TIM RAINES IN THE HALL OF FAME!

SeattleRaines · January 29, 2009 3:56PM

Who agrees Tim Raine's will be in the HALL OF FAME on the next vote?

digicat · January 29, 2009 4:12PM

He got 10 fewer votes in 2009 than he did in 2008. No one's ever made the jump from 22.6% to 75% (necessary for induction) in 1 year. I think he's worthy, but if he gets in, it'll be a while, and after years of debates between writers and such.

killingdream · January 29, 2009 4:45PM

I think that he deserves to be in but it will take years. I can see veterans committee in his future. Spending just about all of his big years in Montreal hurts him.

Tabe · January 29, 2009 5:17PM

Don't think he's deserving, so hopefully he won't make it next year

Tabe

divecchia · January 29, 2009 6:16PM

I don't think he will make it in.

Donato

TJMAC · January 29, 2009 8:49PM

Raines was a good player, but I never thought of him as a HOFer. He is one of those guys were the numbers just sneak up on you.

gumbyfan · January 29, 2009 9:36PM

Any relation to this guy?

Ironmanfan · January 29, 2009 9:43PM

maybe the Hall of Good; not Hall of Fame

fur72 · January 29, 2009 10:07PM

Rock had a very long career that may have hurt his chances at the hall. He was as good as Henderson in the SB department in the 80's. IDK if he has the numbers. Great player none the less.

goose3 · January 29, 2009 10:35PM

Hell why not? They've watered it down already by adding Rice this year.

CrimsonTider · January 29, 2009 10:37PM

Not before D Murphy, if he gets in before Murphy, I'm quitting this hobby and will start watching the WNBA during the summer! Who's got next?

Brian48 · January 29, 2009 11:06PM

He won't get in. Not even with the veteran's committee.

markj111 · January 30, 2009 12:38AM

<< Not before D Murphy, if he gets in before Murphy, I'm quitting this hobby and will start watching the WNBA during the summer! Who's got next? >>

I suggest you start watching.

IchiroDeported · January 30, 2009 12:43AM

someone is on the crack pipe.

MBMiller25 · January 30, 2009 12:47AM

<< Not before D Murphy, if he gets in before Murphy, I'm quitting this hobby and will start watching the WNBA during the summer! Who's got next? >>

Can I have your cards then?

markj111 · January 30, 2009 12:53AM

I fully understand that there will always be debates about the HOF. Personally, I would vote for Blyleven but not Rice. I do understand the arguments for both sides. When it comes to Raines, though, I can not fathom the argument against him.

I realize that arguing for Y because X got in is not necessarily valid. However, Gwynn is a top tier HOFer (98% of the vote I think), and Raines is as good as Gwynn. He reached base more times than Gwynn, and had more power. I know Gwynn had a higher slugging, but that was tied to the B.A. Raines had a higher isolated power (Slugging-B.A.) Gwynn led in OBP-.388 to .385, but that advantage is negated by the GIDPs for Gwynn. Once they reached base, it was no contest.

If think Raines does not belong in, please support your argument with facts.

Raines Gwynn
ABs 8872 9228
Walks 1330 790

Sac 39 31
Sac Fly 76 85
HBP 42 24
PAs 10359 10158

SB 847 319
CS 146 125
GIDP 142 260

RS 1571 1383
RBI 980 1138
2551 2521

OBP 0.385 0.388
SLG 0.425 0.459
OPS 0.81 0.847

MBMiller25 · January 30, 2009 12:56AM

I think that Raines should be in the HOF, so your not going to get an arguement from me, but one thing that stands out is that Gwynn is a member of the 3000 hit club. He is also regarded as probably the greatest hitter since Ted Williams. I think alot of that is why Gwynn entered the Hall with 98% of the vote and Raines has yet to be elected.

markj111 · January 30, 2009 1:05AM

[ He is also regarded as probably the greatest hitter since Ted Williams.

Not at my house he isn't. I realize that voters and casual fans are drawn to the batting titles. For some reason Raines does not get credit for reaching base as often as Gwynn, nor for being a demon on the base paths. His SB rate is terrific-better than Henderson's.

IchiroDeported · January 30, 2009 1:21AM

The last time Raines was an all-star he was 27, he played till he was 42, coming out of retirement (i think)
He stopped being a full time player at age 35, never playing in more than 109 games or having 320 AB's.

Boopotts · January 30, 2009 1:24AM

My understanding is that amongst people who take the evaluation of baseball players very seriously (i.e., not baseball writers) Tim Raines is considered a no-brainer for the HOF.

bman90278 · January 30, 2009 1:27AM

He started off his career as an incredible player, but he wasn't able to maintain it long enough. His last 9 or 10 years really hurt his chances at the HOF, but he was one of the best in his better years.

TheVon · January 30, 2009 1:49AM

Raines won't get in next year and probably not the year after that or the year after that, but I think he will and should get in eventually. I think that the biggest thing working against him is that he played the first 12 seasons in a foreign country on a team nobody paid any attention to.

Tabe · January 30, 2009 6:24AM

<< My understanding is that amongst people who take the evaluation of baseball players very seriously (i.e., not baseball writers) Tim Raines is considered a no-brainer for the HOF. >>

The baseballreference.com guys would disagree - Raines falls short on all of their HOF measurements (black ink, gray ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor).

Raines had a nice run from about 1983-88, maybe 82-88. The rest of his career was pretty average though.

Tabe

markj111 · January 30, 2009 6:43AM

<< 

<< My understanding is that amongst people who take the evaluation of baseball players very seriously (i.e., not baseball writers) Tim Raines is considered a no-brainer for the HOF. >>

The baseballreference.com guys would disagree - Raines falls short on all of their HOF measurements (black ink, gray ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor).

Raines had a nice run from about 1983-88, maybe 82-88. The rest of his career was pretty average though.

Tabe >>

The HOF Standards and HOF Monitor were invented by Bill James as a predictor of who will get in, not who should. I gurantee you the people at baseball-reference think Raines should be in. FWIW, Raines has 390 Win Shares, Rice has 282. Gwynn has 398.

markj111 · January 30, 2009 6:51AM

Neyer, on 28 voters leaving Henderson off the ballot:

Who knows? And why should we care, really? I would much rather focus on the 417 voters who missed on Tim Raines than the 28 oddballs who left off Rickey Henderson. It's those 417 who really matter.

Elsewhere he called the omission of Raines an "egregious snub."

DrJ · January 30, 2009 7:10AM

<< Rock had a very long career that may have hurt his chances at the hall. He was as good as Henderson in the SB department in the 80's. IDK if he has the numbers. Great player none the less. >>

No one was as good as Henderson in SB, ever. Raines had a very nice career but he tailed off quickly after 94. He probably needed another 2 or 3 good years to make the hall.

markj111 · January 30, 2009 7:21AM

<< 

<< Rock had a very long career that may have hurt his chances at the hall. He was as good as Henderson in the SB department in the 80's. IDK if he has the numbers. Great player none the less. >>

No one was as good as Henderson in SB, ever. Raines had a very nice career but he tailed off quickly after 94. He probably needed another 2 or 3 good years to make the hall. >>

Not a single person arguing against Raines has given any objective reasons why he should not be in the HOF. Does anyone care to make the case? He is so much more qualified than Rice it is ridiculous. He is virtually as good as Gwynn. He does not have to be as good as Henderson to get in (BTW-Raines SB% is better than Hendersons, and better than Brock's best year). Raines is light years better than Brock. He is one of the top 10 LF's of all time. The name of the game is score runs and prevent runs. The fact that Raines walked so much is a good thing; as I said earlier he was on base more often than Gwynn, and his runs scored+RBIs exceed Gwynn's. According to runs created per game, they are equals (see baseball-reference.com). All I am reading against Raines is opinion-I want to see FACTS.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 10:58AM

Raines absolutely deserves to be in the HOF..He was unquestionably one of the top ten all around players for the entire decade of the 1980s, and few players reached base (or stole bases) as well as he did during their career. Playing in Canada for the first dozen years of his career definitely hurt him, as he never received his proper due. The fact that he is not getting proper ackowledgment for his abilities as a baseball player has more to do with perception than reality.

stevek · January 30, 2009 11:05AM

Tim Raines was an excellent ballplayer but not a Hall of Famer and it's not really that close.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 11:07AM

Tim Raines was an excellent ballplayer but not a Hall of Famer and it's not really that close.

The numbers state otherwise...Ryan Howard, on the other hand, is still highly overrated...

stevek · January 30, 2009 11:14AM

<< Tim Raines was an excellent ballplayer but not a Hall of Famer and it's not really that close.

The numbers state otherwise...Ryan Howard, on the other hand, is still highly overrated...

>>

Some need to learn the difference between "excellent" and "great" - I'm sick and tired of everyone's little pet "excellent" player being touted for the Hall of Fame, which waters down the Hall more and more if these only "excellent" players get in...and too many like Bill Mazeroski have gotten in.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 11:17AM

Some need to learn the difference between "excellent" and "great" - I'm sick and tired of everyone's little pet "excellent" player being touted for the Hall of Fame, which waters down the Hall more and more if these only "excellent" players get in...and too many like Bill Mazeroski have gotten in.

If you are comparing Tim Raines with Bill Mazeroski as far as HOF worthiness, then that is a difference you need to brush up on yourself, Steve..check the numbers above comparing Raines and Gwynn. Would you say Gwynn was overrated too, then?

We'll need actual evidence, too, not just anecdotal perception or fan recollections..

stevek · January 30, 2009 11:32AM

<< Some need to learn the difference between "excellent" and "great" - I'm sick and tired of everyone's little pet "excellent" player being touted for the Hall of Fame, which waters down the Hall more and more if these only "excellent" players get in...and too many like Bill Mazeroski have gotten in.

If you are comparing Tim Raines with Bill Mazeroski as far as HOF worthiness, then that is a difference you need to brush up on yourself, Steve..check the numbers above comparing Raines and Gwynn. Would you say Gwynn was overrated too, then?

We'll need actual evidence, too, not just anecdotal perception or fan recollections.. >>

No because I'm also sick & tired of the "stats boys" in Sportstalk with their constant numerical justification for some players belonging in the Hall. Seeing a player play and knowing he is great, is not "perception"...that's reality. Perception is stats in which stats can distort the reality of whether or not a player was excellent or great, especially the "accumulation" of stats from even just a very good player over a long period...that type of player should not be in the Hall of Fame. And dumber still, and I don't think you are one of these, are those who say Sandy Koufax either shouldn't be in the Hall or he was marginal, because it was obvious, and I do mean obvious, that Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but he didn't accumulate a boatload of certain stats.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 11:37AM

that Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but he didn't accumulate a boatload of certain stats.

On the contrary, Koufax's stats for the period of time that he dominated were absolutely incredible...

Most fans are biased one way or another for or against a plyer, and statistics provide an objective method of to measure a particular player's abilities and impact as a player...baseball is all about stats, probably more so than any other sport...so to say you're going to rely on opinion to gauge the abilities of a certain player is a foolhardy pursuit indeed and inherently flawed, and about as accurate as saying that you can determine a player's greatness by simplay watching him play, as what criteria are we even using when gauging such greatness?

Cokin75 · January 30, 2009 11:38AM

I've noticed that Raines' candidacy is popular among the young "statheads". Among those old enough to remember his entire career, most say he was not a Hall of Famer (including me). In my opinion, Andre Dawson was a much better player, but his body broke down and he wasn't able to hang around compiling stats like Raines (or Bert Blyleven for that matter).

SidePocket · January 30, 2009 11:40AM

No 200 hit seasons, no 3000 hits, no Hall of Fame.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 11:42AM

(or Bert Blyleven for that matter).

If you don't think Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF, I can also understand why you'd think Dawson was better than Raines..

grote15 · January 30, 2009 11:46AM

No 200 hit seasons, no 3000 hits, no Hall of Fame.

So you're saying if he had gotten eight more hits in 1984 and six more hits in 1986, he'd be a HOFer?

stevek · January 30, 2009 12:00PM

<< that Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but he didn't accumulate a boatload of certain stats.

On the contrary, Koufax's stats for the period of time that he dominated were absolutely incredible...

Most fans are biased one way or another for or against a plyer, and statistics provide an objective method of to measure a particular player's abilities and impact as a player...baseball is all about stats, probably more so than any other sport...so to say you're going to rely on opinion to gauge the abilities of a certain player is a foolhardy pursuit indeed and inherently flawed, and about as accurate as saying that you can determine a player's greatness by simplay watching him play, as what criteria are we even using when gauging such greatness? >>

If Hall of Fame voting was limited to 5 years after retirement for entry, then that in my opinion would eliminate most of the "perception" problems. But it's all about the money, and the more players in, the more fan interest, and the more revenue generated, so I'm sorta done worrying about it - almost everything in America these days seems to be getting watered down, including our money supply with the government printing money galore as if that's gonna solve everything, so whatayagonnado?

PS: by the way in case you forgot...the Philadelphia Phillies are the current World Series champs. Ha! Ha!

otwcards · January 30, 2009 12:10PM

Without pulling up stats or records, going strictly off of memory, Raines was one of the top run producers of his era. Also, his OBP was outrageous.

Did he benefit from the length of his career? Absolutely, but so did the likes of Don Sutton.

Raines is a borderline HOFer. Not a shoe-in, but certainly worthy.

BTW, anyone interested in some '81T RC's? Check the BST boards as I'm about to put up 500 pieces.

TJMAC · January 30, 2009 12:15PM

Sure, if Tim Raines got in he would certainly not be the worse player in the Hall of Fame thanks to the Veteran's Committee. The Gwynn comparison does not hold water with me because he won 8 batting titles and had a .338 batting average vs. 1 batting title and a .294 average for Raines.

Walking a lot and having a good on base percentage are wonderful things, but are not enought to get you in the Hall of Fame. Gwynn would not be a Hofer had he hit .290 with 1 or 2 batting title and a .388 OBP. I love numbers as much as the next guy, but the Hall of Fame is also about how you feel about a player. I have been a baseball fan for 28+ years and never had a feel that Raines was a Hall of Famer. Granted it is my opinion, but obviously several voters share it as illustrated by the fact that he does not get 30% of the vote. If you do not feel a guy is a hall of famer then typically they need to hit a major milestone i.e. 3000 hits, 300 wins, 500 home runs (maybe) and then you really start to consider that person. I think Craig Biggio, Don Sutton, Jim Thome and Rafael Palmeiro (before the Roids stuff) are good examples of that. Also, another factor is finshing your career strong, which as others have stated Raines did not. He was pretty much a non factor after the age of 35, while Tony Gwynn is hitting well over .300 every year. Gwynn even hit .372 at the age of 37. No offense to Raines fans, but his numbers were below average after 35.

So, here is a mix of facts, opinions and perceptions on why Raines will probably not make the Hall of Fame through election by the Sports Writers.

If you want to approach the arguement that so and so is in the Hall of Fame then Raines should be too, then there is no way to convince you that Raines should not be in. However, if you set the bar at a certain level regardless of who is in, then Raines does not belong.

ejguru · January 30, 2009 12:18PM

SidePocket · January 30, 2009 12:21PM

No, I'm just saying 200 hit seasons are impressive and 3000 hits is hard to ignore. 2600 hits is good but not dazzling.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 12:28PM

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..

grote15 · January 30, 2009 12:28PM

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..

SidePocket · January 30, 2009 12:29PM

If they faced Blyleven's curve ball they'd vote him in.

stevek · January 30, 2009 12:30PM

No rational person would have to post twice to get their opinion across.

otwcards · January 30, 2009 12:31PM

Sadly, the HOF's have become more of a political matter than a talent matter. This is most true with the MLB and NFL HOFs. What I don't understand is that if you are retired for 5 years and eligible for 15 years, what has a player done during those 20 years to make them suddenly HOF worthy? If you don't get in within the first 5 years, then maybe you don't belong.

A classic example is what is happening with the NFL lately. You need someone to take up your cause and plead your case rather than let your career speak for itself.

I can understand reserving first ballot votes for the cream of the crop, but after that, it's little more than politics.

NFL HOF is absent Ray Guy, Al Wistert and Mac Speedie. An absolute joke! Especially after they drop an above average, but not great Andre Tippett in last year!!!

And when you go side-by-side, why is Kirby Puckett in and Don Mattingly isn't? Aside from the WS, they are parallels of each other.

stevek · January 30, 2009 12:31PM

<< No rational person would have to post twice to get their opinion across.

>>

No rational person would have to post twice to get their opinion across.

grote15 · January 30, 2009 12:33PM

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..

grote15 · January 30, 2009 12:36PM

And when you go side-by-side, why is Kirby Puckett in and Don Mattingly isn't? Aside from the WS, they are parallels of each other.

No doubt the two titles and the sympathy from the voters for Puckett helped him get in...though Mattingly also suffered from inguries later in his career, Pucket's glaucoma was abrupt and cut him down while he was still quite productive.

TIM RAINES IN THE HALL OF FAME!

Comments