Poll: Tim Raines and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on March 15, 2010
After our recent Hall of Fame debate on Jim Edmonds, I decided to open a similar discussion on a player about whom I'm much more curious: Tim Raines.
First let's recall some facts about Raines. Having retired after the 2002 season, he's been on the HOF ballot 3 times already, getting 24.3% of the vote in 2008, 22.6% in 2009, and 30.4% in 2010. A player needs 75% of the vote to get in.
The discussion about Raines and the HOF is, in my opinion, more interesting than typical because he was an unusual player. Although he had power, he wasn't a power hitter. Although he hit for great average in numerous seasons (including nearly .330 for the three-year period 1985-1987) he finished with a career average under .300. Although he hit almost exclusively leadoff, he finished with a career OPS+ of 123.
Despite being an unusual player, most discussions of Raines and his chances for the Hall of Fame start with a direct comparison to another player: Rickey Henderson. There are two truths about these players that I think are virtually without debate:
- They were the two best leadoff hitters of the period 1980-1995 and
- Henderson was better.
I love Tim Raines but I can't accept any argument that he was better than (or as good as) Henderson. However, I think the comparison of those two players is totally irrelevant to Raines' HOF worthiness, especially since Henderson got in on his first try. Henderson was an incredible player and extremely Hall-worthy. Raines was less accomplished to some degree, but does that mean he doesn't belong? Guys with 700 HR are in the HOF so does that mean that guys with 600 don't belong? Or guys with 500 HR? Or 400? Clearly this type of argument is nonsense. So please don't bring up any comparisons to Henderson.
The other thing that is irrelevant is Raines' cocaine use in the 1980s. I have already written about that extensively in the comments on this post. Raines made a mistake, stepped up, took responsibility, and took care of the problem. If there is anybody out there who has never made a mistake, feel free to hold Raines' cocaine use against him. But otherwise, let's stay quiet on the subject.
I'm going to try to keep my analysis of Raines fairly short but I invite you to be as detailed as you like in the comments below.
Skipping over the obvious, such as huge stolen base and runs totals, check out these tidbits:
- Over 23 seasons (although the first two in 1979-80 were really just cups of coffee) Raines amassed an OPS of .810, which was an OBP of .385 and a SLG of .425. That was good for an OPS+ of 123. His neutralized batting record, though, shows that he might have been more deserving of a career OPS of .864 (!) probably due mainly to the influence of Stade Olympique and below average Expos teams.
- Oh by the way, his neutralized career batting average is .314 (vs .294 actual) and his neutralized OBP is .410 (vs .385, as mentioned above.)
- At least going back as far as outfield positions are differentiated in the box scores, there have been 7 players with at least 10,000 career plate appearances who played primarily in left field. Four are in the HOF: Yaz, Billy Williams, Henderson, and Lou Brock. Barry Bonds is another who based purely on numbers deserves enshrinement. Luis Gonzalez is the only guy on the list who is clearly not a HOFer. The 7th is, of course, Timmy Raines.
- Among post-1954 leadoff hitters, he makes the top 5 for most games with at least 4 times on base. This isn't a particularly notable accomplishment as Raines' longevity really helped. In fact, guys #3, #4, #5, and #7 on that list (Lofton, Boggs, Raines, and Tony Phillips) had a similar number of career games and similar number of 4-TOB games. It's #6 who really sticks out...guess who?
- Let's take a quick look at his career rankings. He's 55th in plate appearances and 50th in runs. That's a little surprising--given that he hit leadoff I would have expected him to score more runs than guys who batted in the middle of the lineup. I would have liked to see him in career runs more like 30th overall, especially given than he's 5th in stolen bases. Other top-100 appearances include hits (73rd), times on base (41st) and power-speed number (28th). Overall his rankings are not that impressive but I think that's partially because he was such an unusual player.
- He made the leaderboard as both the youngest player in MLB in 1979 and 1980 and the oldest player in MLB in 1999-2002.
- An important part of the HOF argument is whether he was ever considered a top player at his peak. Through the 1980s but particularly in the mid-1980s Raines was considered the best leadoff hitter in the NL. There was a heavy debate about Raines in the NL vs Henderson in the AL. Even though we know that Henderson eventually won that contest in a landslide, the important part is that Raines was in serious contention for years, meaning that he was regarded as one of the best players during his peak period. His 1985-1987 period is almost without comparison, with cumulative stats such as a BA approaching .330, an OBP over .410, and an OPS+ of nearly 150. Over those 3 seasons he stole 190 bases and scored 329 runs (second only to you-know-who.) And keep in mind he did this all while playing for a Canadian team that wasn't all that good and didn't get nearly as much coverage as other teams.
Ok, so now have your say. Please vote in the poll below and please, please, add your comments below. I am expecting very polarized views.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:36 am
I recommend people read some of SI.com's Joe Posnanski's articles on this subject. He puts up some fantastic arguments for Raines, methinks.
I voted yes, and he will get in someday. Yes for a whole host of reasons: great peak, one of the top leadoff hitters in baseball history, all-time best base stealer, etc. He'll get in because of the writers' increasing awareness of statistical analysis. Just look at Blyleven. He never would have topped the 17% of his early years without some significant statistical arguments, and I think that Raines has an advantage over Blyleven in that Raines has a more readily identifiable stretch of greatness. I think that the people who have probably argued Blyleven in will rally around another worthy, yet under appreciated guy in Raines.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Really hope he gets in. He would have my vote (by the numbers) and is one of my favorite players from both his prime AND from those first great Yankees teams in the 90s when he was a veteran glue guy.
I've always been in love with guys who combined great speed with a great OBP. All of us kids growing up playing Strat-o-Matic knew you had to have that guy in the #1 hole, long before big league guys talked about sabermetrics.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Raines has a lot of fans. There's a website devoted to his HOF case at http://raines30.com/ . I've seen some of the contributors there post comments here so we may hear from them.
Sabermetricians love Raines. OPS+ weights OBP a little more than SLG, but not "enough" so OBP-heavy players like Raines get a boost when using the advanced metrics. Also, OPS+ does not include stolen bases. Raines not only stole a lot of bases, but stole them at a very high rates of success. These metrics don't pay attention to lineup position. That's an unnecessary qualifier in my opinion which would be used to promote a player who wouldn't be worthy if he batted third. Raines would be still worthy if he had batting third.
The Expos of the 1980s were pretty competitive. Not a juggernaut, but there was a lot of parity in the 80s. The franchise didn't go into the tank until after the strike.
I agree that not being as good as Rickey Henderson shouldn't be a knock against anyone. Al Kaline wasn't as good as Hank Aaron, that doesn't mean he wasn't a HOF-er.
I voted for the second option. Yes, he's deserving, but this is the same HOF that can't figure out how to induct Ron Santo.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:40 am
I may have posted this before but I'll do it again. Raines finished his career with 2605 hits and 1330 walks. Someone at the Hall of Merit once pointed out that if you subtract 800 of his walks and turn them into 400 singles and 400 outs, you get a player who is clearly inferior to the actual Raines, but who with 3005 hits would almost certainly be inducted. (Actually, the resulting player looks something like Lou Brock, minus the World Series heroics.)
March 15th, 2010 at 10:45 am
It's mindnumbing how the HOF has room for mediocrity (Lindstrom, Haynes, et. al.) and not truly great and defining players like Raines and Santo.
Of course, this is the same august body that said Lou Whitaker was not even good enough to stick around the ballot, and cast him into the same abyss as Jim DeShaies and Shane Reynolds.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:56 am
DavidRF: I forgot the SB success rate. It's not a standard metric used for HoF candidacies, but it's a vastly underrated stat. Other guys that come to mind from recent years are Paul Molitor and Derek Jeter - guys who didn't run as much as Raines, but who don't create outs on the basepaths when they do take off.
I saw an article recently about 2009 guys who created the most extra bases (including pass balls, advancing on sac flies, throwing errors etc). Would be interesting to see those numbers for Raines, Henderson, et all.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:10 am
If you have a chance, read the Sports Illustrated article on Raines from June 25, 1984, or the Baseball Digest article from July 1986. Before some of his best seasons were even in the books, teammates and opponents alike called him the best player in baseball. He would get my vote without any hesitation.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
As a teen in the 80s, I thought the best players in the game were Schmidt, Ryan, Henderson, Raines and Trammell. The last two aren't even getting much serious consideration for the Hall. I thought they were better than Dawson and Rice, two players I was also awed by every time up.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
With 100 votes, Raines is at 85% yes, 15% no. DavidRF makes a good point that stats guy (like, let's face it, all of us) love Raines.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Luis Gonzalez is clearly not an HOFer? I mean, I don't think he deserves to get in, but I don't think he would be ridiculous to consider.
If you look at the raw numbers, it seems like a very very close call. When you look at the era he was from, though, it's a no-brainer that he whould be in.
This all leads me to believe that my eye for numbers has been tainted a bit by the Steroids Era and the still fairly offensive era which has followed.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I should note that my second paragraph is referring to Raines, not Gonzalez.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I hate to say it, but this article made me think Raines should not be in the Hall. I wish I could support him, as a lot of people I respect do, but too much of the argument for him is that he's somewhere near the top of some obscure area. I really don't want to see stuff like "one of seven guys to get 10,000 PAs at LF" or "top five in reaching base four times in a game for post-1954 leadoff hitters."
To me this reads like a classic case for the Hall of Very Good.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
terry312 Says: I really don't want to see stuff like "one of seven guys to get 10,000 PAs at LF" or "top five in reaching base four times in a game for post-1954 leadoff hitters."
In defense of the original post, those were labeled as 'tidbits', some of which may support the argument; others, not so much. It also noted that he was skipping over the obvious.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
In defense of the original post, those were labeled as 'tidbits', some of which may support the argument; others, not so much. It also noted that he was skipping over the obvious.
Fair enough. To me it just leaves me wondering whether the guy who's fifth all-time in stolen bases should be a HoFer. I just don't know. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say that the tidbits struck me as fairly weak tea.
Of course, I also just remembered that Raines has my all-time favorite BBRef sponsorship (it seriously makes me tear up every time) and it sways me just a little towards his HoF candidacy, so you may want to take my analysis with a grain of salt.