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

[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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Louieman

+1

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

Ibid your honor

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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. 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 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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by packs

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

Ha! How do you like them apples?

[Louieman]

Originally Posted by BengoughingForAwhile

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rats60

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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]

Originally Posted by Tabe

???

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.

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.