r2d2
Active member
So, basically what the sports writers are telling us is:
Cocaine okay.
Steroids okay.
Steroids not okay.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...jeff-bagwell-tim-raines-steroid-era/96742034/
Yes. Let's get over it.
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
So, basically what the sports writers are telling us is:
Cocaine okay.
Steroids okay.
Steroids not okay.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...jeff-bagwell-tim-raines-steroid-era/96742034/
The career totals seem way "above and beyond" Raines though...
2295 Runs 1571
3055 Hits 2605
297 HRs 170
1115 RBIs 980
1406 SBs 808
.279 BA .294
.401 OBP .385
.820 OPS .810
25 Years 23
Comparing Rickey's record numbers to Raines like that is like saying Hank Aaron's career totals seem way "above and beyond" (name most other Hall of Famers). Rickey was the best of the best. And that doesn't make Raines not a great player. He just wasn't in the Rickey, Aaron, Ruth, Mays category.The career totals seem way "above and beyond" Raines though...
You're comparing him to one leadoff hitter, Rickey Henderson, the greatest ever. That's my point. It's like saying Jeff Bagwell or Jim Thome aren't Hall of Famers because they're not Lou Gehrig or even Albert Pujols.It seems like the past year or two, there has been a lot of lobbying for Raines to be inducted. The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best, so comparing him to other leadoff hitters also in the Hall of Fame IS fair. Playing what-if based on injuries/health can't be done either. There are a lot of guys who had hall-worthy seasons, but whose careers ended short for whatever reason. They shouldn't be inducted either. When I think HOFers, I think of extremely dominant players who were dominant for a long career. I don't ever remember watching Raines and thinking "Wow, he is among the best of the best." Being the 2nd best leadoff hitter in the 80s doesn't qualify you, in my opinion.
I'm happy for all three of those guys. Well earned congrats to them.
I can't stand the voting, it will never be perfect but what put raines over the top this year!?!? It's been awhile since he swiped a base. Pretty upset about Hoffman and vladdy, they should have made it.
I look at the ballot and the steroid era really mucks it up but they get to vote 10 in, Tim Raines should not have waited this long, it's not like they were electing 10 guys a year until now. And for the ~26% that didn't vote for hoffman, why not? What are we waiting for? His fastball/changeup combo won't improve before next January, when he will likely get in.
I have to stop or my rant will become uncontrollable.
Raines also had 3,000 fewer plate appearances to Rickey, 10359 to 13347, or at least five full healthy seasons, so comparing career numbers isn't fair. In the 162-game averages, Raines actually beats Rickey in a few categories, and has a higher career stolen base percentage.
Raines even reached base more times than Tony Gwynn.
It seems like the past year or two, there has been a lot of lobbying for Raines to be inducted. The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best, so comparing him to other leadoff hitters also in the Hall of Fame IS fair. Playing what-if based on injuries/health can't be done either. There are a lot of guys who had hall-worthy seasons, but whose careers ended short for whatever reason. They shouldn't be inducted either. When I think HOFers, I think of extremely dominant players who were dominant for a long career. I don't ever remember watching Raines and thinking "Wow, he is among the best of the best." Being the 2nd best leadoff hitter in the 80s doesn't qualify you, in my opinion.
It hasn't been just the last year or two. There's also been a lot of learning over the last few years about what makes a baseball player valuable to his team; much of which has been pooh-pooh'd by 'traditionalists', but is slowly winning the acceptance of them. As more people are coming around to the non-traditional stats, they're recognizing that Raines was HOF-worthy.
There's a reason players don't make the ballot until 5 years past their retirement and then have a bunch of years of eligibility. Raines is one of the success points of that system. Sure, he's not one of the best 25 players ever, but him getting in doesn't lower the HOF bar. If you don't believe that, someday you should make a purely unbiased comparison of Raines' career to Tony Gywnn's.
If i was Raines i would be like FU!!! If i wasnt worthy enough the last x amount of years then im not now.
You're a HOFer or you're not.
I hate the baseball hall of fame and the whole process so i could care less who gets what. The whole thing is a joke.