Make it Raines
Posted: December 16th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 106 Comments »
This is going to be about Tim Raines … but we’re going to start with Bill James. People, of course, have many different opinions about Bill James. And because Bill is both a friend and a hero of mine, I admit to being hopelessly biased on the subject. It isn’t that I think Bill is always right … I don’t. I enjoy arguing with him about things. It’s just that I’m blown away by how his mind works.
I was just re-reading his controversial bit in the New Historical Abstract where he made his argument that Roy White was a better player than Jim Rice. He took each of their best five years — White from 1968-72, Rice from 1975-79 — and used that as his starting point.
Here are their base stats from those five years.
Rice: .311/.360/.556, 147 doubles, 48 triples, 171 homers, 509 runs, 560 RBIs.
White: .283/.380/.432, 131 doubles, 25 triples, 75 homers, 415 runs, 368 RBIs.
Looks like Rice in a blowout, doesn’t it? Much better numbers across the board. Case closed, right?
Well, wait. Bill points out, there are so many things you cannot see in those stats. For one, Rice played in a time when many more runs were scored. The league average during White’s time was 3.80 runs per game … and it was 4.34 during Rice’s time. That’s a half run difference — quite a lot. Each run Roy White created was worth more than Jim Rice.
Two, of course, Rice played in Fenway Park — and Fenway Park in the late 1970s was a preposterously good hitters park. White, meanwhile, played in Yankee Stadium — and Yankee Stadium in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a preposterously bad hitters park, especially for right-handed hitters. This isn’t just mindless theory — here are their road numbers for the same five years:
Rice: .288/.336/.484, 66 doubles, 23 triples, 65 homers, 234 runs, 233 RBIs.
White: .280/.381/.424, 70 doubles, 12 triples, 36 homers, 220 runs, 186 RBIs.
Well, that’s a lot closer, isn’t it? Rice is still slightly ahead in most categories, but I think the most important category listed there is on-base percentage. And that’s a huge gap in on-base percentage. White also walked 234 times and struck out 154 — Rice walked 106 times and struck out 310. You could argue pretty persuasively that White was a straight up as good an offensive player on the road.
But there’s more than just offense. When you throw in the context of the time … you throw in the big speed difference (overall, White stole 60 more bases than Rice in the five years) … you throw in that Rice made more outs … you throw in that White was a better defensive player … and, when it’s all done you can make a compelling argument that Roy White was the better player.
But to me that specific answer is not the point — hell, you could make a damned good argument that Jim Rice WAS better than Roy White. The answer does not get at the brilliance of Bill James. The point is the journey. The point is to think beyond the obvious. The point is to not settle for easy answers and not allow conventional wisdom to blind you.
I mention the Rice-White argument here because I’m about to really delve into some Win Shares as I make my best case for the player I think is the best on the this year’s Hall of Fame ballot — Tim Raines. Win Shares, of course, are Bill’s best effort to give us a quick number that could, at a glance, sum up a player’s season while taking just about everything imaginable into consideration. I basically wrote 500 words here to go over Bill’s Rice-White argument, but I could have just as easily done this:
Jim Rice’s win shares from 1975-79: 127.
Roy White’s win shares from 1968-72: 140.
And there you go. It’s like a Cliff’s Notes version of the argument. Bill’s complicated formula for Win Shares show that when you take everything he knows into account — a players offensive contribution, his defensive contribution, the run environment he played in, the ballpark he played, his speed and so on and so on — that Roy White was a more valuable player in his five year peak than Jim Rice was in his five year peak. He was better by roughly the margin of 140-127.
Now, you may like Win Shares, you may not like them, you may like parts of but not other parts, you may never have even thought about them. But it’s a lifetime of baseball study put into simple numbers … it’s like shorthand into the mind of the most influential baseball thinker of the last 50 years.
OK, so here goes: Tim Raines has 390 career Win Shares. That is a lot. A whole lot. That is more than any other player on the Hall of Fame ballot. It is also more than dozens of current Hall of Famers — including Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and (yes, here we go) Roberto Clemente.
Wow. Tim Raines has more win shares than Roberto Clemente. Now, it’s a funny thing: I suspect that the fact that Raines has more win shares than Clemente actually HURTS his case more than it helps it. Why? Because Clemente has become so great in the collective imagination, so absurdly and untouchably great, that people will see that stat and throw out the entire Win Shares thing. More win shares than Clemente! Ridiculous! This stat is meaningless.
This is a natural reaction. I was talking with my friend and Royals broadcaster deluxe Joel Goldberg the other day, and he was telling me how he cannot take Ultimate Zone Rating seriously as a statistic because it has not been kind to Torii Hunter. You have to go back to 2003 to find a year when Hunter had a great UZR — in 2008, he was minus-11.5. He was better in 2009, but not enough better. Joel knows — he KNOWS — that Hunter is a great, great, great defensive center fielder. Therefore, the stat is full of bull.*
*Interestingly, John Dewan’s plus/minus shows Hunter to have dropped off defensively as well. He was +21 in 2004, second in baseball and was +7 in 2005. But the next three years he was -9 plays total. He had a good defensive year in 2009, but even so he wasn’t Top 10.
I don’t exactly blame Joel … this is human nature. UZR simply does not make enough sense to Joel to challenge his strongly held conviction that Torii Hunter is a great defensive center fielder. We’re all susceptible to this. I got my “Graphical Player” book from ACTA Sports the other day — “Eye opening dashboards of stats and graphs for over 1,000 players” — and it’s a fun read by some terrific people. Except then, all of a sudden, I saw that it said in 2006, Carlos Beltran was 2.6 wins WORSE THAN REPLACEMENT as a defensive center fielder. And that just turned me off completely. Yes, we all know here how I feel about Beltran — and there’s plenty of evidence to show he’s a superior defensive player –but beyond all that, to say that defensively Beltran was two and a half wins worse than some AAA player you could find is simply too mind-blowing for me consider, and so I put the book away and, to be blunt about it, have not opened it up since.
So it goes with Raines’ huge number of Win Shares. If you are a fan of Raines, you just nod your head. Hey, the guy was just hugely valuable. Here’s a stat that proves it. But if you are not a fan of Raines or if you are only moderately interested in him, the number probably seems unrealistic — voodoo sabermetrics. Come on. More win shares than Clemente?
So, we dive in a bit more. Tim Raines played about the same number of games as Roberto Clemente — Clemente played 2,433 and Raines played 2,502. In total, Raines got about 140 more plate appearances. So their careers are of very similar length.
Raines, as you might imagine, got on base more (.385 on base to Clemente’s .359) while Clemente hit for more power (.475 slugging to Raines’ .425). They played in quite different eras, though, so it’s probably best to neutralize their numbers to get a decent view of things.
Clemente neutralized: .321/.363/.480
Raines neutralized: .314/.410/.455
Wow. I didn’t expect that. I thought Clemente’s numbers when neutralized would separate him a bit from Raines … but the opposite is true. And that’s because people tend to put Raines in the wrong era. He really had the bulk of his career before the offensive explosion of the mid-to-late 1990s. He was at his best in the low-scoring 1980s, when runs were hard to come by. Neutralize the numbers, and (sacrilegious as it may seem) Raines’ numbers look better than Clemente’s.
Of course, Clemente was a brilliant right fielder with probably the greatest outfield arm in baseball history. And Raines was, by most estimations, only an OK left fielder with speed but not the best instincts or arm. Clemente had twice as many assists as Raines, and even that probably does not tell the full story about the differences between the two arms. Give a huge, huge edge to Clemente — as big as you want.
But, wait, we have yet to talk about what might be Tim Raines greatest attribute — he’s probably the best base stealer in baseball history. He stole more than 800 bases at an 85% clip. No one in baseball history stole so many bases so successfully.
Percentages of players who have stolen 500-plus bases (since caught stealing was measured):
1. Tim Raines, 808 steals, 84.6%
2. Willie Wilson, 668 steals, 83.4%
3. Davey Lopes, 557 steals, 83.0%
4. Joe Morgan, 689 steals, 81.0%
5. Vince Coleman, 752 steals, 80.9%
6. Rickey Henderson, 1,406 steals, 80.8%
7. Ozzie Smith, 580 steals, 79.7%
8. Kenny Lofton , 622 steals, 79.5%
9. Paul Molitor, 504 steals, 79.5%
10. Luis Aparicio, 506 steals, 78.8%
Ty Cobb, Max Carey, Honus Wagner, Eddie Collins — their caught stealing numbers are suspect. But even with what we know about Cobb and Collins, they too rank below Raines in stolen base percentage.
So, you have to ask yourself — greatest base stealer ever (or certainly in the picture) vs. greatest defensive right fielder ever. I don’t know, seems like that could be about a wash. Especially when you consider that Clemente made 200 more outs and hit into 275 double plays, almost double Raines.
Now is the time when you say: “OK, seriously, how long are you going to keep up this facade. You cannot be saying that you think Tim Raines was as good a baseball player as Roberto Clemente.” But see, here’s the point: That doesn’t matter. Roberto Clemente is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest players in baseball history. The Sporting News ranked him 20th all-time, the same place SABR ranked him in 1999, and others have ranked him higher.
And Tim Raines got a measly 22.6% of the Hall of Fame vote last year.
Every single person has a different standard for the Baseball Hall of Fame. That’s the beauty of it … and the challenge. You may think the Hall of Fame should not have anyone in it worse than, say, George Brett. Someone else may think that Don Larsen should be in it for one magical day. Someone else may think that Roger Maris should be in it for a handful of good years and one hair-losing achievement. Someone else may think Don Sutton should be out, and someone may think that Jim Kaat should be in. There are groups out there for Dave Parker, for Don Mattingly, for Andre Dawson, for Minnie Minoso, for Bert Blyleven, for Jack Morris for Steve Garvey, for Tony Oliva and on and on and on. It’s a stormy sea of different opinions and the question is not who is right or wrong — because there is no right or wrong about an honor like the Hall of Fame — but instead, who the heck is making actual sense.
So I hope to talk a little sense here. The Hall of Fame seems to come down to a player’s peak and his longevity. Was he truly great at his best? And was he good for a long enough time?
Well, Tim Raines had a huge peak. From 1983-87 — the five year peak — he hit .318/.406/.467 for a 142 OPS+, the same OPS+ that Jim Rice had during his five-year peak. During those five years, he averaged 114 runs scored, 34 doubles, 10 triples, 11 home runs and 71 stolen bases a year. He led the league in runs scored twice, batting and on-base percentage once, doubles once, stolen bases twice, and could have won three MVP awards. He had 163 win shares in those five years — an average of 32.6. Bill says a 30-win share season is an MVP-type year.
Tim Raines also had a huge career. He reached base almost 4,000 times … or to compare him to a similar player, about 150 times more than Lou Brock. He’s fifth all-time in stolen bases. His .385 on-base percentage is the second-best among eligible Hall of Famers with 9,000 plate appearances (behind only the Walking Man Eddie Yost), and his slugging percentage is better than Rickey Henderson’s or Brock’s and just two points behind Joe Morgan.
This is not a borderline Hall of Fame candidate here. This is a dominant player. He never really got his due as a player while he was playing … in part because he shared his era with the great Rickey Henderson, in part because he spent his best years in Canada, in part because he was hammered by collusion, in part because on-base percentage did not (and does not) get the respect it deserved, in part because leadoff hitters tend to be naturally underrated, in part because he spent his last six or seven years as a part time player and that image of the older Raines was burned in the memory of people (especially his two championship years with the Yankees).
But the purported reason they wait five years before voting on Hall of Famers is to give people a little time to ruminate and carefully consider a player’s career, to allow the emotion to fade and the myths to dissipate. I suppose I’m naive enough to think at least a few people will read this and snap awake and realize, “Holy cow, Tim Raines’ had more Win Shares than Roberto Clemente!” Then again, I imagine a few people will read this and say, “Who cares about Win Shares?” So it goes.
Quick update: I did not make any mention in this blog post about Tim Raines drug use and there’s a two-word reason for this — Paul Molitor. He breezed in first ballot and there was almost no mention of his drug use at almost the exact same time as Raines.
Loading ...
Circle me Montreal!
I’m prepared to accept your conclusion.
I was hoping you’d throw your support behind Bert, but Rich Lederer is good enough. And I was one of those people that were skeptical about Tim Raines, but you’ve convinced me of how dominant Raines is. Now I’m actually annoyed that Lou Brock waltzed into the Hall of Fame first ballot while Tim Raines would have to play the annual waiting game.
If Joe hasn’t convinced anyone, I’d direct them to Tom Tango’s Raines site, http://raines30.com/
Wow. He has my (imaginary) vote. I hope this was sent out to every Hall of Fame voter.
Maybe I am biased, because they are players I grew up with, but the late ’70s and early-’80s players are almost universally underappreciated. Raines, Blyleven, even Trammell and Whitaker don’t get the Hall respect they deserve. Of course, there are also lesser players from the era that for some reason get too much love- Sandberg, Puckett, Dawson. Weird era.
it said in 2006, Carlos Beltran was 2.6 wins WORSE THAN REPLACEMENT as a defensive center fielder… to say that defensively Beltran was two and a half wins worse than some AAA player you could find is simply too mind-blowing for me consider
It seems to me that a replacement-level player isn’t replacement level at both offense and defense. That would actually make him far worse than replacement level, as an overall player. Right?*
Clemente is a very overrated player, probably the most in baseball history. (The reasons why are quite understandable… perhaps even noble.) As you point out, this might make it counterproductive to use him as a basis for comparison, in terms of convincing people. I think the easiest guy to compare Raines to is Tony Gwynn. Same era, not a power hitter, stole some bases, good enough to be a no-doubt HOF, but not so good that it’s mind-boggling to compare anyone to him. Gwynn has 398 Win Shares, Raines 390. (If you have already written that article, which is entirely possible, my apologies.)
* I’d imagine a replacement level 1B is actually average or even better defensively — he just stinks on offense compared to the other 1B. CF, being a defensively oriented position, would admittedly tend to be the opposite, that the guy is more likely to not be able to hack it due to defense. But still not as bad as replacement level on defense, I would think.
Poz, you were the driving force behind Greinke’s Cy Young and Mauer’s MVP (though the Twins’ September made it really easy for the voters)… I’m hoping your massive influence (I say that without a trace of sarcasm) can get Tim Raines in the Hall of Fame, too!
Then in a few years you can get an Alan Trammell movement rolling…
Take another look at those part time years with the Yankees. .299/.395/.429 over 940 PAs.
Also, this:
Tim Raines finished in the top ten in his league in intentional walks 4 times. These were all in the 1980s, so it’s not like he was hitting 8th. Jim Rice led the league in intentional walks 3 times. During their respective primes, Tim Raines was more FEARED than Jim Rice!!!
Lofton’s steal numbers make it more infuriating that the Tribe held him at 3rd against Boston during the pennant series. Yay Cleveland!!!
And as a Caahhrds fan, I can attest that Raines was by far one of the most feared players of his era. He and Andre Dawson were terifying.
Beautifully argued Joe. I’ve always loved Raines & now I love him even more.
Though I’m wondering how many non-HOFers have 340 WS or close to it. Where do I look that one up?
You’re right, leadoff guys are underrated because people just look at RBI’s so much…too much. Who’d get 100 RBI’s tho without someone gettin on ahead of them?
Devon, according to the Win Shares book that was published a few years ago, non-HOFers with more WS than Raines are:
Pete Rose (547) – obviously
Barry Bonds (523) – we’ll see… [I'm sure he has many, many more since this book was written]
Tony Mullane (399) – A 19th century pitcher… they were responsible for so much more of the game (he threw 567 IP one year!) that it isn’t really a fair comparison. Perhaps should be in anyway just for his nickname, “The Apollo of the Box.”
Bill Dahlen (394) – 19th century SS whom knowledgeable statheads view as a huge oversight. Good hitter (but it was mostly a tough era for hitters) and great fielder (but I somehow doubt too many Veterans’ Committee voters are up on their 19th century defense…)
Everyone else above Raines on this list is in. Raines had the 53rd most Win Shares in history (again, at the time the book was written). I think there are 200+ guys in the HOF, so…
@ #11, Nick O:
It’s even more impressive that teams were willing to intentionally walk Tim Raines, despite the fact that he was such a huge base stealing threat. If thats not fear/respect, I dunno what is.
I just don’t have the time to fret or even try to figure out all the math of stat-heads.
I just remember when I saw Tim Raines play he impressed the hell out of me. I remember thinking “Who is this guy?”
I can’t remember ever particularly rooting for the Expos. More likely I was rooting against them and there was an Oh-Shit moment when Raines came up to bad or otherwise turned a game around.
(Like Maggie Simpson and that mon0-brow baby.)
Raines’s career is a confluence of everything working against him:
1) His most devastating offensive seasons came in Montreal, PQ . .
2) in an era where run the run scoring environment was much less favorable than it was to become just a decade or so later . .
3) on top of which his skillset was comprised in large part of components whose value was poorly understood . .
4) and his career almost exactly overlapped with another guy who did everything he did, but better . .
5) so, as a result of 1-4 above, his most (in)famous contribution in many fans’ minds was his admission that he slid head first so as not to break the vial of cocaine in his back pocket and subsequent testimony in the 1985 Pittsburgh drug trials.
It’s a bummer; the only thing Raines had any control over was (5). He’s really a batting version of Bert Blyleven – played in obscure smallish markets a a time when W-L was the holy grail and had the misfortune of overlapping careers with the likes of Seaver, Carlton, and Palmer, all of whom were better pitchers but what’s that got to do with anything?
Joe’s right – we can argue all day about guys on the margin like Andre Dawson or Jim Rice – but for God’s sake when less than 23 percent of the voting populace thinks that a clear first-ballot guy belongs in the Hall, well that’s a problem. Blyleven has picked up momentum over the past decade or so and I suspect Raines will too, but they’ll likely fall short. Unfortunately I suspect if either guy is to get in it’ll be through the Veterans’ Committee.
As a Braves fan during that era, I can attest that Raines was a pain in the ass nonpareil. Extrapolate his career numbers against the Braves to a full season, and he scores 125 runs with a .400 OBP and goes 73/80 on SB attempts.
Keep hammering the point home Joe. I don’t know exactly how influential you’ve become, but I think you’re huge, and Greinke owes you a small chunk of his Cy Young. Keep it up, and Raines will get there.
When I watched him play in the 80s, I thought Raines was a Hall of Famer. Since then, though, my opinion has shifted, and I’m now very much on the fence with his case. I’m no master debater, but I’m going to try to give some idea of my concerns. If anyone can make address those and sway me, I would gladly jump back on his bandwagon.
First, let me say that I’m coming from this as a smaller Hall guy. Not a small Hall guy, really… Just smaller. I’d have about 150 people in my Hall, rather than the 200 or so that are in there now. So I’m trying to make a case for Raines being one of the 150 or so best players in major league history. I realize, of course, that my own personal standard doesn’t mean squat, because there are more than 150 players in the Hall, and Raines is doubtless better than quite a few of them. But hey, I don’t have an actual vote, either, so whether or not I support his candidacy is just as meaningless.
He didn’t have very many really great seasons. Only three times did he better a 140 OPS+, and only four other times did he top 130. That’s borderline to me. It’s good, but not compelling. In career OPS+, he is in a massive tie for 263rd place. So I don’t feel like his overall career according that particular stat necessarily puts him in that top 150, and I really don’t think his peak does either.
Okay, so let’s look at OBP. He was a leadoff hitter, after all. Eight seasons as a full-time player in which he topped .390. That is very, very nice, and is the main thing that leaves me wanting to find a reason why I should come off the fence. Now, I don’t know of anywhere to find a leaderboard with adjusted OBP, so I can only look at the raw career numbers there. This puts him at a disadvantage to those who played in eras where .310 BAs were somewhat commonplace, and OBP was inflated by the higher batting averages. And on that career list, he’s still 134th, so I’d say he is almost certainly somewhere in the top 100 in career adjusted OBP. Maybe even in the top 50. But that is still only one component, even if it is the most important. It makes me lean his way, but it doesn’t get me there all the way.
So then I look at leaderboard appearances. Top 10 in OBP 7 times, leading once. That’s less impressive, and I admit a bit surprising to me. One top 10 appearance in slugging. Expected, and a mark against him, in my opinion. Four top ten appearances in OPS, only once in the top 5. Not so good. Eight appearances in the top 10 in runs scored, leading twice. Well, that’s good. Only six appearances in the top 10 in runs created, but five of them were in the top 5 (and one leader).
I just don’t know. My eyes said he was a Hall of Famer. My brain sees a borderline case. If he were a centerfielder, second baseman, shortstop, or catcher, I’d be on board all the way. But for a left fielder, I just don’t know if his other skills were enough to overcome his lack of power and put him in that top 150.
And, just for the fun of it, since I don’t subscribe to these numbers as meaningful, he has a 20 in black ink (average HoFer: 27), a 114 in gray ink (average HoFer: 144), a 90 on the HoF monitor (likely HoFer: ~100), and a 47 on the HoF standards (average HoFer: ~50). I actually think his case is stronger than these numbers would indicate.
What am I missing? What is it exactly that pushes him over that hump from “very, very, very good” to “an all-time great”?
Raines is clearly a HOF player, but, like Dave Parker, all the cocaine use hurt his image badly. I wouldn’t vote for Parker; he was a great player, of course, or we wouldn’t be discussing him, but he wasn’t great enough, and he wasted so much of his talent.
Other guys I’d vote for: Blyleven, Miñoso, and Dwight Evans. I wouldn’t get negative if they elected Mattingly or Dave Concepción.
“or to compare him to a similar player, about 150 times more than Lou Brock.”
This is actually an insult; Raines was a much, much better player than Brock.
Great piece Joe.
“What am I missing? What is it exactly that pushes him over that hump from “very, very, very good” to “an all-time great”?”
Two things:
1) his OPS+ is very OBP-heavy, which makes it stronger than it appears. OPS+, you probably know, overstates SLG and understates OBP. So it hurts guys like Raines who were huge on-base guys without too much power.
And not only that, but his OBP’s were often batting average heavy. He drew plenty of walks, but never 100 in a season; A lot of his OBP comes from hits rather than walks, and hits are on average more valuable than walks.
2) You didn’t even mention the baserunning.
A 151 OPS+, that is OBP Heavy, with 71 stolen bases in 80 tries, is a phenomenal season. MVP-caliber, easily. And he did it the next two seasons too.
Really, OPS+ is basically the worst stat to use for a guy like Raines, because Raines is exactly the type of player that excelled at doing the things OPS+ under-rates.
Joe, let’s face it, his drug use has turned off many voters. I wish this didn’t matter, but I can’t help but think that it does. His admission to sliding head first with cocaine in his back pocket and testifying at the Pittsburgh drug trials, I think that taints many writers’ view of him. Sigh.
I’m enjoying any comments thread that includes “Apollo of the Box” and “master debater” and “pushes him over the hump.” In 24 comments! Bravo!
Has anyone admitted that they’re not voting for Raines because of his drug use? Is it really an issue? I’d hope not, but that’s just me.
Gotta admit, in retrospect, the nickname “Rock” is a bit unfortunate.
Raines wasn’t appreciated properly when he was playing, so the low HoF voting level should have been expected. If just one of those good Expos teams had made it to the Series, things might be different. I wonder what would have happened to Gary Carter’s HoF chances if he hadn’t gone to the Mets?
@16 Except that there was most likely someone on 2nd base, so your point is somewhat neutralized.
My memory of Raines – I was born in 1985, so I’m too young to remember the really good years – was his first game back in Montreal in 2001.
In the 2nd inning, Guerrero and Lee Stevens both singled to set up Raines’ first at bat as an Expo since he left.
The crowd (and it was big, because it was the home opener… rare in Montreal) gave Raines a standing ovation for the entire at bat. Raines had to step out just to tip his hat to the crowd between pitches. He walked off Glendon Rusch to load the bases for Orlando Cabrera who doubled to clear the bases.
He was clearly at the twilight of his career, but that sticks out for me.
Looking back, he finished 2001 .308/.414/.449 and in 2002 with Florida hit only .191 but had an OBP of .351 in 114 PAs.
As one of the world’s biggest Expos nerds, one of the die-hards who make up http://raines30.com/ and one of the most Raines-obsessed people you’ll ever meet, all I can say, Joe, is THANK YOU.
My two favorite Tim Raines stats had always been that he was the best base stealer of all-time given the 800 SBs and 85% success rate, and that he reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn – first-ballot, no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn.
To now learn that he had more career Win Shares than Roberto Clemente too only makes me happier to read this, and madder that the BBWAA is so blind to Rock’s greatness. Once again, kudos, sir.
@20
Joe Posnanski has a great blog post that should push you off the fence on Raines.
You should check it out.
This is all a terrific, terrific argument. You have totally convinced me (like you did in the past with Blyleven). Now, if only actual HOF voters considered logic. But…they don’t. At least, many of them don’t. They consider perception.
If Raines plays his best years on a notable franchise (like Boston), he’s in. If Rice plays his best years in Montreal, he’s out. I dread saying that it’s as simple as that. Rice had loyal supporters in the media who remembered him fondly. Raines will have much less help.
Well, the HOF is kind of confusing to me. Fame is kind of where I choose to look at someone initially. Putting numbers aside, I look at if I went to Cooperstown whos display would I want to go see? Also, who are the players that when they were at bat or on base or making a play in the field made time stop? Who from opposing teams were loved and feared from the other teams/fans perspective? Sometimes these things cannot be quantified solely by numbers. However, I do still think numbers should be the final determining factor.
Hopefully someday there will be a SABR comittee to elect those players that were playing statistically proven winning baseball in an era where their approach was not appreciated. For what it is worth Rock was and is a HOFer.
I had the privilege of watching Tim Raines with the White Sox, when he was clearly past his peak. He was as consistent in his skill set over those few years as Frank Thomas was in his skill set. I think that if the likes of Jim Rice, Gary Carter, and Bill Mazeroski are electable, Raines should be a cinch. I would not put money on it though.
You convinced me.
I guess this will be a test about how far the voters have come in understanding what really constitutes greatness (and what really contributes to winning). Raines in NY or Bos is a sure fire Hall of Fame player (it is called Hall of FAME, not Hall of GREATNESS, btw). Raines in Mtl, well, hard to say what the voters will do.
He clearly deserves it, based on the numbers. If drug use keeps a guy out, how does anyone from the 60s’ speed era get in at all?
Mattingly, ugh. Compare Mattingly to Hrbek. No one would say Hrbek is a HoF player, yet, their numbers are nearly identical (actually, from 87-93, one of them had a better OBP and SLG and won two WS), ….and yet, people keep talking about Mattingly.
#10. IBB don’t necessarily tell you how feared a hitter is. Mike Schmidt one season was walked 25 times intentionally (1986), and another season only 4 times (1977). His numbers weren’t that different those seasons: .290/.390/.547, 38HR, 25IBB in ‘86 and .274/.393/.574, 39HR, 4IBB in ‘77. The difference was Greg Luzinski (.309/.394/.594) was batting behind Schmidt in ‘77, while Glenn Wilson and Von Hayes were batting behind him in ‘86.
The same goes for Jim Rice. He didn’t accumulate many IBB because guys like Carl Yastrzemski and Carlton Fisk were batting behind him most of the time.
Note: I’m not advocating that anyone was feared. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But an argument correlating lack of IBB with lack of fear is specious.
I still love calling him Rock Raines, especially after he admitted he used crack cocaine.
I may be remembering incorrectly… but wasn’t Raines in left primarily because Dawson was in center?
* Looked it up. Dawson in CF in ‘83, Raines in ‘84 (Dawson to RF), and then an alternation of Herm Winningham (!) and Mitch Webster (!!), followed by two years of Dave Martinez. Then Raines went to the Chisox for Ivan Calderon.
One thing I do remember correctly is that Raines was always a dangerous hitter and contributed to his team’s success any way he could. Moments are not a career, but I can’t forget the time he beat out a routine grounder to short against the Mets (I think it was Kevin Elster). It wasn’t a slow roller or a high chopper, either. It got to Elster quick, he fielded it cleanly, he didn’t double clutch or double-hop and step… Raines just outran the throw.
I remembered that moment when the Mets traded Dykstra AND Roger McDowell to the Phils, straight-up, for Juan Samuel. They couldn’t have just asked Montreal, just for kicks and giggles, if that package could have scored them the Rock? I mean… JUAN SAMUEL and his .305 OBA, his league-leading whiff totals (yeah, leading off). They gave him up for Ivan Calderon so couldn’t Dykstra-plus have done it?
I will now staple my eyelids closed.
@20 Snowman & @23 Ryan JL
Fangraphs just came out with a new stat that fixes the weighting issue you describe for OPS+ and adjusts for park effects. It moves Raines up from 263rd to 142nd.
Full explanation here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-wrc/
Roy White was a switch hitter who played in the old old Yankee stadium, 296 to right field foul pole. Never hit 300 and while speedy, he had Johnny Damon arm. And while I was a Yankee fan ( now Royals, sad) Jim Rice was a more than competant left fielder especially in Fenway. He had power and hit over 300. Ask any Yankee fan, trade Roy White for Jim Rice even up and see what your win shares answer is.
As for Clemente, his career was mostly prior to 1969 when the mound was higher, Raines career afterward when pitchers had lesser advantage. Clemente was a outstanding defensive player with a great arm. Who would you rather have Clemente or Raines? On my team its Clemente.
Raines probably should be in HOF, I have no passion either way on it. Thats seems to be the rub for me. I really really think the Canada thing hurts him big time.
I remember (perhaps incorrectly) that Raines was not a fan fave in Montreal (can I say fan and Montreal in the same sentence? Did they have fans?) Bill James wrote a very interesting piece 20 to 25 years ago about how Raines had become the target of fan frustration over Montreal’s inability to get over the hump. If you remember they had some good teams back in the day but never had that one magical year. Bill wrote about the tendency of fans to pick the one thing the team’s best play did the poorest and blame that for team’s failure.
In this case, it went something like Tim Raines’ inability to throw is causing the Expos to fall short of the World Series, so Tim Raines can not be a great player.
Took the long way around the barn here, but if Raines was not recognized in his day as the great player he was, it’s very difficult to change folks’ minds about that 20+ years later.
For me, Tim was a great player and should be in. For others, they’ve had 20+ years to say “sure he’s a good player, but not an all timer” and long held beliefs are tough to change.
Montreal fans NEED our Tim Raines to go into the Hall of Fame…
After that, we’re left with Vlad Guerrero…:(
[...] http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/12/16/make-it-raines/ [...]
Oh, here’s something that probably shouldn’t be part of the candidacy, but does make Rock so much more awesome: Tim Raines gave Randy Johnson his immortal nickname – The Big Unit!
I hate to insult the collective intelligence of the HOF voters (even though they often deserve to be insulted), but I must.
I believe their (illogic) goes something like this:
1) Henderson was the premier leadoff man during that era
2) Henderson is arguably the greatest leadoff man in history
3) There is no way there could be 2 leadoff men this good playing at the same time
4) Raines falls short of HOF status
Ludicrous, huh? Sadly, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this hasn’t at least crossed the minds of entirely too many of the voters.
I don’t like to dwell on this, as the Internet punditry on Raines’s drug use seems to far outweigh any discussion of it by actual Hall of Fame voters, but for the record: Raines’s admission was for cocaine use, not crack, and the prevalence of crack arose after Raines stopped using cocaine (usual caveat: as far as is publicly known) at the end of 1982.
Raines was indeed a fan favourite in Montreal, in spite of any frustrations over the team’s success that may have arisen at the end of his first stint with the Expos. His return in May 1987 from his collusion-induced break is legendary: four hits including a first-pitch triple, and a game-winning grand slam.
Just as the subjective nature of the game’s different eras makes HOF credentials impossible, the drug use throughout the game’s history also provides a challenge.
Do we discount Raines because of his drug use? Then what about Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and the rest of the Roid Boys? Or the “Greenie” Generation?
Drugs (unfortunately) have been in the game for decades, and how can anyone truly split the hair over which drug is acceptable and which is not?
He was better in 2009, but not enough better. Joel knows — he KNOWS — that Hunter is a great, great, great defensive center fielder. Therefore, the stat is full of bull.*
Although I have little doubt that this sentiment is widespread, it is really a bizarre argument.
Take a look at batting stats, which just about everyone recognizes as truly “objective”. We accept that players – even (especially?) great ones – see their slash stats vary from year to year. A player who hits 300/375/500 one year may hit 280/340/420 the next. And when that happens, fans grouse about the inconsistency – but never for a second think to question the legitimacy of the statistics themselves.
That being the case, why on earth can’t we accept that a player with a great defensive reputation may have an off-year with the glove? Why don’t the same factors that contribute to varying degrees of success with the bat from year to year also contribute to variability in defensive production?
Take a look at David Ortiz this year – the guy was hitting less than his weight into June, with only a few pops. If we applied Joel Goldberg’s reasoning, we’d say “Impossible! I don’t believe those stats because everyone knows Papi is one of the most feared hitters in the game!”. And if we did that, we’d rightly be looked at as idiots.
I grew up in Windsor (which is just the border town south of Detroit – yeah, that’s right Journey fans, south Detroit is called “Windsor”…). As a result, I was – like most from the area – a Tiger fan – even though they were not a Canadian team. I mean, really, you couldn’t be both a Tiger *and* Blue Jay fan, since they were mortal rivals. So I suppose, like many, I adopted the Expos as my Canadian team – no conflict because they were a NL team. And, sadly, my formative baseball years were full of Expo heartbreak – always close (Damn you, Rick Monday!), but never over the hump. And Raines was, to my mind, *the* guy who made that team work.
I realize that the feeling is that his HOF candidacy is hurt by the fact that he played in Canada, but I think this is really backwards. Shouldn’t it help? Shouldn’t there be *one* player who is known mainly for his play on a Canadian team in the HOF*? Are the now-defunct Expos going to be permanently excluded from the HOF?
(*I realize that Gary Carter played his best years in Montreal. But even this being the case, I would guess that in the eyes of most he is best recognized as a/the leader of the ‘86 Mets.)
When you notice that Rice’s and Raines’s OPS+ (142) for their peaks are identical, you don’t point out — right then — that Raines’s great baserunning and Rice’s hitting into dp’s are not part of that 142, nor is Raines’s superior fielding. Nor the fact that Rice was all about peak, whereas Tim Raines (even after contracting lupus) kept contributing, albeit in small amounts.
Slam dunk, Tim Raines.
I’m probably the only person who likes Win Shares and doesn’t want Raines in the HOF. (Interestingly, Dawson’s 340 ws put him comfortably in the HOF).
I don’t think his peak years in Montreal were better than non-HOF Oliva or Belle – admittedly, completely different types of players. Raines OPS+ in Montreal was 131, Oliva’s career OPS+ was 131. Olivia’s 8 year peak was 140, Raines was 134. (Belle blows both away). And, interestingly, Moises Alou’s best 8yr peak was 132. (And you don’t have to use a 8 yr peak, Oliva best 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 yr peaks all give him 4 or 5 point higher OPS+). So we can’t say that Raines deserves to be in solely on the merit of his peak years, so the last 11 years of his career are what made him a HOF.
And that’s the problem I have with Raines, that I’ll never get over (which is fine, since I don’t vote) is all those missed games- esp when we’re celebrating his rate stats that might have significantly fallen if he had played more often. After he left Montreal he avg 100 games a season for the last 11 years of his career. For a guy with a great OBP, he was only top 5 6x (and only once after 1987). So now we’re left to the compiling argument – that he played long enough to compile enough WS, Hits, HR, RBI (whatever stat floats your boat) to be in the same conversation as other HOFers.
And, insults in 3, 2, 1 …
It’s pretty funny that SABRphiles dislike using RBI, batting avg, etc because they don’t show true value BUT you then have people relying on OPS+ notwithstanding that, as pointed out by Ryan @23, it is totally skewed towards slugging. Why do people rely on it? Joe is guilty as well. 5 year peaks for Rice and Raines are similar yet Raines is all OBP which I gather ought to weighted at 1.7-1.8 X more than slugging. The Raines 30 website link speaks to modified OPS which corrects the weights.
Why decry traditional stats when OPS probably perpetuates similar problems?
Beyond that, yeah, it doesn’t include baserunning and Raines has a good case as the best ever.
Clemente did a coup’la things Raines never did -and stuff that HOF’s ya:
1. Put a team on his friggin back -his sore, 36 yr old back – and win a WS. Check out ‘71 series stats folks, really -go there and see the numbers, including 2 dingers off the friggin Baltimore pitching staff that had 15 -yeah 15 – 20 game winners that year. In fact ya knobs, look at Clemente’s lifetime WS/post season stats
2. Have more than 3 mvp worthy years including winning one.
3. Most runners -well they just stayed at first.
so easy there big fella -
2.
Chubby @53
First of all, he didn’t put them on his back. Bob Robertson and Steve Blass, to name 2 teammates, both had better WS than Roberto did (though his was quite nice).
Second, for whatever reason, Roberto’s hits in that series, for the most part, didn’t matter much. He had a lot of 4 0 2 0 games in that Series. That isn’t necessarily his fault, but he wasn’t Yaz in the last 2 weeks of 1967 or Brett in the last week of 1985 by any stretch of the imagination.
“Greatest base stealer ever (or certainly in the picture)”
Umm, on behalf of fans of a certain player, I would like to humbly submit that player as somebody who should be in that “picture.” His name is, umm, Rickey Henderson. I see that he’s only No. 6 on that list of best stolen base success rate percentages, but I just thought that, well, he has the most total steals … I thought that … nearly 500 more than anybody else … I just … I thought …
Never mind. I guess we friends of Rickey should be just glad that you acknowledged that other people besides Tim Raines are “in the picture” when it comes to the discussion of who is the greatest base stealer of all time.
@8: Don’t go overestimating Joe’s influence. I wish he had that kind of influence. But the latest rounds of awards probably don’t represent some sabermetric revolution amongst mainstream baseball writers. Rather, there was no 20-game winner so Greinke was the best-looking of all the low-win candidates; Mauer’s team nabbed a playoff spot down the stretch, and the best candidates outside of him happened to split votes with their own teammates (Jeter/Texeira) (which is also what happened with the NL Cy Young vote). I’d love to see Blyleven and Raines elected this offseason, but I think last year’s percentages should be your guide, and you should expect Alomar and maybe Dawson to be your inductees (if I remember those percentages correctly, and I’m not sure I do).
Chubby @ 15
Baltimore had four 20 game winners in ‘71 which is very impressive, but less than the 15 that you seem to be implying they had.
I agree with the post. I always remember Tim Raines as 2nd Best after Rickey….but crap, Rickey is one of the top 25 ever. Being a few steps behind him is still pretty great- greater than some that have been inducted because of 3,000 hits.
Three reactions to this excellent analysis:
1. Who cares about win shares — slide-rule voodoo
2. I refuse to accept the premise that Tim Raines was a better player than, or even as good as a player as, Clemente
3. Even despite my believing (1) and (2), there is no question in my mind that Tim Raines should have been elected in his first year of eligibility; it is pathetic that only ~23% of writers voted for him — he definitely belongs in the HOF
I am an ardent believer that the numbers tell you more about what is really happening than the accumulation of your memories of individual events. The sum is the whole. But I think that a large part of the HOF is the impact that a player had on his team and the game. Clemente and Rice both electrified their teams and their towns.
Some guys contibute day in and day out, and people overlook them. For example, JD Drew.
I think raines belongs in the hall based on who already is there and how he compares. I don’t think he belongs in “my” ideal hall but them that hall would lose a lot of current members.
That said, I watched both players and I would still take Clemente over Raines. I suspect that the method you used to “normalize” their playing years is misguided but since you didn’t tell us how you did that…
After all roberto played in the 60’s and there was no era where the offense was more shut down than the 60’s – even the 80’s do not approach it.
I don’t like the 5 year approach – I mean it is fine as a player comparison tool but ti shouldn’t be enough to get a player into the hall. After all they have to play at least 10 years, so shouldn’t comparing players’ best 10 years be a better approach?
Finally, when last I saw something bill james wrote on defensive stats (1-2 years ago or so), he wasn’t that fond of them either as he felt they were still not there yet. But that taking them all together could be useful to provide a picture.
Tim Raines : Rickey Henderson :: Ron Santo : Brooks Robinson
Bill James said something like this — it just wasn’t plausible to HOF voters that the third-best third-baseman of his era could also be one of the best third basemen of all time.
Similarly, I think the current HOF voters likely cannot fathom that the second-best leadoff man of the 80s is nevertheless one of the best leadoff men of all time.
Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. The baseball wri-tards are too lazy to do simple things like judge players amongst their playing peers. How many leadoff hitters were better than Raines in the NL? Zero.How many leadoff hitters were better than Raines in baseball? One-Rickey Henderson.
Someone mentioned IBBs. Well, Rock drew two less intentional walks one season as Mark McGwire did in the year he hit 70 homers: 26 for Rock and 28 for McGwire. If that does not give you an insight into his impact, especially from the leadoff position, then what does?
He had 10 seasons where he hit 300 and with the exception of his second full season, never struck out more than 70 times in a season. He also had 11 seasons with an OBP of 390 or higher.
We talk about defense but how many LFs can you say were great defensive players with fantastic arms? The only player that fits that criteria was a young Barry Bonds. As it pertains to Raines, his career RF per 9 and per game were above league average. So, I don’t get the bad defender argument.
He was a great player. If Ozzie Smith is in, Rock should be in, period.
Why decry traditional stats when OPS probably perpetuates similar problems?
While obviously not perfect, it is readily available and makes a necessary adjustment to begin comparing players across eras. And despite it’s shortcomings, OPS does hold its own with the big boys (RC, wOBA, EqA, etc) when it comes to correlation with runs scored.
Outside The Box @47
“Drugs (unfortunately) have been in the game for decades, and how can anyone truly split the hair over which drug is acceptable and which is not?”
Taking cocaine and similar “recreational” drugs is stupid, in many cases illegal, but nothing directly to do with baseball. Taking steroids and similar “performance-enhancing” drugs is also stupid, also in many cases illegal, but, more importantly for baseball, is cheating and harms the sport.
That “split the hair” for you?
@65 Graphite:
Cocaine is certainly a performance enhancing drug.
Hi Joe:
I voted “no” on the podcast question, and wanted to explain why, but didn’t see the best place to do that. So here I am.
I just want to suggest that I don’t doubt that you’d put together an exemplary podcast. I trusts that you’d be as interesting in audio as you are in print.
For me, though, podcasts still aren’t something I care enough to download and listen to — or really to sit still & stream. I don’t like listening to people when I can read things more quickly and I can go back & skip ahead more effectively.
Your written work is a must-read for me — and that’s not something I can say about many (any?) other bloggers these days. I’d be awfully disappointed if a podcast took time & energy from your writing, which is a real strength. Otherwise, I say, go for it, and good luck, even if I wouldn’t be listening regularly.
Joe, having heard you do a couple interviews (and specifically downloaded a BP podcast a couple months ago just to listen to you), I’m all for you starting a podcast. You’ve definitely got the pipes for it too — or maybe I just listen to Bill Simmons’ nasally whine too much.
Forgive me for making this point if it’s already been made, but one factor in Raines’ astonishingly low profile is that he never made the cover of Sports Illustrated (back when making the cover of SI was arguably the most important act of validation in sports media). I can’t think of a better baseball player in the past 40 years who never once graced the cover of SI. Hurt yet again by being in Montreal.
I love this site. Those who write in may disagree, but the arguments are impressive.
Statistics are presented and refuted. It’s a lot of fun.
I remember the Expos of Raines, Dawson, Carter, Wallach. An underappreciated team that never had enough pitching but was always tough to beat.
I say yes to Dawson (though some stat heads are ready to prove he doesn’t belong).
I say yes to Raines, but no stat will ever convince me that he can be compared to Clemente (who probably was over-rated but still great).
This is a little nitpicky but there is one problem with comparing Roy White and Jim Rice’s road batting statistics: White’s include a lot of games in the “preposterously good hitters park” that is Fenway Park, while Rice’s include a lot of games in Yankee Stadium, a “preposterously bad hitters park, especially for right-handed hitters” like Rice. The fairer comparison is their performance outside of both stadiums.
[...] Shared Make it Raines. [...]
John R @57 – really? in 71 Baltimore didn’t have 15 20 game winners? only 4? Oh man I’m glad you corrected me cuz only 4 is so lame. I hope you were being sarcastic and just aren’t very good at it.
This thread has mentioned the topic, so I will ask a blanket question to see if anyone knows: why didn’t either Tim Raines or Rickey Henderson play Center Field?
I’ve always wondered about that; it seems that raw speed is a huge factor in playing CF, even more so that left or right, because you have to cover more ground. Both players seemed to have solid throwing arms. It woukd seem as if GM’s and managers in those days knew anything at all about positional scarcity, they would have switched one or both of those stars to Center.
Besides major “blockage” (and I suppose already having the excellent Dawson playing CF would be one reason), does anybody know a reason?
Sorry, Chubbs. My sarcasm detector was broken.
Raines was a huge part of the 80s era Expos. He should be in.
I’m sold on the Time Raines for the Hall argument, but your column does make one misleading (if true) statement. Sure, Raines and Clemente had a similar number of games played, but why was that? It was because Raines kept playing until he wasn’t good enough to play anymore, while Clemente’s career was ended by a plane crash. Had he lived, Clemente would obviously have come back in 1973 and lasted another two or three years in the bigs. Thus, it is likely that the only reason Raines has more win shares is because of Clemente’s ill-fated rescue mission.
77: True and tragic as that is, one doesn’t really get to evaluate Clemente based on a projected career sans plane crash. All anyone has to work with is what he did in the time he played. Honestly, isn’t there room for both Clemente and Raines in the HoF?
Continued, . . . and for all we know Clemente’s career, had he lived and played longer, might have gone instantaneously south a la Dale Murphy. No, the career-cut-short can’t really be part of the argument.
Chuck, I agree with you. Please note that I said I was sold on the Tim Raines for the Hall argument. There is indeed room for both of them. I just think it’s misleading to suggest that Raines was the superior player based on total win shares, especially given the circumstances.
Joe,
Excellent argument for Raines, should be a no-brainer. And while I like the use of Win Shares for comparison, I think Clemente gets all the bonus points that are not accurately captured in Win Shares (postseason performance, defensive superiority, icon for Latin America).
I’m actually quite comfortable with the idea that Raines’ career was better than Clemente’s. Factor in Raines’ stolen bases, and the effect of Clemente’s slugging advantage disappears. That leaves Clemente’s defensive advantages, and it’s hard for me to imagine how they trump Raines’ clear offensive advantages. Clemente is an icon, and he should be, but he really has been overrated.
The funny thing is that if Raines had been a CFer, I think he’d gone into the HOF a long time ago. He gets compared to Teddy Ballgame and Stan the Man being a LFer. I mean if Max Carey and Lloyd Waner and Chick Hafey are in the HOF, how can Tim Raines not be?
Raines and Hawk together!
Go Expos!
Way more damning to conventional logic is using Lou Brock. Neither him nor Raines were more than average fielders, so let’s check Brock’s neutral stats:
.307/.358/.430, 1627 RC
versus, as mentioned
.314/.410/.455, 1786 RC
So way more runs created, in many fewer outs. Oh yeah, Brock? He was a first ballot Hall of Famer.
Re: Podcasts-
I agree entirely with Tim’s (@67) comment.
Besides, its much easier to goof off at work reading your blog – when I start downloading or streaming things, the boys in IT start getting curious.
What happened to Win Shares? Where on the Web can I find 2009 totals, or all-time career totals?
How did you come to this preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you this per chance? STEVE!*@!##!@!#!!
I had the privilege of seeing Roberto Clemente and Tim Raines play during their careers. But I don’t think Clemente is the right player to compare Raines to. Lou Brock, who I also saw play, is a better comparison. Both batted mostly in the same position in the batting order, both were left fielders, and so on. But you can’t put someone in for five brilliant years. As someone mentioned earlier, it takes at least ten to make the HOF.
Well, Brock averaged 104 runs scored over 11 straight seasons (low of 81, high of 126). Raines averaged 98 runs over 11straight seasons (65-133). Brock average .300 over 13 straight seasons (.279-.315). Raines averaged .299 over 13 straight seasons (.268-.334). Brock averaged 194 hits over 11straight seasons (182-206). Raines averaged 166 hits over 10 straight seasons (116-194). Brock averaged 65 SB over 12 straight seasons (51-118). Raines averaged 60 SB over 12 straight seasons (33-90).
Also, Brock scored 100 runs or more 7 times, and Raines did it 6 times. Brock stole 50 or more bases 12 times and Raines did it 8 times. Brock had 200 or more hits four times and Raines had 194 hits once. Brock had a .391 World Series average, and Raines batted .270 in the post season. The National League batting average (average of all years) while Brock played was .252. The league batting average (average of Am. or Nat., depending on which league Raines was playing in at the time) was .262.
So far I’ve got to give the edge to Brock because he did a little better in a tougher era for hitters. And Brock also was able to stay healthy and actually show up better than Raines, which should count for something.
But there is one area where Raines was better than Brock. Jared made a comment earlier that alluded to it. Jared said that he went to the Montreal ballpark and watched Raines’ return after several years away, and that the fans cheered so loudly that Raines had to step out and doff his cap. Then Raines proceeded to take and walk and the guy behind him rapped a double and cleared the bases. And evidently this was the most compelling memory that Jared had of Tim Raines. And Tim Raines could really work the base on balls a lot better than Lou Brock.
So if this is what gets you excited, then by all means Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. Trot out your OBP and your OPS and let’s get him voted in. I mean, I’m all for it.
He’s not a hall of famer in my opinion and it has nothing to do with the drugs.
Joe loves to make his argument based on things that Raines did during his 10 year peak. Admittedly, it was an amazing stretch.
Here’s a stat Joe didn’t share. Tim Raines played 23 seasons. He managed to play at least 150 games in only 6 of 23 seasons.
He accumulated 2605 hits in those 23 seasons. Does that feel like a hall of fame career?
His career numbers are very simlar to Kenny Lofton’s numbers which he accumulated in 17 seasons. I don’t see anybody clamoring to put Lofton in the hall.
The most important attribute of HOF membership is prominance. Being perceived as having had a great effect on the game is the thing that gets a player elected. That’s why I’ve never really understood why negative effects are ignored. It isn’t and was never intended to be the Hall of Statistical Superiority (even normalized for park effects).
#84 and #88. When Lou Brock retired he held the all time record (post-1900) for stolen bases. He held the record for most steals in a season (118) until Rickey Henderson broke it. He was the first player ever to steal 50 bases and hit 20 HR. He led the league in stolen bases 8 times. He had 3000 hits. He still holds the record for most stolen bases in a single World Series (7), a feat he accomplished twice. He holds the record for most hits (13) in a World Series and most runs (8) in a 7-game World Series. He holds the record for most hits in 2 consecutive world series (25). He holds the record for highest World Series batting average in 20 or more games (.391). He’s a certifiable legend. He waltzed in to the HoF and he deserved to waltz in. Tim Raines is not a baseball legend. He was a great ballplayer. But he didn’t change the game the way Brock did. And Raines never excelled in the postseason the way Brock did. I think he should go into the HoF, but a comparison of Brock and Raines based on regular season stats doesn’t tell the whole story.
#89
You’re also not sharing “all” the information when you’re talking about Raines and you’re not being fair to Raines or Joe P.
You’re counting 6 games in ‘79, 15 games in ‘80, when he was 19-20 years old seasons?? or 51 games in ‘01 and 58 games in ‘99 when he was in his 40’s as seasons?
Also you fail to mention that Raines was the most affected player by the Labor problems of 81-95. It cost him the single season stolen base record in ‘81, it cost him an MVP award in ‘87, plus the time lost in ‘94-95 cost him about a full season all together.
So he lost about 180-200 hits which would have given him about 2800 hits. Plus he would have played 150 games in those 4 seasons so you would have 10 for his career
Also remember that Raines had 1330 Base on Balls in his career.
All together he had 3977 “Time on Base”, 41st in baseball history. He lost about 300 times on base because of the labor problems add 300 times on base to 3977 and you get about 4250 times on base which would rank him around 25th all time right next to Gehrig, Mantle, Frank Thomas, Robin Yount and Ken Griffey Jr. So I would say that’s a pretty solid HOF.
#86 Bullfrog,
I think you have to pay for them now. The Hardball Times use to have them listed for free but they didn’t do it in 2009. I’ve read that you have to pay a small subscription fee at Bill James’ web site in order to get them.
#84and #91
Mark, I actually agree with you. I’m OK with Raines in the HOF based on who’s been inducted in recent times (Bobby Doerr, Gary Carter, etc.) because I would have rather had Raines than some of these others. But Brock was a much better player than Raines, and Brock was consistent over almost his entire career, with a .304 average in his last year. People who depend on “normalized” stats and such to make their argument probably didn’t see Brock play.
Birdman,
I don’t get your point about Gary Carter. He’s on of the top 7 catchers in baseball history, if he doesn’t belong in a HOF then get rid of the institution.
As far as Raines an Brock goes, Raines is clearly the better player it’s not even close. And I’m old enough to have seen both players play.
Raines had a career ops+ of 123
Brock had a career ops+ of 109
Raines was stealing bases at a 85% clip
Brock was stealing bases at a 75% clip
Raines averaged 6.6 runs created per game
Brock averaged 5.2 runs created
Raines had a career WAR (64.9) around 81st place all time
Brock had a career WAR of (39.1) around 290th all time
Yeah, Birdman, to say “Brock was a much better player than Raines” is almost an indefensible comment. You say Brock was “consistent” and cite his .304 average in his last season. Check out what he did in his next-to-last season. Probably the worst regular season of any HOFer in history. So there goes your consistency argument.
Raines’ OPS+ is 14 points higher. That’s an enormous difference, and Brock’s slightly higher cumulative numbers does not make up that difference.
Raines was the best player in the NL probably three times (85-87). Brock cannot match that. As for post-season performance, Brock had some good post-seasons. No doubt about it. But you can’t count that against Raines. Raines didn’t have the chances Brock had.
#64 (Twinsfan): the reason why OPS appears to hold its own with RC, EqA, BaseRuns, etc. is that the only way we have to evaluate these metrics is by their ability to predict team RS. And teams do not vary nearly as much as players in their mix of OBP and SA, or their SB vs. GDP totals. If there were teams as OBP / SB heavy as Tim Raines and as SA / GDP heavy as whomever, OPS would get clobbered in these comparisons.
Great article, Joe. Wish you were around when Dwight Evans was a first-time eligible (not that he’s an obvious inner circle guy like Raines, but he was clearly 90% the player Al Kaline was, for instance). Evans not getting enough votes to stay on the ballot a second year was probably the worst moment in HOF voting history. My favorite Evans nugget: more career total R + RBI (for the voters who care about such things) and fewer outs made than — yup, Clemente.
The tremendous irony is that contemporary Red Sox fans voted Evans ahead of Rice (a slam-dunk no-brainer, if you watched them both play) to the all-time Red Sox team.
Seeing Raines and Blyleven get in would take some of the sting out of the absence of Dewey, Trammel and Whitaker, etc. — not to mention Catfish Hunter waltzing in and Luis Tiant (admittedly in only narrowly by achievements, but actually downright FAMOUS, easily the most popular player in a city torn at the time by racial strife) not getting even a sniff.
I agree that Raines had a quality career. However, it’s not really fair to compare career win shares of a player whose career arc was complete (Raines) to a player who was still effective but died in a tragic plane crash at age 37 (Clemente). The fact that Joe P. chose this stat hurts his case by making it appear that he is cherry-picking stats. Clemente’s OPS+ numbers crush Raines’ but that doesn’t get a mention.
Whether it be Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, Dan Quisenberry or whoevever (Mark Lemke, anyone?), Hall of Fame debate is always interesting. I am amazed that there is never any discussion about the candidacy of the man at the center of these arguments — Bill James.
The people who read this blog probably don’t need to be swayed, but Bill James is perhaps the greatest baseball mind who ever lived. His analysis has changed the way so many of us view The Game. For thirty years, he has produced the most sophisticated (yet witty!) writing that the game has ever had. While his work leans toward “anti-establishment,” he has worked within baseball’s “establishment” and contributed to a very successful franchise.
Simply put, as a contributor to baseball, Bill James is on his own planet. We can argue the merits of Tim Raines or Jim Rice or whoever, but none has even begun to make the impact or Bill James. The time has come to start the movement to get Bill James enshrined in Cooperstown alongside the other greats of The Game.
Blah blah blah, Lou Brock was impacty, impactalicious, impactual, etc etc
Raines was a much better player than Brock. Raines was a better defender. Raines was a better base runner. Raines had a much higher OBP. He had a higher SLG. He had a higher ISO. Brock led the NL in CS SEVEN times. The argument between Brock and Raines shouldn’t even be one.
Brock waltzed into the Hall not for his actual talent level, but for a record based as much in recklessness as talent, and a stupid count stat milestone that penalizes guys with plate discipline many times. Raines reached base 144 more times in his career than Lou Brock (3977 to 3833). He also had 876 less PA.
And for a new favorite stat of name, adjusted weighted Runs Created (wRC+, found on fangraphs)
Raines: 137
Clemente: 136
Brock: 121
So of course, there’s also the playoffs. Brock was a great postseason player, sure. It was also just 92 PA, and he was 25, 28, and 29 when he was in the series.
Raines made the postseason at age 21, but the only series he was in while in his prime was his age 33 season, where he went .444/.483/.556. Then he made it a bunch of times w/ NY when he was a 36-38 year old 4th OF (even though he probably could’ve still been starting somewhere).
The fact is, this isn’t even about Brock’s Hall of Fame credentials. It’s about being consistent in their recognition. Is it fair to not admit certain players just because they didn’t have a desired career trajectory? Raines doesn’t fit the mold, so he’s out, I guess.
Andrew #62 — Good point, except you have Santo and Robinson reversed. Santo was by far the better player, Robby just played longer so his counting stats are more impressive.
dec #66 — Really? On what planet?
garrett hawk #74 — As was noted above, Raines did play CF in at least one season when Dawson was on the same club (‘84).
As for Rickey, he played CF for the Yankees in 85-86. In fact, he’s the answer to one of my favorite trivia stumpers: he’s the ONLY CF in Yankee history to lead the league in putouts (‘85). Given that other Yankee CFs include Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Earl Combs, et al., that is rather surprising (at least to me).
Rickey continued to play at least some CF for the rest of his career, including 4 games for the BoSox in 2002.
zarleyz #98 — Don’t know where you get your stats from, but BB-Ref has their respective OPS+ as 123 for Raines and 109 for Clemente (as was previously pointed out by several commenters).
Jim K #99 — Excellent point. Actually, BOTH of the persons who had the most effect on modern-day baseball are never, ever going to get into the HoF, until and unless they change the voting procedures. In addition to BJ, I am — of course — referring to Marvin Miller.
Just to clarify, I think David meant to say Brock had a 109 OPS+.
Either way, more b-r fun:
Brock: 11.2 batting wins
Raines: 33.1 batting wins
I’m too young to have seen Clemente play. But as a Mets fan, I saw Raines plenty when he was with Montreal. And he TERRIFIED me. He could (and often did) beat you in so many different ways.
And, all other numbers aside, his stolen base total might be enough for the Hall on its own. When you’re among the top 5 of all time at any particular aspect of the game (strikeouts, HRs, defense, hits, etc.) you generally get enshrined. Mazeroski and Sutton are two good examples. The fact that Raines was very good at a few other parts of the game only strengthens his case.
[...] Tim Raines: I point to Joe Posnanski’s column a couple of weeks back as the clearest argument in favor of Raines’ election. Most fans missed out on [...]
Joe,
As usual, you did a great job of explaining statistically why Raines deserves the HOF. The voters and some of your bloggers note a few reasons why he doesn’t:
1. Drugs – but he came clean, admitted it, spoke out against it, and then had his best years afterwards. In this America we live in where we scorn the deniers (Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro, McGuire, etc) but forgive those that admit and apologize (Petitte, Giambi) why are we even talking about this – not to mention publicly going through treatment and making an example of himself!
2. Not as good as Rickey? I know he was great, but honestly, nobody loved Rickey more than Rickey. Tim was a loved teammate, ask The Hawk. What’s wrong with being the NL version of Timmy?
3. Nobody loved him then, so why now? Thank goodness for the internet and ESPN, or we wouldn’t know that pitcher up in Toronto, what’s his name, Halladay? Seriously, I loved watching him play, he was my favorite baseball player as a kid, and I grew up in Minneapolis and never saw him except the one all-star game in the Metrodome, because there wasn’t even interleague play. Like people have said, if he played in Boston or New York, he’d be first ballot – watch a guy without half his stats and ability, Johnny Damon, get more votes than Raines when he first becomes eligible – that will be the real travesty.
4. Never the best, but always really good. As many bloggers point out, even his last down years were good. My Twins would have loved a guy hitting in the bottom of the line up with those speed and OBP numbers – so would Ozzie Guillen – I think he’d have been the best “Pirahna” ever. Was Cal Ripken ever really great, or just good/really good for a long time? So was Raines.
So, I sure hope my boyhood idol makes it to the HOF he deserves. Stats don’t lie. Honesty doesn’t lie. He was a tenacious player, always hustling, immense physical gifts, just in a position unfortunately undervalued and underappreciated in his day, but not now. With Bill James’ popularity now, and your understanding of the Sabermetrics, how can we not put a guy like Tim Raines in the Hall.
Nice article, Joe.
I’m glad Roberto Clemente was your comparative. He is my favorite player of all time, but I’ve argued for two or three years now that Ichiro is probably a better player. People who hear this are quick to object, but I think — as you suggest — he has enjoyed a halo effect due to his earthquake heroics. Clemente was truly a blessing to the game, a superb player and a wonderful ambassador. But he is not a top-20 all-time player. While I’ll have to think more closely about your assertion regarding Clemente and Raines, your point is well taken.