Steve, I will say one thing for you: Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3B ever to suit up..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Well, let's put it this way...I don't think any rational person with any degree of baseball knowledge would say that Rice is more worthy of HOF induction than Raines, so I don't put much stock in what the writers think...after all, they also voted in Catfish Hunter while continuing to exclude Bert Blyleven.. >>
So far as I understand this is true-- amongst people who do serious analysis of players' careers Raines should be in the HOF. What the Illiterati think of the issue is not (at least to me) particularly educational or interesting.
Remember, there are people out there who still believe in intelligent design, Holocaust denial and psychic powers. It's easy to forget how grossly inflexible most peoples' belief patterns really are, and easier still to forget how futile it is to argue against them. Just try to dial them out, and hope they don't vote in November.
Steve, I will say one thing for you: Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3B ever to suit up.. >>
Grote15 (and one day I may even learn your real first name)...I knew there was something I liked about you. LOL
...and that might be the only thing
Why, by now, I just figured you knew it was Jerry...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So far as I understand this is true-- amongst people who do serious analysis of players' careers Raines should be in the HOF. What the Illiterati think of the issue is not (at least to me) particularly educational or interesting.
Remember, there are people out there who still believe in intelligent design, Holocaust denial and psychic powers. It's easy to forget how grossly inflexible most peoples' belief patterns really are, and easier still to forget how futile it is to argue against them. Just try to dial them out, and hope they don't vote in November. >>
Rational logic. It's overrated. Those that use it are usually condemned for not having faith. Those that are condemned are enlightened enough to know that the condemnation ends when they take their last breath. But I digress...
Why do we even watch games and gather our own opinions on players. Let's just analyze numbers all day. In fact take the games off the television and have them played in secluded areas. That way we can just look at box scores and Bill James books. Debates are a lot of fun, but lets stick to making points and try to refrain from calling people illiterate because they have a different view from someone else. Again, Tim Raines getting in is not a crime, but the case is not as clear cut as some are presenting.
Catfish vs. Blyleven
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
I am not necessarily against Blyleven getting in, but the biggest thing against him is he was never dominant even for a short time and did not hit 300 wins. The same could not be said for Catfish who granted did not get 300 wins but was on the top end of the rotation on great teams. Also, yes playing for great Yankees teams count whether you like it or not.
Also, Catfish threw a no hitter, which of course is not in and of itself enough to get you in, but it doesn't hurt.
Koufax deserves to be in, IMO...as few pitchers dominated for even a 5-year stretch as he did.
If Blyleven played for the teams Catfish had the fortune to play for, he'd have 350+ wins easy..he's a far better pitcher than Hunter ever was...
Bly's league ERA was more than half a run lower than the league average throughout his career, Hunter's was about a tenth of a run lower..Koufax, BTW, was almost a nine-tenths of a run lower.
Bly's also still fifth all time in K's and 9th all time in shutouts..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question. >>
You may be right, but sorry...to me...hypotheticals shouldn't get someone in the Hall of Fame.
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question. >>
You may be right, but sorry...to me...hypotheticals shouldn't get someone in the Hall of Fame. >>
For example, I'd be sure there are pitchers who were technically better than anyone who ever pitched in the Major Leagues, who say blew their arm out in college or the minors, and never even pitched in a MLB game...should they be considered for the Hall? Of course not.
Whenever I watched Blyleven pitch, never did I feel I was watching greatness there, which sometimes if not many times I did when watching Hunter pitch. When I watched Koufax pitch, it was almost every time I knew I was watching greatness there. I read Koufax's book and Mantle is quoted and I think I've got it exact, Mantle stated after he struck out in a WS game on a nasty Koufax curveball, he turned to Roseboro and said, "How the F* is anybody supposed to hit that S*" - I doubt if Mantle said that about too many other pitchers.
For example, I'd be sure there are pitchers who were technically better than anyone who ever pitched in the Major Leagues, who say blew their arm out in college or the minors, and never even pitched in a MLB game...should they be considered for the Hall? Of course not.
Whenever I watched Blyleven pitch, never did I feel I was watching greatness there, which sometimes if not many times I did when watching Hunter pitch. When I watched Koufax pitch, it was almost every time I knew I was watching greatness there. I read Koufax's book and Mantle is quoted and I think I've got it exact, Mantle stated after he struck out in a WS game on a nasty Koufax curveball, he turned to Roseboro and said, "How the F* is anybody supposed to hit that S*" - I doubt if Mantle said that about too many other pitchers.
I'd agree with you about Koufax for sure, but Hunter to me was just an above average pitcher who happened to play on some very special teams. Blyleven was not nearly as good as Koufax, but I'm fairly certain he was much better than Hunter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I mean come on now...does this look like a Hall of Fame pitcher? Ya can't just ignore Cy Young voting. Sorry, and you know I highly respect your opinions on baseball and especially on your outstanding knowledge about unopened packs which is extraordinary...but in this case I gotta disagree based on what I've observed and on the facts.
I mean come on now...does this look like a Hall of Fame pitcher? Ya can't just ignore Cy Young voting.
It's no secret that many writers have no clue about baseball...so I wouldn't hitch my wagon to that horse...also, pitchers from losing teams will generally have a tougher time to break through as their victory totals will be artificially low and many writers won't even consider voting for a guy unless he's got the arbitrary 20 wins..
And wins for a pitcher are about as misleading a stat as you can find in baseball...I mean after all, who is the better pitcher, a guy who finishes 17-17 with an ERA of 2.66 (Blyleven in 1974) or a guy who finishes 21-5 with an ERA of 3.34 (Hunter in 1973)?
Bly's ERA of 2.66 was 1.11 runs lower than the park adjusted league ERA that year, while Hunter's 3.34 was a mere 0.26 runs lower than the park adjusted ERA for his year..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Well the Rock was #5 all-time in stolen bases, had a higher BA than Henderson and Brock, was an excellent fielder. Also had a higher SB % than Rickey. IMHO should be a HOFer if Brock is worthy than so is Raines. I think Tim Raines had a few drug issues though and that could really hurt his chances.
The rebuttal to guys who say Blyleven shouldn't be in has always been "but he played on bad teams" or whatever. Firstly, that's false. The teams he played during his career had a a winning % north of .500. Secondly, even on a poor team, wouldn't you expect a HOF-level starter to have a better winning % than his team, generally? Well, Blyleven doesn't. He's something like .010 better than his teams over his career. Take a look at other greats - guys like Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, etc, and you'll see they all far exceed their own teams' winning %. He also gets a lot of credit for having 3700Ks. That ignores that he topped 200K in a season only twice the last *17* years of his career. Greg Maddux had nearly 3400Ks - does anybody think of him as a strikeout pitcher? Blyleven getting in would not be a crime against the HOF or anything like that but I don't think he belongs.
Secondly, to the guy who wondered why Puckett is in and Mattingly is not: Puckett's career was ended by injury while he was still an outstanding player. .314/23HR/99RBI his LAST year. Mattingly wasn't even close to those numbers his last *6* years. Mattingly his 218 HRs over a 12-year (excluding 82/83 when he wasn't full-time) career playing a power position in a park that heavily favors left-handed hitters. The last HALF of his career, Mattingly wasn't even an average player for his position. Seriously, when 17 HR & 86 RBI at 1B is your BEST in a 6-year stretch, you're not a HOF'er. Mattingly had 5 excellent years in the majors (1984-87, 1989). Problem is that he was below average in nearly all the rest of his career.
I'll leave it to someone else for now to make the case against Raines.
Comments
<< <i> No rational person would have to post twice to get their opinion across.
At a certain age, one tends to repeat himself, even though no one's listening, Steve..
Ya mean the Hall of Fame chairpeople ain't a gonna read and review and act on the advice of this hare thread?
LOL
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Steve, I will say one thing for you: Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3B ever to suit up..
Grote15 (and one day I may even learn your real first name)...I knew there was something I liked about you. LOL
...and that might be the only thing
<< <i>Well, let's put it this way...I don't think any rational person with any degree of baseball knowledge would say that Rice is more worthy of HOF induction than Raines, so I don't put much stock in what the writers think...after all, they also voted in Catfish Hunter while continuing to exclude Bert Blyleven.. >>
So far as I understand this is true-- amongst people who do serious analysis of players' careers Raines should be in the HOF. What the Illiterati think of the issue is not (at least to me) particularly educational or interesting.
Remember, there are people out there who still believe in intelligent design, Holocaust denial and psychic powers. It's easy to forget how grossly inflexible most peoples' belief patterns really are, and easier still to forget how futile it is to argue against them. Just try to dial them out, and hope they don't vote in November.
Grote15 (and one day I may even learn your real first name)...I knew there was something I liked about you. LOL
...and that might be the only thing
Why, by now, I just figured you knew it was Jerry...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Steve, I will say one thing for you: Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3B ever to suit up..
Grote15 (and one day I may even learn your real first name)...I knew there was something I liked about you. LOL
...and that might be the only thing
and I know how tempting it must of been for you to say Wayne Garrett.
<< <i>So far as I understand this is true-- amongst people who do serious analysis of players' careers Raines should be in the HOF. What the Illiterati think of the issue is not (at least to me) particularly educational or interesting.
Remember, there are people out there who still believe in intelligent design, Holocaust denial and psychic powers. It's easy to forget how grossly inflexible most peoples' belief patterns really are, and easier still to forget how futile it is to argue against them. Just try to dial them out, and hope they don't vote in November. >>
Rational logic. It's overrated. Those that use it are usually condemned for not having faith. Those that are condemned are enlightened enough to know that the condemnation ends when they take their last breath. But I digress...
Steve
<< <i>Yes.
Steve >>
Yes what? Wayne Garrett was the greatest 3B ever to suit up?
Catfish vs. Blyleven
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
I am not necessarily against Blyleven getting in, but the biggest thing against him is he was never dominant even for a short time and did not hit 300 wins. The same could not be said for Catfish who granted did not get 300 wins but was on the top end of the rotation on great teams. Also, yes playing for great Yankees teams count whether you like it or not.
Also, Catfish threw a no hitter, which of course is not in and of itself enough to get you in, but it doesn't hurt.
Steve
that is why he is in the Hall of Fame.
For SteveK's sake the above comment is in reference to Catfish Hunter.
Steve
<< <i>Actually it was a Perfect game. Add that to him being what they call a money pitcher and
that is why he is in the Hall of Fame.
For SteveK's sake the above comment is in reference to Catfish Hunter.
Steve >>
I've always felt that Catfish Hunter deserved to be in the Hall of Fame.
If Blyleven played for the teams Catfish had the fortune to play for, he'd have 350+ wins easy..he's a far better pitcher than Hunter ever was...
Bly's league ERA was more than half a run lower than the league average throughout his career, Hunter's was about a tenth of a run lower..Koufax, BTW, was almost a nine-tenths of a run lower.
Bly's also still fifth all time in K's and 9th all time in shutouts..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Blyleven belongs in the Hall as well.
Steve
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Catfish vs. Blyleven
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question. >>
You may be right, but sorry...to me...hypotheticals shouldn't get someone in the Hall of Fame.
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>
<< <i>Catfish vs. Blyleven
5 World Series Championships vs. 2 World Series Championships
Ace pitcher on 3 of those Championship teams vs. Blyleven who was never an ace on his championship teams.
5 20 Win Seasons vs. 1 20 Win Season
1 Cy Young vs. 0 Cy Youngs
ERA are about the same and Blyleven had 12 more shut outs. He also pitched 7 more seasons. Hunter had the better winning percentage.
Championship seasons, total wins and winning pct are all poor gauges for a pitcher's abilities, as they depend more on the talent around him than his own ability in most cases. If you exclude Bly's rookie season, his team qualified for postseason play a total of two times in a 22-year career, while Hunter's teams qualified for postseason play seven times during his 15 seasons, including the A's dynasty and the Yankees. Cy Young award voting is also nothing more than a popularity contest in many cases...if Blyleven had played for the kind of clubs Hunter did, he's have about 350 wins and he'd have been a first ballot HOFer, without question. >>
You may be right, but sorry...to me...hypotheticals shouldn't get someone in the Hall of Fame. >>
For example, I'd be sure there are pitchers who were technically better than anyone who ever pitched in the Major Leagues, who say blew their arm out in college or the minors, and never even pitched in a MLB game...should they be considered for the Hall? Of course not.
Whenever I watched Blyleven pitch, never did I feel I was watching greatness there, which sometimes if not many times I did when watching Hunter pitch. When I watched Koufax pitch, it was almost every time I knew I was watching greatness there. I read Koufax's book and Mantle is quoted and I think I've got it exact, Mantle stated after he struck out in a WS game on a nasty Koufax curveball, he turned to Roseboro and said, "How the F* is anybody supposed to hit that S*" - I doubt if Mantle said that about too many other pitchers.
Whenever I watched Blyleven pitch, never did I feel I was watching greatness there, which sometimes if not many times I did when watching Hunter pitch. When I watched Koufax pitch, it was almost every time I knew I was watching greatness there. I read Koufax's book and Mantle is quoted and I think I've got it exact, Mantle stated after he struck out in a WS game on a nasty Koufax curveball, he turned to Roseboro and said, "How the F* is anybody supposed to hit that S*" - I doubt if Mantle said that about too many other pitchers.
I'd agree with you about Koufax for sure, but Hunter to me was just an above average pitcher who happened to play on some very special teams. Blyleven was not nearly as good as Koufax, but I'm fairly certain he was much better than Hunter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
CYA (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
1973-AL-7-0.01
1984-AL-3-0.32
1985-AL-3-0.06
1989-AL-4-0.06
I mean come on now...does this look like a Hall of Fame pitcher? Ya can't just ignore Cy Young voting. Sorry, and you know I highly respect your opinions on baseball and especially on your outstanding knowledge about unopened packs which is extraordinary...but in this case I gotta disagree based on what I've observed and on the facts.
Blyleven an excellent pitcher? No doubt.
But a Hall of Fame pitcher? No.
C'mon folks, quit focusing so hard.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
CYA (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
1973-AL-7-0.01
1984-AL-3-0.32
1985-AL-3-0.06
1989-AL-4-0.06
I mean come on now...does this look like a Hall of Fame pitcher? Ya can't just ignore Cy Young voting.
It's no secret that many writers have no clue about baseball...so I wouldn't hitch my wagon to that horse...also, pitchers from losing teams will generally have a tougher time to break through as their victory totals will be artificially low and many writers won't even consider voting for a guy unless he's got the arbitrary 20 wins..
And wins for a pitcher are about as misleading a stat as you can find in baseball...I mean after all, who is the better pitcher, a guy who finishes 17-17 with an ERA of 2.66 (Blyleven in 1974) or a guy who finishes 21-5 with an ERA of 3.34 (Hunter in 1973)?
Bly's ERA of 2.66 was 1.11 runs lower than the park adjusted league ERA that year, while Hunter's 3.34 was a mere 0.26 runs lower than the park adjusted ERA for his year..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Secondly, to the guy who wondered why Puckett is in and Mattingly is not: Puckett's career was ended by injury while he was still an outstanding player. .314/23HR/99RBI his LAST year. Mattingly wasn't even close to those numbers his last *6* years. Mattingly his 218 HRs over a 12-year (excluding 82/83 when he wasn't full-time) career playing a power position in a park that heavily favors left-handed hitters. The last HALF of his career, Mattingly wasn't even an average player for his position. Seriously, when 17 HR & 86 RBI at 1B is your BEST in a 6-year stretch, you're not a HOF'er. Mattingly had 5 excellent years in the majors (1984-87, 1989). Problem is that he was below average in nearly all the rest of his career.
I'll leave it to someone else for now to make the case against Raines.
Tabe
I'll leave it to someone else for now to make the case against Raines.
Tabe >>
I assume you are leaving it to others because you can not make it yourself.