My 2013 HOF Ballot

Rocketman12 said:

I am not the first to compare the two, and I won't be the last to notice that Raines was a more dangerous and probably more valuable player, especially at his peak. Ignorance is not knowing that a walk is just as good as a single, or that a walk plus a stolen base is even better. To be clear, I am not saying that Gwynn doesn't deserve the HOF -- only that Raines and his approximately 500 more BB+SB's are just as worthy.

Click to expand...

Your posts are way too logical and fact based. How dare you!

Raines and Gwynn were very, very similar players in terms of value and despite Gwynn's large edge in batting average, the on-base percentages were almost identical. A single is a bit more valuable than a walk and Gwynn was one of the best pure hitter's the game has ever seen and I beleive he was the better player of the two. But Raines absolutely belongs in my opinion. He was one of the best leadoff hitters the game has ever seen as well as one of the best base stealers of all time. And he has a defensible argument as the best base stealer of all time given the blend of his totals and his success rate. Rickey was obviously much more proficient but Raines' success ratio was considerably better.

Now let all the well-reasoned and rationale arguments that rely on calling people ignorant and inexusable human beings and can't argue anything beyond "fear" and "because I say so" begin (despite the fact that many of the smartest and well-reasoned evaluators in the game like Buster Olney and Keith Law also fully support his enshrinement).

craftysouthpaw said:

Your posts are way too logical and fact based. How dare you!

Raines and Gwynn were very, very similar players in terms of value and despite Gwynn's large edge in batting average, the on-base percentages were almost identical. A single is a bit more valuable than a walk and Gwynn was one of the best pure hitter's the game has ever seen and I beleive he was the better player of the two. But Raines absolutely belongs in my opinion. He was one of the best leadoff hitters the game has ever seen as well as one of the best base stealers of all time. And he has a defensible argument as the best base stealer of all time given the blend of his totals and his success rate. Rickey was obviously much more proficient but Raines' success ratio was considerably better.

Now let all the well-reasoned and rationale arguments that rely on calling people ignorant and inexusable human beings and can't argue anything beyond "fear" and "because I say so" begin (despite the fact that many of the smartest and well-reasoned evaluators in the game like Buster Olney and Keith Law also fully support his enshrinement).

Click to expand...

Make a case for Raines alone without comparing to Gywnn. He didn't meet ANY milestones and all your comparisons are about how he is shy or short of other HOFers. Where is he ahead?

Being a "good" player or a really good leadoff hitter doesn't get you into the Hall. And the dude played like 25 years!!! If he was so good why didnt he hit any milestones? Sh!t even 3000 hits or something.

MansGame said:

Make a case for Raines alone without comparing to Gywnn. He didn't meet ANY milestones and all your comparisons are about how he is shy or short of other HOFers. Where is he ahead?

Being a "good" player or a really good leadoff hitter doesn't get you into the Hall. And the dude played like 25 years!!! If he was so good why didnt he hit any milestones? Sh!t even 3000 hits or something.

Click to expand...

There are many HOF that didn't reach any "big milestone"

Jim Rice comes to mind right away. As does Ozzie Smith.

markakis8 said:

There are many HOF that didn't reach any "big milestone"

Jim Rice comes to mind right away. As does Ozzie Smith.

Click to expand...

Let me be clear, my thoughts around the HOF and who gets in and who doesn't have been GREATLY shapped from the thread I had a while ago about Albert Belle and if he is HOF quality or not... there were pages and pages and pages of reasons why NOT and they mostly included people hating him (and some rightfully so) and him also not hitting any milestones. Also that he ONLY played 12 years which is BS anyways because 10 is the HOF minimum.

So back to my point... Tim Raines played nearly 25 freaking seasons and reasons people are coming up with for why he is so great are like "well he was a good leadoff hitter" and "well he was good at stealing bases" and "he made a few all-star games"... um ok?!?! Tell me something that makes me go WOW HE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL.

Again, make a case for Tim Raines alone without comparing him to current HOFers and how he comes up short versus them but still he was a good leadoff hitter.

EDIT ADD: So I looked up Jim Rice and he won MVP once and was a 9x all-star... had some pretty good career averages, nearly .300 BA, 200 hits a season, etc. Pretty good. I can make a case for Ozzie, no brainer.

Without KISS and Rush, the HOF is a complete joke.

Super Mario said:

Without KISS and Rush, the HOF is a complete joke.

Click to expand...

Rush was voted in this year.

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on your guys debate. And I've said this for years.

There is no such thing as a borderline Hall of Famer. You're either first ballot worthy, or you're not. You're either worthy of going in first ballot, or you're not worthy of going in at all.

It's not the Hall of Very Good Players. It's the effing Hall of Fame. The very best of the best, the elite of the elite. And NO, the likes of Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Whitey Herzog, and many others should never get in, or got in.

IF THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ASKED, 'Is *insert players name here* a Hall of Famer?' then to me, quite simply, the answer is NO.


To me Hall of Famers should be NO DOUBTERS. The Stan Musials, Ted Willams, Willy Mays, Mickey Mantles of the world. Not the Bruce Sutters, and other players who it took years and years to get in the Hall of Fame.

I'm sorry but if it took you to your last year on the ballot to get into the Hall of Fame, you're not a Hall of Famer.


Ron Santo, you're a charity case, not a Hall of Famer. You weren't good enough to get in while you were alive, and the ONLY reason you got in is because you died. And that's the truth.


I HATE when borderline subjects get in. Like I said, it should just be the best of the best, and NO, someone shouldn't go in every year, if there isn't anyone worthy. I wouldn't give a flip if we went 5 years without putting a single person in the Hall of Fame, if there wasn't someone who was legitimately worthy of the honor. Because that's what it is, baseball's HIGHEST HONOR. And some people want to tell me that a lot of these 'borderline' players are worthy of that? Come on.


Have some sense people.

Gonzaleznut said:

NO- Tim Raines
NO- Jeff Bagwell
YES- Mark McGwire
NO- Rafael Palmeiro
YES- Barry Bonds
YES- Roger Clemens
YES- Mike Piazza
NO- Craig Biggio
NO- Sammy Sosa

Click to expand...

And you can whine about me saying YES to players who have been implicated, blah blah blah, but the truth of the matter is that the game of baseball is to blame for that. The commissioner and everyone involved. Everyone turned a blind eye to steroid use, because it helped the game TREMENDOUSLY, and the ONLY reason it became an issue is because congress got involved. The likes of Bud Selig and Tony LaRussa want to act all innocent AFTER THE FACT, when they knew full well what was going on at the time?? Come on, give me a break. The players were doing what was being encouraged by the people in charge. So WHY kill the PLAYERS now, and not the people letting them get away with it in the first place?

Super Mario said:

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on your guys debate. And I've said this for years.

There is no such thing as a borderline Hall of Famer. You're either first ballot worthy, or you're not. You're either worthy of going in first ballot, or you're not worthy of going in at all.

It's not the Hall of Very Good Players. It's the effing Hall of Fame. The very best of the best, the elite of the elite. And NO, the likes of Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Whitey Herzog, and many others should never get in, or got in.

IF THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ASKED, 'Is *insert players name here* a Hall of Famer?' then to me, quite simply, the answer is NO.


To me Hall of Famers should be NO DOUBTERS. The Stan Musials, Ted Willams, Willy Mays, Mickey Mantles of the world. Not the Bruce Sutters, and other players who it took years and years to get in the Hall of Fame.

I'm sorry but if it took you to your last year on the ballot to get into the Hall of Fame, you're not a Hall of Famer.


Ron Santo, you're a charity case, not a Hall of Famer. You weren't good enough to get in while you were alive, and the ONLY reason you got in is because you died. And that's the truth.


I HATE when borderline subjects get in. Like I said, it should just be the best of the best, and NO, someone shouldn't go in every year, if there isn't anyone worthy. I wouldn't give a flip if we went 5 years without putting a single person in the Hall of Fame, if there wasn't someone who was legitimately worthy of the honor. Because that's what it is, baseball's HIGHEST HONOR. And some people want to tell me that a lot of these 'borderline' players are worthy of that? Come on.


Have some sense people.

Click to expand...

Post of the year.... thanks, I agree 10000% here.

Super Mario said:

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on your guys debate. And I've said this for years.

There is no such thing as a borderline Hall of Famer. You're either first ballot worthy, or you're not. You're either worthy of going in first ballot, or you're not worthy of going in at all.

It's not the Hall of Very Good Players. It's the effing Hall of Fame. The very best of the best, the elite of the elite. And NO, the likes of Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Whitey Herzog, and many others should never get in, or got in.

IF THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ASKED, 'Is *insert players name here* a Hall of Famer?' then to me, quite simply, the answer is NO.


To me Hall of Famers should be NO DOUBTERS. The Stan Musials, Ted Willams, Willy Mays, Mickey Mantles of the world. Not the Bruce Sutters, and other players who it took years and years to get in the Hall of Fame.

I'm sorry but if it took you to your last year on the ballot to get into the Hall of Fame, you're not a Hall of Famer.


Ron Santo, you're a charity case, not a Hall of Famer. You weren't good enough to get in while you were alive, and the ONLY reason you got in is because you died. And that's the truth.


I HATE when borderline subjects get in. Like I said, it should just be the best of the best, and NO, someone shouldn't go in every year, if there isn't anyone worthy. I wouldn't give a flip if we went 5 years without putting a single person in the Hall of Fame, if there wasn't someone who was legitimately worthy of the honor. Because that's what it is, baseball's HIGHEST HONOR. And some people want to tell me that a lot of these 'borderline' players are worthy of that? Come on.


Have some sense people.

Click to expand...

So Joe DiMaggio isnt a Hall of Famer in your book?

craftysouthpaw said:

Your posts are way too logical and fact based. How dare you!

Raines and Gwynn were very, very similar players in terms of value and despite Gwynn's large edge in batting average, the on-base percentages were almost identical. A single is a bit more valuable than a walk and Gwynn was one of the best pure hitter's the game has ever seen and I beleive he was the better player of the two. But Raines absolutely belongs in my opinion. He was one of the best leadoff hitters the game has ever seen as well as one of the best base stealers of all time. And he has a defensible argument as the best base stealer of all time given the blend of his totals and his success rate. Rickey was obviously much more proficient but Raines' success ratio was considerably better.

Now let all the well-reasoned and rationale arguments that rely on calling people ignorant and inexusable human beings and can't argue anything beyond "fear" and "because I say so" begin (despite the fact that many of the smartest and well-reasoned evaluators in the game like Buster Olney and Keith Law also fully support his enshrinement).

Click to expand...

Laughable...I don't mean to be so negative, but it just blows me away to see the comparison Gwynn vs Raines...again, Raines was good for 8 years out of his 25...??!!??
Not only do you say they are very similar, but you say they are' "very, very" similar... I just thought the "other" sportscard forums were for these types of statements...

Super Mario said:

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on your guys debate. And I've said this for years.

There is no such thing as a borderline Hall of Famer. You're either first ballot worthy, or you're not. You're either worthy of going in first ballot, or you're not worthy of going in at all.

It's not the Hall of Very Good Players. It's the effing Hall of Fame. The very best of the best, the elite of the elite. And NO, the likes of Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Whitey Herzog, and many others should never get in, or got in.

IF THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ASKED, 'Is *insert players name here* a Hall of Famer?' then to me, quite simply, the answer is NO.


To me Hall of Famers should be NO DOUBTERS. The Stan Musials, Ted Willams, Willy Mays, Mickey Mantles of the world. Not the Bruce Sutters, and other players who it took years and years to get in the Hall of Fame.

I'm sorry but if it took you to your last year on the ballot to get into the Hall of Fame, you're not a Hall of Famer.


Ron Santo, you're a charity case, not a Hall of Famer. You weren't good enough to get in while you were alive, and the ONLY reason you got in is because you died. And that's the truth.


I HATE when borderline subjects get in. Like I said, it should just be the best of the best, and NO, someone shouldn't go in every year, if there isn't anyone worthy. I wouldn't give a flip if we went 5 years without putting a single person in the Hall of Fame, if there wasn't someone who was legitimately worthy of the honor. Because that's what it is, baseball's HIGHEST HONOR. And some people want to tell me that a lot of these 'borderline' players are worthy of that? Come on.


Have some sense people.

Click to expand...

MansGame said:

Post of the year.... thanks, I agree 10000% here.

Click to expand...

I will second that...great post!

MansGame said:

And the dude played like 25 years!!! If he was so good why didnt he hit any milestones? Sh!t even 3000 hits or something.

Click to expand...

Raines only had 19 full seasons, not 25. (September call-ups with 5 and 15 games played don't count as seasons)
Furthermore, Raines missed another entire season due to suffering from lupus and played a few more seasons while battling the debilitating disease.

He would have easily reached 3,000 hits like Rickey Henderson and come close to Lou Brock in steals if lupus didn't ruin several of his seasons.
He has the highest stolen base percentage of anyone in history with 300+ steals.

Several ESPN writers say they're voting for Raines and here's an ESPN article that says Raines was every bit as good as Tony Gwynn:
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sweetspot&id=19680

Austin said:

Raines only had 19 full seasons, not 25. (September call-ups with 5 and 15 games played don't count as seasons)
Furthermore, Raines missed another entire season due to suffering from lupus and played a few more seasons while battling the debilitating disease.

He would have easily reached 3,000 hits like Rickey Henderson and come close to Lou Brock in steals if lupus didn't ruin several of his seasons.
He has the highest stolen base percentage of anyone in history with 300+ steals.

Several ESPN writers say they're voting for Raines and here's an ESPN article that says Raines was every bit as good as Tony Gwynn:
MLB Tim Raines still seeks Hall of Fame respect - ESPN

Click to expand...

Jesus... baseball-reference shows he played 23 MLB season! OK, so it isn't 25 but I said NEARLY 25 years.

Also, I feel sorry for anyone fighting an illness or that has a condition or that gets injured BUT that's life and it's the Hall of Fame and NOT the Hall of "what could of been" Fame. Sorry, you don't think Bo Jackson wants to be in the MLB or NFL Hall of Fame? Probably would be if it wasn't for his career ending injury. I bet a lot of people could pull the coulda woulda shoulda card...

And as I said in a previous post, try to make an argument for him without using the words "would have" or "could have" or "should have" etc. The dude was a good player don't get me wrong... he stole a lot of bases which is sweet and he was also an all-star... cool... but not HOFer.

And to your point, I'll just use Albert Belle for an example... you don't think someone could make a similar argument for why he should be in the HOF because of what he could of been or should of done if it wasn't for having a shortened career?!

I guess we will see with the voting... maybe I'm alone here with the argument... maybe he is a sure bet HOFer.

Even with roid users, i'd like to see Morris, Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens get in. Schilling will get in because he was on that 04 boston team.

Sent from my SCH-M828C using Sports Cards by Freedom Card Board.com

Gwynn545 said:

Laughable...I don't mean to be so negative, but it just blows me away to see the comparison Gwynn vs Raines...again, Raines was good for 8 years out of his 25...??!!??
Not only do you say they are very similar, but you say they are' "very, very" similar... I just thought the "other" sportscard forums were for these types of statements...

Click to expand...

Yes, they were very, very similar players and there are tons of people a lot smarter than me that have explained this far better than I can but I will try my best to at least put to bed the comment that no one is actually stating the case for Raines (although I thought had been done several times in this post already - albeit much more briefly than what will follow). One external argument is linked above, you can Google many more. Go to Fangraphs and create a WAR graph between the two and it is eerily similar (I tried to embed it here - my skills leave a lot to be desired in that area). But a lot of people are too stubborn and have knee-jerk reactions when a name is tossed out or when Fangraphs, Baseball Reference, Keith Law etc. is thrown out. They insist on clinging to pre-held beliefs that prevent them from looking at the arguments critically. Many of the people arguing against his enshrinement plug their ears and just keep yelling "hits" over and over again. I am not trying to say this applies to you - I don't know you well enough to say one way or the other. Just trying to paint a picture of what I routinely see and hear.

There was a comment about evaluating Raines against milestones versus other players but the primary way to evaluate players (or anything) is to compare them to others. Milestones are just arbitrary plateaus that don't have any context on their own. Not to mention it is somewhat hypocritical to me that the same people that scream about milestones are often the same ones that argue to keep out the complilers that just played a long time. You gain context using comparisons and understanding what creates value. Gwynn is an obvious slam-dunk HOF'er and seeing how similar Raines was to him helps show how deserving he is as well. As it often does, batting average fails miserably to tell their stories.

OK, here we go.

Raines reached base MORE times in his career than Gwynn over the same number of plate appearances (I don't understand the 25 year comments as this shows the two players had careers of roughly the same length and it's not like Raines just hung around hurting his team for several years as his age 41 season was very productive). You don't have to rely on some recent "nerd created" statistic that so many people are scared of to see how great he was. And it isn't like more of Gwynn's hits were of the extra base variety which would cause some separation. Some arbitrary number of hits milestone doesn't invalidate that Raines was every bit as good as Gwynn at doing the single most important thing an offensive player can do - get on base. It only makes a small difference whether that is accomplished via walk or hit and you again can go Google the math if you are interested. Gwynn also grounded into 117 more double plays than Raines which wipes out at least some of the benefit of a single versus a walk. Those outs matter.

If you use an OBS+ of 120 (which I agree is an arbitrary cutoff but is a number that is often used to determine an All Star quality offensive season), Gwynn had 14 years and Raines had 11. Using and OBS+ of 100, Raines had 17 years and Gwynn had 20 (every season of his career which is amazing in and of itself) which means they were above average in those years. Before anyone yells at their computer, I know above average is not Hall worthy but it shows how many years those guys were positive contributors to their teams and that is without considering baserunning and defense of which Raines was excellent. These numbers don't prove to me that Raines belongs but it helps me see that he was productive over a long time - it is just one piece of the puzzle. There is probably a bigger difference between his peak versus career than Gwynn which is one of the reasons I conclude Gwynn was a better player in the end.

To get away from the Gwynn comparisons, Raines is 46th all-time in times reached base. He is 53rd all-time in runs scored. Raines was arguably the best base stealer of all-time when factoring in proficiency and success ratio. These represent a great player, Not just a very good one.

And I lean toward being more of a small Hall guy than a big Hall guy but I believe the Hall has gotten a bit too small. I'm glad it isn't like the NFL where everyone gets in but something is wrong when virtually no one who played the bulk of their careers in the '80's is getting in. The evaluation is breaking down somewhere.

By any objective measure using current methods, Raines is one of the top 10 left fielders to every play the game. If my quick scan can be trusted, Baseball Reference WAR has him 6th. We are coming up on 120 years of modern baseball history and someone who is in the top 10 all time at his position is elite, not very good. Someone who is in the 50th range all-time in important categories like Raines is elite, not very good. And obviously someone who is in the argument for best base stealer of all time is elite, not very good. I don't believe including someone with those qualities means the Hall is too big.

You obviously disagree with my conclusions and these differences of opinion is one of my favorite things about baseball. Our differences seeom to boil down to I believe Raines' body of work puts him in the elite category and you do not. Either you don't believe Raines is truly one of the 10 best LF's of all time or you believe the HOF should be reserved for only the top 5 or so at each position. I respect your conclusion. And if you can show me some compelling evidence that Raines wasn't one of the 10 best LF's of all time, I will gladly re-evaluate my position. But I also think you should at least re-evaluate your position that the arguments for Raines are laughable and ignorant. I believe an objective conversation is at least warranted before dismissing him. If that is done (or if you have already done that), then so be it.

[MENTION=4012]craftysouthpaw[/MENTION]

It's interesting to have him as a top 10 LF's of ALL TIME and he NEVER won a gold glove in the outfield. He also finished in the top-5 for MVP voting only once in his 23 season career; 1983. Although, as many would say, from 1996-2002, he was essentially a part-time player for the White Sox and Yankees.

Where can I find the list of top 10 LF's of all-time? How many of them on the list are in the HOF?

I linked one such discussion that list him 8th along with the overall LF list that supports the discussion. All of the LF in this top 10 are in the HOF or would be absent gambling and PED's. If you re-sort using WAR, he sneaks up to 7th (I said 6th earlier but I was looking at all position players and trying to pick out the LF's and missed Delahanty). Interesting they list Rose as a LF and not Musial as I had those reversed. I guess because Rose played more overall games in the OF even though a good chunk was in RF.

I didn't go look for it but Bill James rankings puts him in the top 10 as well I believe.

A lot of these rankings use "new math" but if you look at any rankings by WAR or JAWS, they all pretty much pass the smell test. It's not like they show Juan Pierre ahead of Ted Williams. In most cases, the eye test and historical measures match up pretty well. Of course it is the cases where they don't match up that get the most ink and Raines is one of those. But most of the guys that have long been considered the elite spit out as elite here as well. There is just a subset of guys that have certain skill sets that have historically been underrated and hard to quantify and more robust analysis is helping gain a better perspective. That perspective is far from perfect and still evolving but thought provoking and painstakingly developed nonetheless.


[url]http://mlb.si.com/2012/12/17/jaws-and-the-2013-hall-of-fame-ballot-tim-raines/

[/URL]Left Field JAWS Leaders - Baseball-Reference.com

Note too that the crown jewel of old school sports reporting is now featuring Jay Jaffe who developed JAWS. ESPN hired on guys like this long ago. Whether people like or not, this type of analysis has fully entered the mainstream and isn't just some nerds in their Mom's basement anymore.

a poll done last week of some writers ballots has Piazza, Biggio, Clemens, and Bonds getting in... I doubt that happens on January 6th.