Mock BBF HOF Election: 2008

[AlecBoy006]

A Mock 08 HOF Election. Who will get your vote?


Note: You may vote up to 10 people, since few get in these days.

[AlecBoy006]

Ugh, I meant 08! not 82!

[Erik Bedard]

Well, since I was restricted to four people, I went with McGwire, Rice, Dawson, and Blyleven.

[AlecBoy006]

Yeah, because, few people get in at a time. I wanted to be realistic.

[AlecBoy006]

Don't ignore! I meant to say 2008.

[tearforamariner]

I renamed your thread. If you want this to be as realistic as possible, allow people to vote for 10. That's the real life maximum.

[AlecBoy006]

Ok Fine, I will.

[hudsonharden]

You ought to have "None of the Above" as a selection, if realistic is what you're going for.

[Westlake]

Baines and Trammel.

[tearforamariner]

You ought to have "None of the Above" as a selection, if realistic is what you're going for.

I added one HH.

[AlecBoy006]

That's a good one, that you seriously say no to all.

[Freakshow]

Derek Bell should be removed from the poll. He was eligible for the election just past, but the ballot screeners left him off the actual ballot. He will not be reconsidered.

If you want to replace him, add Jose Rijo or John Valentin.

[KCGHOST]

Raines
Gossage
Trammell
Blyleven

[Westlake]

Noooow I know where I messed up. I meant to vote for Raines, not Baines.

[Colorado Express]

Blyleven
Gossage
Murphy
Rice

[nerfan]

Blyleven
McGwire
Gossage
Raines

in that order. Blyleven has a better ERA+ than Carlton. Nuff said.

[AlecBoy006]

What hat will those guys get in?

Gossage- should be a Yankee, but who knows.
Mcgwire- Cardinal
Raines- Expo
Blyleven- Twin
Dawson- Expo, a Cub would be nice though

[538280]

How is Jim Rice better than Tim Raines? Just curious as some people voted for Rice but NOT Raines. While Rice gets a lot more attention as he played in Boston and has a much more attention seeking skill set (not a leadoff man), I think it is clear that Raines actually contributed more to his teams. Even if you allow for things like fame and percpetion, I just think the gap between Raines and Rice in actual value is too huge. Rice has a 127 OPS+ to Raines' 123, but I think when you look deeper than that and include Raines' steals you can see that he's the better player. OPS+ is a good quick metric but a problem it has it that it overcompensates SLG compared to OBP. If you check more accurate offensive measures then Raines is a better offensive player. BP's EqA, for example, has Raines at .308 and Rice at .295.

Another big factor offensively is Raines running. A stolen base is worth approximately 52% of a single. To look at his OPS more accurately we can multiply his SBs by .52 and add that to his total bases to get a new SLG number. That would make his SLG .474. Taking his CS out of OBP then that gives him a .380 OBP and a 134 career OPS+, higher than Rice's. In addition to all this Raines had a career that lasted about 500 more games than Rice; so even though he was better while playing his advantage over his career is even higher. Defensively Raines wasn't awesome, but he was solid, using his speed to his advantage to have good range. Rice never covered much ground out there and while he wasn't awful, didn't learn to play the wall nearly as well as other Red Sox LFs before him such as Yaz.

In the "intangibles" department, I also think Raines has a clear edge over Rice. Similar to his contemporary Rickey Henderson, Raines had a unique gift on the bases for distracting the pitcher to help his middle of the order hitters. I'm sure Expos stars such as Gary Carter or Andre Dawson benifitted some from having Raines in front of them. I don't think Rice had an effect on his teammates like Raines did.

[The Kid]

Goose Gossage
Jim Rice
Andre Dawson
Bert Blyleven
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Tommy John

[Dalkowski110]

Since the limit was four...Blyleven, Gossage, Raines, John, in that order. I find it interesting that as of right now, Blyleven has more votes than anyone.

[dgarza]

Since the limit was four...Blyleven, Gossage, Raines, John, in that order. I find it interesting that as of right now, Blyleven has more votes than anyone.
The limit is 10 (now?). You didn't think Blyleven would get the most votes? I'd be surprised if he didn't.

[Sockeye]

The limit is 10 (now?). You didn't think Blyleven would get the most votes? I'd be surprised if he didn't.

That's a fairly obvious conclusion considering he has a clear advantage over Gossage for #2

[Colorado Express]

How is Jim Rice better than Tim Raines? Just curious as some people voted for Rice but NOT Raines. While Rice gets a lot more attention as he played in Boston and has a much more attention seeking skill set (not a leadoff man), I think it is clear that Raines actually contributed more to his teams. Even if you allow for things like fame and percpetion, I just think the gap between Raines and Rice in actual value is too huge. Rice has a 127 OPS+ to Raines' 123, but I think when you look deeper than that and include Raines' steals you can see that he's the better player. OPS+ is a good quick metric but a problem it has it that it overcompensates SLG compared to OBP. If you check more accurate offensive measures then Raines is a better offensive player. BP's EqA, for example, has Raines at .308 and Rice at .295.

Another big factor offensively is Raines running. A stolen base is worth approximately 52% of a single. To look at his OPS more accurately we can multiply his SBs by .52 and add that to his total bases to get a new SLG number. That would make his SLG .474. Taking his CS out of OBP then that gives him a .380 OBP and a 134 career OPS+, higher than Rice's. In addition to all this Raines had a career that lasted about 500 more games than Rice; so even though he was better while playing his advantage over his career is even higher. Defensively Raines wasn't awesome, but he was solid, using his speed to his advantage to have good range. Rice never covered much ground out there and while he wasn't awful, didn't learn to play the wall nearly as well as other Red Sox LFs before him such as Yaz.

In the "intangibles" department, I also think Raines has a clear edge over Rice. Similar to his contemporary Rickey Henderson, Raines had a unique gift on the bases for distracting the pitcher to help his middle of the order hitters. I'm sure Expos stars such as Gary Carter or Andre Dawson benifitted some from having Raines in front of them. I don't think Rice had an effect on his teammates like Raines did.
You may be correct in saying that Raines contributed more to his teams as Rice had the support of other very solid players like Evans, Lynn, et al, but I'm not convinced that Raines was better than Rice.

Rice was a top 10 MVP candidate 6 times to Raines' 3...
Rice finished in the top 10 batting average 6 times to Raines' 4...
Rice finished in the top 10 slugging average 8 times to Raines 1... (expected when comparing a 4 hitter to 1 hitter)
Raines finished in the top 10 on base percentage 7 times to Rice's 2...(expected when comparing a 1 hitter to a 4 hitter)
Rice finished in the top 10 OPS 6 times to Raines' 4...
Raines finished in the top 10 runs 8 times to Rice's 6... (pretty close considering a 4 hitter to a 1 hitter)
Rice finished in the top 10 runs batted in 9 times to Raines' 0... (expected)
Rice finished in the top 10 runs created 7 times to Raines' 5...
Rice finished in the top 10 home runs 7 times to Raines' 0... (expected)
Raines finished in the top 10 stolen bases 11 times to Rice's 0... (expected)

These are the reasons I voted for Rice and not Raines. I am typically not one of those guys that supports power hitters (e.g., I don't think McGwire is a HOFer regardless of the accusations), but Rice was so much more than that. Do I believe that his numbers would have been as great had he not played in Boston? Probably not, but he sure was one hell of a ball player regardless.

[KCGHOST]

This is the first mock election I have seen in which Blyleven had reached the 75% plateau. And as muchas we villify the BBWAA you will note that as we as we talk about Raines he is below the 75% thresh hold (for now) and Gossage is exactly at 75%.

[AlecBoy006]

Excellent work guys.

Maybe we could send to the experts.

[dgarza]

Maybe we could send to the experts.
...but we've already voted...

[AlecBoy006]

And they haven't!

[dgarza]

And they haven't!
Yes they have...

...are you really not getting this?

[538280]

You may be correct in saying that Raines contributed more to his teams as Rice had the support of other very solid players like Evans, Lynn, et al, but I'm not convinced that Raines was better than Rice.

Rice was a top 10 MVP candidate 6 times to Raines' 3...
Rice finished in the top 10 batting average 6 times to Raines' 4...
Rice finished in the top 10 slugging average 8 times to Raines 1... (expected when comparing a 4 hitter to 1 hitter)
Raines finished in the top 10 on base percentage 7 times to Rice's 2...(expected when comparing a 1 hitter to a 4 hitter)
Rice finished in the top 10 OPS 6 times to Raines' 4...
Raines finished in the top 10 runs 8 times to Rice's 6... (pretty close considering a 4 hitter to a 1 hitter)
Rice finished in the top 10 runs batted in 9 times to Raines' 0... (expected)
Rice finished in the top 10 runs created 7 times to Raines' 5...
Rice finished in the top 10 home runs 7 times to Raines' 0... (expected)
Raines finished in the top 10 stolen bases 11 times to Rice's 0... (expected)

These are the reasons I voted for Rice and not Raines. I am typically not one of those guys that supports power hitters (e.g., I don't think McGwire is a HOFer regardless of the accusations), but Rice was so much more than that. Do I believe that his numbers would have been as great had he not played in Boston? Probably not, but he sure was one hell of a ball player regardless.

The problem with your above analysis is that it focuses on no larger picture, it is just basically a bunch of numbers thrown together. There's nothing wrong with that for a thumbnail sketch, but to get a real understanding of how much a player did for his team you need to see how it all comes together to provide value to the team. That's what I did in my post. League leads are very spotty in general anyway as they don't show the true relative performance of a player, they just show how he did compared with selected competiton and that is not really what determines value on the field; how they do in comparison with league norms does as that is what determines the value of each run.

[AstrosFan]

Top wOBA+ seasons by Raines and Rice. Note that this does not take into account baserunning, such as stealing and GIDP. I think we can all agree that Raines was far superior to Rice in both departments.

Raines: 132, 127, 126, 120, 120, career 112
Rice: 119, 117, 116, 111, 111, career 108

Raines was actually a better hitter than Rice. Factor in basestealing, and the gap widens. DWS for Raines, 51.2, 2.82 per 1000 innings; for Rice, 35.6, 2.63 per 1000 innings.

So if Raines was a better hitter, and a better baserunner, and a better fielder, how is Rice ahead?

[Colorado Express]

The problem with your above analysis is that it focuses on no larger picture, it is just basically a bunch of numbers thrown together. There's nothing wrong with that for a thumbnail sketch, but to get a real understanding of how much a player did for his team you need to see how it all comes together to provide value to the team. That's what I did in my post. League leads are very spotty in general anyway as they don't show the true relative performance of a player, they just show how he did compared with selected competiton and that is not really what determines value on the field; how they do in comparison with league norms does as that is what determines the value of each run.
I think you missed my point...as I indicated, I believe that Raines was more valuable to his team (I could rephrase that to waaay more valuable), but I believe that Rice's numbers were more impressive in comparison to the league (i.e., he was more dominant or his numbers were more dominant). I agree that these objective numbers paint a subjective picture, but these numbers simply back my point of view that Rice was a better player.

I am a statistician by profession, so I completely understand how a person can turn data around to support whatever they are trying to say, which is obviously what I've done in a very basic form.

[Colorado Express]

Top wOBA+ seasons by Raines and Rice. Note that this does not take into account baserunning, such as stealing and GIDP. I think we can all agree that Raines was far superior to Rice in both departments.

Raines: 132, 127, 126, 120, 120, career 112
Rice: 119, 117, 116, 111, 111, career 108

Raines was actually a better hitter than Rice. Factor in basestealing, and the gap widens. DWS for Raines, 51.2, 2.82 per 1000 innings; for Rice, 35.6, 2.63 per 1000 innings.

So if Raines was a better hitter, and a better baserunner, and a better fielder, how is Rice ahead?
What is "wOBA+" and "DWS"? Please do not say that "DWS" is a version of win shares as I certainly don't buy into that tool.

I guess until I know what these stats are that you've presented, I won't understand how you are possibly saying that Raines was a better hitter than Rice. I will agree, however, that Raines was a MUCH better baserunner and possibly give a slight edge to Raines in the OF, but it's so close that it's a wash in my opinion (both were average at best in the OF and Raines had a pop-gun for an arm).

[RuthMayBond]

I think you missed my point...as I indicated, I believe that Raines was more valuable to his team (I could rephrase that to waaay more valuable), but I believe that Rice's numbers were more impressive in comparison to the league (i.e., he was more dominant or his numbers were more dominant). I agree that these objective numbers paint a subjective picture, but these numbers simply back my point of view that Rice was a better player.

I am a statistician by profession, so I completely understand how a person can turn data around to support whatever they are trying to say, which is obviously what I've done in a very basic form.Do you understand Rice's home park WAY helped out his numbers?

[538280]

I think you missed my point...as I indicated, I believe that Raines was more valuable to his team (I could rephrase that to waaay more valuable), but I believe that Rice's numbers were more impressive in comparison to the league (i.e., he was more dominant or his numbers were more dominant). I agree that these objective numbers paint a subjective picture, but these numbers simply back my point of view that Rice was a better player.

How is Rice a better player if Raines contributed more to his team winning games? Isn't the goal of the game to win the game? What makes a player good? Contributing to his team winning. IMO there is no way one guy can be "better" if he contributed less to his team winning. Rice's numbers were not more impressive in comparison to the league. Raines were by far if you give OBP a more appropriate weight and factor in baserunning. If you are saying that you think Rice is more deserving because he received more praise and accolades while he was active, I can see where you're coming from, as I think those things should weigh in in HOF considerations, but I just think the production gap between Raines/Rice is too large for that to overcome.

[Colorado Express]

How is Rice a better player if Raines contributed more to his team winning games? Isn't the goal of the game to win the game? What makes a player good? Contributing to his team winning. IMO there is no way one guy can be "better" if he contributed less to his team winning.
Are you also of the thinking that Steve Carlton's '72 season was the single greatest pitching performance ever? I don't. I would take Maddux in '94 or '95 (and about 6-8 other seasons from various pitchers), but there is no doubt that Carlton contributed more to his team that season.


Rice's numbers were not more impressive in comparison to the league. Raines were by far if you give OBP a more appropriate weight and factor in baserunning.
This isn't worth debating as clearly we see differently on this subject. I don't really care if my 4 hitter has an OBP of .380...his role is to drive in runs, not get walked and hope that the 5-6 guys can drive him in. I have a great appreciation for OBP (probably the single most important offensive stat), but my expectations are not the same for a clean-up hitter as they are for a leadoff hitter, so in my mind I have made a subjective adjustment. I also view SBs as a great stat, but I don't know how a SB is more beneficial than HR (I'll take the certain run over the potential for a run anyday).


If you are saying that you think Rice is more deserving because he received more praise and accolades while he was active, I can see where you're coming from, as I think those things should weigh in in HOF considerations, but I just think the production gap between Raines/Rice is too large for that to overcome.
Again, we choose to see differently. Obviously this is why players receive 50-60% of the votes and not 0% or 100%.

[AstrosFan]

What is "wOBA+" and "DWS"? Please do not say that "DWS" is a version of win shares as I certainly don't buy into that tool.

I guess until I know what these stats are that you've presented, I won't understand how you are possibly saying that Raines was a better hitter than Rice. I will agree, however, that Raines was a MUCH better baserunner and possibly give a slight edge to Raines in the OF, but it's so close that it's a wash in my opinion (both were average at best in the OF and Raines had a pop-gun for an arm).

DWS is Defensive Win Shares, and it is extremely accurate. It will rate a fielder about where he deserves probably 85-90% of the time. Play-by-play methods trump it, of course, but for a system that goes back throughout all of baseball history, it's as good as any that's ever been published. No defensive system is perfect, and so the difference between Raines and Rice defensively may not be as great as the system makes it out to be. But I always felt that Raines had the greater defensive reputation, based on my understanding. Greater range, I suppose, due to his being one of the fastest players of his day.

wOBA is Tango Tiger's creation on what to do about the problems with OPS. Remember the old saying that players whose value is found mostly in their OBA are underrated by OPS? wOBA corrects for that, by assigning the proper values to the offensive events that occur in an at bat, and scaling it to OBA. I simply calculated wOBA for every season for Raines and Rice, as well as the league wOBA for the respective seasons, park adjusted. The formula for wOBA+ is just 100*(wOBA/*LgwOBA).

Raines's prime years were played in a much lower context than Rice. I would argue that Raines is probably top 75 all time in baseball history, maybe higher. Rice isn't anywhere near that.

[538280]

Are you also of the thinking that Steve Carlton's '72 season was the single greatest pitching performance ever? I don't. I would take Maddux in '94 or '95 (and about 6-8 other seasons from various pitchers), but there is no doubt that Carlton contributed more to his team that season.

I would not consider Carlton's '72 the best pitching season and I still don't understand how Maddux's '94 and '95 are "better" yet didn't contribute more to their team winning. Winning is the goal of every player on the field. What makes a season "good" is that it contributes to winning.


This isn't worth debating as clearly we see differently on this subject. I don't really care if my 4 hitter has an OBP of .380...his role is to drive in runs, not get walked and hope that the 5-6 guys can drive him in. I have a great appreciation for OBP (probably the single most important offensive stat), but my expectations are not the same for a clean-up hitter as they are for a leadoff hitter, so in my mind I have made a subjective adjustment. I also view SBs as a great stat, but I don't know how a SB is more beneficial than HR (I'll take the certain run over the potential for a run anyday).

Of course a HR is more important than a SB but you don't need to consider a SB more impotant to see Raines as a better player. Of course leadoff men are different than middle of the order guys and again this is immatierial to any comparison. The goal of every hitter, regardless of where he bats in the lineup, is to help his team to score runs. All the other things are just WAYS that he can do that. Focus on run production or base production (which is essentially run production). The base value of each offensive event as it contributes to run scoring are as follows (base value is essentially in relation to a single):

Walk/HBP-.72
Stolen Base-.52
Single-1
Double-1.52
Triple-2.2
Home Run-3

You can find how many "equivalent bases" (as I like to call them) any player has. Then to put in productive terms you can put it in a per out ratio. If you put Raines and Rice through this then Raines has 4712.2 and .706 per out. Rice has 4063.4 and .653 per out. And this comparison still isn't entirely fair; Raines played in a lower offensive context than Rice, and he also had 1301 more PA. Take out Raines' last few years, and he's played the same amount of time and is even further ahead. When you interpret the statistics properly and give offensive events appropriate weights, Tim Raines is a distinctly superior offensive player to Jim Rice. It's not even that close to be honest. I'll go even further than AstrosFan and say Raines is probably a top 50 player of all time. Rice isn't in the top 100 IMO and wouldn't be in the top 150 either. He MIGHT just crack the top 200. Probably he'd fall either right in the top 200 or right outside.

Besides being sabermetrically a HOF lock Tim Raines was one of the most exciting and electrifying players in his day. Similar to Rickey, Raines wreeked havoc on the basepaths and kept opposing catchers and pitchers worried about him just as much as the batter up. Like most great leadoff men he had a great influence on the hitters coming up behind him, something that is left out of his own statistics. He was a fan favorite in Montreal and one of the few baseball players who attained celebrity status in Montreal. He is the best Expo in history IMO, it is sad that Andre Dawson is probably doing better in BBWAA voting than he will.

[Colorado Express]

I would not consider Carlton's '72 the best pitching season and I still don't understand how Maddux's '94 and '95 are "better" yet didn't contribute more to their team winning. Winning is the goal of every player on the field. What makes a season "good" is that it contributes to winning.
I think we both can agree that in '72, Carlton contributed to his team winning...correct? I also think we can both agree that Maddux contributed to his team winning in '94 and '95...correct? Both contributed to their teams, but if you were to replace Carlton with any typical 5 starter from that season, they would probably would have won 16-18 fewer games, while if you were to rplace Maddux with any typical 5 starter from that season, they likely would have won 5-8 fewer games. Carlton's contribution to his team was greater, but Maddux was the better pitcher (in those specific scenarios and in my opinion). I view Raines and Rice the same way. Rice may have contributed fewer wins to his team, but that's because his teams had better support around him. Would I feel differently if Rice played for .500 teams...possibly, and "probably" is even the more likely answer.



Of course a HR is more important than a SB but you don't need to consider a SB more impotant to see Raines as a better player. Of course leadoff men are different than middle of the order guys and again this is immatierial to any comparison. The goal of every hitter, regardless of where he bats in the lineup, is to help his team to score runs. All the other things are just WAYS that he can do that. Focus on run production or base production (which is essentially run production). The base value of each offensive event as it contributes to run scoring are as follows (base value is essentially in relation to a single):

Walk/HBP-.72
Stolen Base-.52
Single-1
Double-1.52
Triple-2.2
Home Run-3

You can find how many "equivalent bases" (as I like to call them) any player has. Then to put in productive terms you can put it in a per out ratio. If you put Raines and Rice through this then Raines has 4712.2 and .706 per out. Rice has 4063.4 and .653 per out. And this comparison still isn't entirely fair; Raines played in a lower offensive context than Rice, and he also had 1301 more PA. Take out Raines' last few years, and he's played the same amount of time and is even further ahead. When you interpret the statistics properly and give offensive events appropriate weights, Tim Raines is a distinctly superior offensive player to Jim Rice. It's not even that close to be honest. I'll go even further than AstrosFan and say Raines is probably a top 50 player of all time. Rice isn't in the top 100 IMO and wouldn't be in the top 150 either. He MIGHT just crack the top 200. Probably he'd fall either right in the top 200 or right outside.

Besides being sabermetrically a HOF lock Tim Raines was one of the most exciting and electrifying players in his day. Similar to Rickey, Raines wreeked havoc on the basepaths and kept opposing catchers and pitchers worried about him just as much as the batter up. Like most great leadoff men he had a great influence on the hitters coming up behind him, something that is left out of his own statistics. He was a fan favorite in Montreal and one of the few baseball players who attained celebrity status in Montreal. He is the best Expo in history IMO, it is sad that Andre Dawson is probably doing better in BBWAA voting than he will.
I also agree that run production is critically important, which is why I refer to "runs created"...edge Rice (RC/27 = 6.33 to 5.92)

You don't have to sell me on Raines, he was a great player and he absolutely was one of the most exciting players of his time, but Rice was also a great player and one of the most feared hitters of his time. We clearly choose to look at different ways to rate their greatness. To me, Rice is a "just over the line" HOFer, while Raines is a "just under the line" HOFer.

You've made great arguments, but I'm not sure that you could persuade me to think of Raines as more HOF-worthy than Rice.

[Colorado Express]

Do you understand Rice's home park WAY helped out his numbers?
Without question...this is the only true issue I have with Rice. Had he played his career elsewhere, we may not have even had to have had this conversation as his splits are pretty lopsided. The fact is, he did play at Fenway, he did play on some pretty good teams and he did have lots of support around him.

I have trouble knocking him for it, just as I don't hold it against Boggs or Yaz or left ahnded hitters for the Yankees, or Todd Helton in Colorado or Drysdale and Koufax in LA, etc.

[AstrosFan]

RC/27, yeah, if you look at the most basic form, which ignores stolen bases and GIDP, two areas in which Raines was far greater. Extrapolated runs takes all offensive stats into account.

XR/27 for Raines: 6.22
XR/27 for Rice: 5.31

When you go beyond the basics, Raines comes out ahead. Without context adjustments.

Edit: I decided to go ahead and context adjust. It's Raines 7.25, Rice 5.59. That's a massive difference.

[538280]

I think we both can agree that in '72, Carlton contributed to his team winning...correct? I also think we can both agree that Maddux contributed to his team winning in '94 and '95...correct? Both contributed to their teams, but if you were to replace Carlton with any typical 5 starter from that season, they would probably would have won 16-18 fewer games, while if you were to rplace Maddux with any typical 5 starter from that season, they likely would have won 5-8 fewer games. Carlton's contribution to his team was greater, but Maddux was the better pitcher (in those specific scenarios and in my opinion).

But why? You haven't shown why you feel Maddux was better despite you thinking Carlton contributed more wins to his team. If you're referring to the number of starts they made due to the strike and pitchers pitching less in the 90s than they did in the 70s, then I agree with you, but I don't really think that makes the pitcher less valuable. Value is defined by the leauge average being at a certain level and if pitchers are expected to pitch less innings (as they were in Maddux's era), then that doesn't really have any effect on their value.


I view Raines and Rice the same way. Rice may have contributed fewer wins to his team, but that's because his teams had better support around him. Would I feel differently if Rice played for .500 teams...possibly, and "probably" is even the more likely answer.

Why is Raines only better because of support around him? Based on his actual statistics Raines contributed much more runs to his team. Your whole argument seems to be that Raines got more help from his teammates and I just don't see how that's true.


I also agree that run production is critically important, which is why I refer to "runs created"...edge Rice (RC/27 = 6.33 to 5.92)

That is, like AstrosFan said, the basic version of RC which leaves out stolen bases and GIDP and the potential of a walk advancing runners. If you use a more sophisticated formula which includes values for everything you won't get that answer-just like AstrosFan showed. You also have to adjust for context in which they played which you haven't done. Basically when you adjust for context leaving steals out as you have done, then they're equal-but Raines has also stolen over 800 bases with one of the best success rates in history.


You don't have to sell me on Raines, he was a great player and he absolutely was one of the most exciting players of his time, but Rice was also a great player and one of the most feared hitters of his time. We clearly choose to look at different ways to rate their greatness. To me, Rice is a "just over the line" HOFer, while Raines is a "just under the line" HOFer.

You've made great arguments, but I'm not sure that you could persuade me to think of Raines as more HOF-worthy than Rice.

I really still don't understand what your argument is, no offense but it seems to be a confusion of what run production really means and somehow with team success incorporated.

[RuthMayBond]

Had he played his career elsewhere, we may not have even had to have had this conversation as his splits are pretty lopsided.

I have trouble knocking him for it.We seriously need a head shaking side to side smilie :ughh

[AlecBoy006]

Raines will get overlooked.

I'd put him in.

I hope that he is not a one and done player.

800 basesteals, 2600 hits.

Sounds like a HOF'er to me.