[bnorth]

Vlad's first 9 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg

Miggy's first 9 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

Those old outdated stats mean nothing. You need the new cool ones. You know the ones were they use hypothetical and theoretical in the explanation of how they got those stats.:eek::D

[bravos4evr]

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

Those old outdated stats mean nothing. You need the new cool ones. You know the ones were they use hypothetical and theoretical in the explanation of how they got those stats.:eek::D

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

[rats60]

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

No, they are hypothetical. Someone makes up a model, plugs in actual data and comes up with a number. They can't prove that number means anything.

If you want to claim otherwise, provide me with a mathematical proof that those stats mean what you claim they do. It is one person's opinion, that is all.

[packs]

You can't pick and choose which stats are more advantageous to your point. Either you look at every stat or no stats. If someone posts production numbers such as HR, RBI, AVE, OPS, those stats are just as relevant as your stats.

[bn2cardz]

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

I know there is issues with WAR, but if you look at the simple numbers from BLACK INK, which is a score based off being a league leader (no hypothetical). Than you would see that Miggy has been more dominant during his playing days than Vlad.

Miggy - 43. Ranked 34th all time.
Vlad - 6. Ranked 373rd all time.

I do believe, though, Vlad would be a fine HOF because even though he didn't lead the league as often, he was in the top 10 plenty of times. Even scoring a higher gray ink than Griffey.

[nat]

Here's a good place to start: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/linear-weights/

You don't need to worry about wOBA in the above link, the run expectancy tables are the important part. They are what is at the heart of WAR.

[Louieman]

Of course looking at the sabremetrics is essential to evaluating whether someone is a HOFer or not. But I think just as importantly you have to simply ask yourself, especially if you were witness to the career of the player, "Is this guy a HOFer and was he a dominant player in his time?" Vladimir Guerrero completely passes that test in my book. And to add on, you have to give a little bonus to the guy because he carved his own little niche into the approach of being a great ballplayer. A bare-bones, raw, quirky approach. I'm unhappy he didn't get first ballot. But hopefully next year is his year.

[Fred]

Raines deserves to be in the HOF. He was the second best lead-off hitter of his era and that's saying a lot considering Rickey was (and will arguably probably always be) the best lead-off hitter, ever.

Making a case for closers for the HOF is difficult. Most people will probably agree that Mariano Rivera is a first ballot shoe-in, I think so (and I hate the Yankees - but who can hate Mariano and Jeter, that'd be tough).

Hoffy should have been voted in on this past ballot (second ballot). I figure if people are going to mention dominance, then the K/9 rate should be a huge consideration.

Hoffy's K-rate of 9.4K/9 is much better than Mariano Rivera's rate of 8.2K/9. Does that mean I'm indicating Hoffy was a better closer than Mariano - HELL NO. But if people are going to bring dominance and pitching into the mix, then K's should be a huge consideration. If Hoffman was going to be elected based on his humility, humbleness and genuine incredible character, then he would have been voted in on the first ballot before the 5 years passed by. That guy is "Class", personified. And he was a great closer and a pitcher who was incredible in high leverage situations.

[packs]

Hoffman was not dominant. In one more season played Mariano Rivera compiled a 56.6 WAR. Hoffman only has a WAR of 28. In one more season Rivera was worth twice as many wins. That's dominance.

[h2oya311]

Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)

Gonna have to disagree on his defense. I don't look at sabermetrics or anything else, so please excuse me if the "numbers" prove otherwise. There wasn't a person on this planet that would try to go from 2nd to 3rd when hit to Vladdy out in RF. I think if you look up the definition of "cannon" in the dictionary, it has a picture of Vlad! Honestly, do yourself a favor and google "vladimir guerrero cannon".

[nat]

He did have a cannon of an arm. The problem was that he often didn't know where the cannonball was going.

[bravos4evr]

No, they are hypothetical. Someone makes up a model, plugs in actual data and comes up with a number. They can't prove that number means anything.

If you want to claim otherwise, provide me with a mathematical proof that those stats mean what you claim they do. It is one person's opinion, that is all.


ummm no they aren't, just because you haven't taken the time to understand them doesn't make you rather ignorant opinion valid. go do some learning then come back to me. try fangraphs.com and go to the glossary it explains how they formulate everything.


You can't pick and choose which stats are more advantageous to your point. Either you look at every stat or no stats. If someone posts production numbers such as HR, RBI, AVE, OPS, those stats are just as relevant as your stats.

homers- yes, it is a legit stat for determining production

RBI- not worth much, it is symbolic of the OBP of the batters in front of a player and has been found to have no bearing on an individual's offensive production. I know it's been ingrained in you for years, but it's a false narrative.


AVE- IDK what this is

OPS- it's not as good as people think as it treats OBP and SLG equally and we know now that OBP is worth nearly twice as much as SLG, it is far better to use wRC+ and ISO to figure those two things

[bravos4evr]

Gonna have to disagree on his defense. I don't look at sabermetrics or anything else, so please excuse me if the "numbers" prove otherwise. There wasn't a person on this planet that would try to go from 2nd to 3rd when hit to Vladdy out in RF. I think if you look up the definition of "cannon" in the dictionary, it has a picture of Vlad! Honestly, do yourself a favor and google "vladimir guerrero cannon".

there is more to OF defense than arm strength, his range was pretty mediocre (and only got worse as he aged) and his arm accuracy was hit or miss too.

[packs]

I don't think RBI's is a "false narrative". A player has to produce to get an RBI. You're treating it as a given. Just because a guy is on base does not mean he is going to score. I don't know what you're putting forward when you say something like RBI has nothing to do with a player's production. Of course it does.

[itjclarke]

I don't think RBI's is a "false narrative". A player has to produce to get an RBI. You're treating it as a given. Just because a guy is on base does not mean he is going to score. I don't know what you're putting forward when you say something like RBI has nothing to do with a player's production. Of course it does.

This has seemed a repetitive (and exhausting) discussion on the board over the past year +, and no one is convincing this poster of anything other than what he feels is his superior grasp (statistically) of the game.

I'm all for considering everything, including the new. I also know though, getting a hit takes far more skill than taking a walk. If one is willing to dismiss the RBI for being dependent upon runners getting on base, then one should also consider that taking a walk is in large part dependent upon a pitcher throwing 4 balls. Getting a clean single, or smacking one over the wall IMO is still probably the purest measure of a batter's hitting skill (purely the hand eye coordination of hitting), and thus BA should never simply be discounted.

If there are newer, more comprehensive stats, great, use them.. but IMO, it's much more open minded to consider all data, not cherry pick. I also know if I were a GM, there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation.

[packs]

I just question the thinking. When you say something like an RBI is not worth much I don't understand that person's viewpoint on the game. A game is won by scoring more runs than the other team. If you have a guy who drives in players, you win games. Getting on base doesn't score you a run. Knocking in the guy on base scores you a run. The most runs wins. So how does an RBI not mean much? If the three players ahead of you get on base, you don't get an RBI simply for coming to bat, nor does your team score a run because it put guys on base.

[itjclarke]

I just question the thinking. When you say something like an RBI is not worth much I don't understand that person's viewpoint on the game. A game is won by scoring more runs than the other team. If you have a guy who drives in players, you win games. Getting on base doesn't score you a run. Knocking in the guy on base scores you a run. The most runs wins. So how does an RBI not mean much? If the three players ahead of you get on base, you don't get an RBI simply for coming to bat, nor does your team score a run because it put guys on base.

Completely agree. RBI as a stat does have its holes when measuring a players' performance, for reasons the other poster states, but it is not, nor will it ever be a meaningless stat.

Adding, I'm very interested to see more advances batter splits; no out RISP, 1 out RISP, 2 out RISP... then see those splits in late innings, close game, etc. Performance, or lack there of in those situations is pretty telling.

And btw, coaxing a walk with 2 outs, winning run on 3rd is just about useless... but I would love to consider a stat that weights the individual, situational value of each walk... as opposed to lumping them all into the apparently ever powerful OBP.

[nat]

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

Edit: Lots of splits don't mean anything, in that they are not predictive. Sometimes people summarize this point by saying "there's no such thing as clutch hitting"; what this means is that a player's performance in the clutch at one time does not make a future clutch performance any more or less likely.

[itjclarke]

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

I am not talking/arguing slugging vs OBP, just the ability to get a clean hit. Situationally, I don't want my #3 hitter working a walk by taking super close pitches when he's got a chance to end the game with 2 outs. in the 9th. I'd also prefer to not have to rely on my Bad Vlad-like 4th or 5th OFer to PH every time I need an actual hit as opposed to walk. Consistently hitting the ball hard is still the purest way to gauge a hitter's actual hitting ability.

[itjclarke]

Again, I'm open to advanced metrics, but I think another flaw is this-- I think most these stats are more fully realized over the course of a neverending regular season. Sure, walks equal this.. this equals that.. that equals more wins out of 100... and over the course of an infinite number of games, the math works out.

Problem is, baseball's championship is not determined like this. It's eventually determined by a relatively small sample size of games, against the best talent. If the advanced metrics truly equaled WS titles, that's great... but without looking I'd guess that the majority of "Pythagorean win" leaders have not gone on to win WS over the past 20-30-40 years.

One thing that I've seen in recent WS (Giants wins it was especially true) is that by the post season, of the remaining teams/talent the pitching is just better. Many of the guys who may have been saber super stars over their prior 162 games, are attacked directly and mercilessly as opposed to being walked or whatever. It's a different game and a different set of tactics when you need to win a best of 5 or 7, or in the late innings of those games, as opposed to winning most of 162.

[bravos4evr]

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

Edit: Lots of splits don't mean anything, in that they are not predictive. Sometimes people summarize this point by saying "there's no such thing as clutch hitting"; what this means is that a player's performance in the clutch at one time does not make a future clutch performance any more or less likely.

what Nat said above.


the problem with RBI is that it's more reflective of a team's offensive production than the individual. It is not very projectable from one year to the next and it simply is not indicative of an individual's offensive performance. He had no control over the quality of the hitter's in front of him yet some want to give him credit for this? it makes no sense.


and the antiquated statement people make about "hits are better than walks" is fine, sure they are, some of the time. But the majority of plate appearances take place with the bases empty so, in fact, a walk is just as valuable as a single (and often more because a walk increases pitch count)

[bravos4evr]

Again, I'm open to advanced metrics, but I think another flaw is this-- I think most these stats are more fully realized over the course of a neverending regular season. Sure, walks equal this.. this equals that.. that equals more wins out of 100... and over the course of an infinite number of games, the math works out.

Problem is, baseball's championship is not determined like this. It's eventually determined by a relatively small sample size of games, against the best talent. If the advanced metrics truly equaled WS titles, that's great... but without looking I'd guess that the majority of "Pythagorean win" leaders have not gone on to win WS over the past 20-30-40 years.

One thing that I've seen in recent WS (Giants wins it was especially true) is that by the post season, of the remaining teams/talent the pitching is just better. Many of the guys who may have been saber super stars over their prior 162 games, are attacked directly and mercilessly as opposed to being walked or whatever. It's a different game and a different set of tactics when you need to win a best of 5 or 7, or in the late innings of those games, as opposed to winning most of 162.

this is a false equivalency logical fallacy. saber stats don't exist to determine who will win the championship. They exist to increase the accuracy of statistical analysis.

As you stated, playoff baseball is it's own thing, determined mostly by luck, hit sequencing (non-predictable or controllable) good breaks and bad breaks. If you put the two worst teams in the playoffs for 20 years as an experiment, one of them would win the world series every 12 years or so. But this has no bearing on why wRC+ is > than OPS > batting avg

[Louieman]

Of course that's your contention, you're a first year grad student.
You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, talking about, ya know, how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That'll last you until next year, you're gonna be here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, ya know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization...

[bravos4evr]

Of course that's your contention, you're a first year grad student.
You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, talking about, ya know, how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That'll last you until next year, you're gonna be here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, ya know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization...

wrong........

I'm 44 been involved in metrics for over 10 years (after a few years of reluctance to them as well) the simple fact is that they are better at telling us the statistical story of baseball.

Life evolves, sports evolve, stats evolve. You have a choice to either evolve along with it or get left behind.

[JollyElm]

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

[Louieman]

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

+1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0

[bnorth]

Of course that's your contention, you're a first year grad student.
You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, talking about, ya know, how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That'll last you until next year, you're gonna be here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, ya know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization...

Best post in the thread. Definitely made me LOL.:) That is one of my top 5 favorite movies.

[itjclarke]

+1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0

Ibid your honor

[bravos4evr]

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

funny, I haven't been angry at all, in any part of my posts. stop projecting your own personal inadequacies there pawpaw


only saw it once, had no interest in seeing it again. so I didn't recognize it. but it was an obvious attack by a flat earther against superior information. kinda like when jesus freaks lose their mind over evolution.

[itjclarke]

To prior reference of there being no such thing as clutch hitting... Please:confused:. Try digging in against Mariano Riviera in the 9th inning of the 7th game of the WS and say that. Many/most will be affected by the stage, whereas the best, the "clutch" are not. For every guy like Jeter, whose numbers look very similar in the post season, which seemingly leads people to presume the situation doesn't affect the player and his stats... There are guys like Jose Canseco, Rick Ankiel, etc, whose postseasons could never come close to matching their regular seasons. When Ankiel airmails 3-4 pitches in the 1st inning, I think it's fair to say anecdotally that there is a such thing as being "clutch", or it's evil twin- to "choke".

To prior reference about these numbers not being used for purpose of winning a championship.. Huh:eek: Isn't that what this whole thing is about???? What the hell is the point then? I don't think Billy Beane got knee deep in his moneyball methodology to gauge players' HOF worthiness. He did so to find unique, undervalued ways to measure player value, so he could close the gap with rich teams... And WIN in the post season.

Theo Epstein clearly understands something some seem to deny. He understands this takes more than just crunching numbers to best his probability to win a WS. I'm sure he gives the analytics their fair weight, but also takes into account player/manager intangibles, personalities, etc.

[rats60]

ummm no they aren't, just because you haven't taken the time to understand them doesn't make you rather ignorant opinion valid. go do some learning then come back to me. try fangraphs.com and go to the glossary it explains how they formulate everything.


Thanks for proving me right. Posting a link to someone's opinion just confirms you can not prove anything. 6 years of college was plenty of learning for me. I don't need to read more opinions. I can think for myself.

[rats60]

And btw, coaxing a walk with 2 outs, winning run on 3rd is just about useless... but I would love to consider a stat that weights the individual, situational value of each walk... as opposed to lumping them all into the apparently ever powerful OBP.

+ 1 million. Walks are the most worthless stat in the game. If you are my best player, I want you trying to drive in that runner on 3rd instead of drawing a walk and forcing a lesser player to do your job.

[JollyElm]

funny, I haven't been angry at all, in any part of my posts. stop projecting your own personal inadequacies there pawpaw


only saw it once, had no interest in seeing it again. so I didn't recognize it. but it was an obvious attack by a flat earther against superior information. kinda like when jesus freaks lose their mind over evolution.

Awww…the angry Braves fan, who can't even read a simple movie quote without insulting everybody, thinks I'm inadequate. Isn't that cute? Does somebody need a hug?

[packs]

What superior information ever concluded an RBI wasn't worth much? No one ever won a game 0 to 0.

[bnorth]

What superior information ever concluded an RBI wasn't worth much? No one ever won a game 0 to 0.

My favorite part is when the new stat guys say batting average is useless as are walks. Then in the next line use on base percentage as a important stat.

I like the metric or whatever they are called stats if used to compare players of the same position that played during the same exact time.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Of course that's your contention, you're a first year grad student.
You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, talking about, ya know, how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That'll last you until next year, you're gonna be here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, ya know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization...

Ha! How do you like them apples?

[Louieman]

Ha! How do you like them apples?

Hey, you got that from Vickers, er, no, "Vickahs"

[sycks22]

I'm onboard with walks being pretty useless. Adam Dunn led the league in walks twice and averaged over 100 / year with his career .237 batting average. Someone compared Raines to Gwynn saying they had the same numbers if you combine walks / hits together. Is it tougher to walk 70x's / year or hit .338 for a career? Is Adam Dunn a similar player to Jeter as some years they had the same walks/hits? What a joke.

[nat]

Whether its easier or harder to walk vs. hit for average isn't really germane to the discussion. Raines and Gwynn reached base almost exactly the same number of times, and contributed very similar amounts of value to their teams. It's true that a walk isn't as good as a hit, but it's almost as good as a single (what Gwynn was hitting), and the fact that Raines would then go on to steal second helped him a lot.

On Dunn versus Jeter: Jeter was a slightly better hitter than Dunn. Jeter got on base at a better rate than Dunn, Dunn hit for more power. The reason that Jeter will be a deserving hall of famer, and Dunn will not, is that Jeter was a good base runner and could play shortstop, whereas Dunn was a horrific base runner, and possibly the worst fielder of all time.*

*Note for Bravesfan: I know that Jeter had a lower Rfield/G than Dunn, but the positional adjustment more than makes up for it. (Dunn at shortstop would have been hilarious in a tragic sort of way.)

[ejharrington]

The Hall of Fame by definition should be geared towards FAMOUS players whose careers were deemed elite. There are different ways to measure whether they were elite (i.e., WAR and SABR-metrics, traditional stats, etc.) but statistics alone cannot be the determining measure otherwise there would be no need to have a vote; there would be bright statistical lines to determine who gets in (e.g., JAWS).

As a 47 year old who has watched baseball my entire life, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, and Sammy Sosa were some of the best ballplayers I have ever saw, are well-known to both fans and non-fans of baseball, have elite statistics, and were central figures in some of the most memorable moments in baseball history.

These players, along with no-longer eligible Mark McGuire, Pete Rose, and Keith Hernandez, should clearly be in the Hall of Fame.

No offense to Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, etc., but when you look at their bodies of work they simply are not on the level of the players I noted above.

[sycks22]

The Hall of Fame by definition should be geared towards FAMOUS players whose careers were deemed elite. There are different ways to measure whether they were elite (i.e., WAR and SABR-metrics, traditional stats, etc.) but statistics alone cannot be the determining measure otherwise there would be no need to have a vote; there would be bright statistical lines to determine who gets in (e.g., JAWS).

As a 47 year old who has watched baseball my entire life, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, and Sammy Sosa were some of the best ballplayers I have ever saw, are well-known to both fans and non-fans of baseball, have elite statistics, and were central figures in some of the most memorable moments in baseball history.

These players, along with no-longer eligible Mark McGuire, Pete Rose, and Keith Hernandez, should clearly be in the Hall of Fame.

No offense to Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, etc., but when you look at their bodies of work they simply are not on the level of the players I noted above.


You lost me at no Vlad and put Keith Hernandez on there. Outside of being a good fielding 1 bagger, what did he do? Average is every way. Will Clark was better is every offensive category and nobody is making an argument for him.

[ejharrington]

You lost me at no Vlad and put Keith Hernandez on there. Outside of being a good fielding 1 bagger, what did he do? Average is every way. Will Clark was better is every offensive category and nobody is making an argument for him.
They were similar players (I might give a slight edge to Clark on offense and an edge to Hernandez on defense) although SABR-metrics rates Hernandez as having a better overall career. But Hernandez also won an MVP and was one of the main contributors to 2 World Championship teams. Plus, everyone knows who Keith Hernandez is which is part of my whole point that the Hall of Fame should consider fame and recognition along with the statistics. I'm not saying Vlad is not necessarily a HOFer, I just don't think he is at the level of the players I listed.

[Snapolit1]

The Hall of Fame by definition should be geared towards FAMOUS players whose careers were deemed elite. There are different ways to measure whether they were elite (i.e., WAR and SABR-metrics, traditional stats, etc.) but statistics alone cannot be the determining measure otherwise there would be no need to have a vote; there would be bright statistical lines to determine who gets in (e.g., JAWS).

As a 47 year old who has watched baseball my entire life, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, and Sammy Sosa were some of the best ballplayers I have ever saw, are well-known to both fans and non-fans of baseball, have elite statistics, and were central figures in some of the most memorable moments in baseball history.

These players, along with no-longer eligible Mark McGuire, Pete Rose, and Keith Hernandez, should clearly be in the Hall of Fame.

No offense to Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, etc., but when you look at their bodies of work they simply are not on the level of the players I noted above.

Your idea is basically just another way of saying big market guys from the east and west coast and Chicago who get a ton on hype and are better known personality wise (like Keith) should be in the hall, while guys who toiled in relative obscurity in San Diego and Montreal before small crowds and few reporters should get short shrift.

[bbcard1]

Keith Hernandez also had the Just For Men commercials going for him.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sMkA3LqR6Gg/maxresdefault.jpg

[Snapolit1]

It shouldnt be the hall of popularity.
If Jorge Posada played for the Twins there wouldn't have been a one second discussion as to whether he was HOF material.

[rats60]

Whether its easier or harder to walk vs. hit for average isn't really germane to the discussion. Raines and Gwynn reached base almost exactly the same number of times, and contributed very similar amounts of value to their teams. It's true that a walk isn't as good as a hit, but it's almost as good as a single (what Gwynn was hitting), and the fact that Raines would then go on to steal second helped him a lot.


This is the kind of disconnect that makes these discussions impossible. A walk scores a runner from 3rd rarely, never scores a runner from 2nd. A single almost always scores the runner from 3rd and most of the time from 2nd. A single is much more valuable than a walk. The goal of the game is to score runs not win at fantasy baseball.

[bn2cardz]

This is the kind of disconnect that makes these discussions impossible. A walk scores a runner from 3rd rarely, never scores a runner from 2nd. A single almost always scores the runner from 3rd and most of the time from 2nd. A single is much more valuable than a walk. The goal of the game is to score runs not win at fantasy baseball.

It really is hard comparing straight up stats without taking it into context. Walks don't earn RBI, but when it was Raines he would get himself in position to score a run.

Raines did steal 808 times ranking him 5th all-time. This is ranked #1 all time for switch hitters.

For the top 10 in stolen bases he ranks 5th in BA behind Ty Cobb, Billy Hamilton, Eddie Collins, and Honus Wagner.

He ranks 54th all time in Runs Scored. His Runs scored 162 game average is 102 this would rank him 40th. Raines Stolen Base 162 avg was 52. Of the top 40 players with higher higher than 102 R/162 games only two have better base stealing averages. That is Billy Hamilton with 93 SB/162 games and Ricky Henderson with 74 SB/162 games.


There are also only two switch hitters higher on the Runs Scored / 162 games list. Mickey Mantle and Chipper Jones

Raines is the only switch hitter to have both a 162 game average of 100+ runs and 20+ bases stolen for a career.

[byrone]

When Gary Carter was elected to the HOF, I read many comments by those who felt he did not belong. Perhaps it is comparable now to Tim Raines recent inclusion in the Hall.

They aren't similar players to one another in many aspects, but they both played the majority of their careers in Montreal. Canada. The hinterlands.

And that might cause many to devalue their greatness.

Just a thought.

[packs]

When are they going to put Lefty O'Doul in the Hall? I didn't even see his name on the last manager's vote, though he wouldn't go in as a manager. He most definitely deserves induction for his contributions to the game. Do you think we'd be talking about Shohei Otani or Masahiro Tanaka if it weren't for old Lefty?

[Tabe]

It really is hard comparing straight up stats without taking it into context. Walks don't earn RBI, but when it was Raines he would get himself in position to score a run.
???

Walks do get you an RBI if the bases are loaded.


Raines did steal 808 times ranking him 5th all-time. This is ranked #1 all time for switch hitters.

For the top 10 in stolen bases he ranks 5th in BA behind Ty Cobb, Billy Hamilton, Eddie Collins, and Honus Wagner.

He ranks 54th all time in Runs Scored. His Runs scored 162 game average is 102 this would rank him 40th. Raines Stolen Base 162 avg was 52. Of the top 40 players with higher higher than 102 R/162 games only two have better base stealing averages. That is Billy Hamilton with 93 SB/162 games and Ricky Henderson with 74 SB/162 games.


There are also only two switch hitters higher on the Runs Scored / 162 games list. Mickey Mantle and Chipper Jones

Raines is the only switch hitter to have both a 162 game average of 100+ runs and 20+ bases stolen for a career.

The fact that Raines was a switch hitter gets no bonus points from me. It's more of a curiousity than anything else.

The rest of your argument boils down to "He stole a lot of bases!" Yep, he did.

[ejharrington]

Your idea is basically just another way of saying big market guys from the east and west coast and Chicago who get a ton on hype and are better known personality wise (like Keith) should be in the hall, while guys who toiled in relative obscurity in San Diego and Montreal before small crowds and few reporters should get short shrift.
No, because I think Tony Gwynn and Gary Carter spent all or good parts of their careers in San Diego / Montreal and they are no-doubt HOFers. People other than die-hard baseball fans know who they are.

[bn2cardz]

It really is hard comparing straight up stats without taking it into context. Walks don't earn RBI, but when it was Raines he would get himself in position to score a run.
???

Walks do get you an RBI if the bases are loaded. Well yes you are right. Yet the comment I was replying to and even quoted to make it clear. Was referencing a man on second scoring from a walk. I was stating that yes in that case it is true a walk doesn't gain an RBI.




Raines did steal 808 times ranking him 5th all-time. This is ranked #1 all time for switch hitters.

For the top 10 in stolen bases he ranks 5th in BA behind Ty Cobb, Billy Hamilton, Eddie Collins, and Honus Wagner.

He ranks 54th all time in Runs Scored. His Runs scored 162 game average is 102 this would rank him 40th. Raines Stolen Base 162 avg was 52. Of the top 40 players with higher higher than 102 R/162 games only two have better base stealing averages. That is Billy Hamilton with 93 SB/162 games and Ricky Henderson with 74 SB/162 games.


There are also only two switch hitters higher on the Runs Scored / 162 games list. Mickey Mantle and Chipper Jones

Raines is the only switch hitter to have both a 162 game average of 100+ runs and 20+ bases stolen for a career.
The fact that Raines was a switch hitter gets no bonus points from me. It's more of a curiousity than anything else.

The rest of your argument boils down to "He stole a lot of bases!" Yep, he did.

Ok being a switch hitter gets no bonus points from you. You would be mistaken, though, if you think it doesn't get points for those doing the voting.