Tim Raines

[DoubleX]

I don't know how much discussion has already been devoted to Tim Raines, but I've often wondered about his chances. Raines was a spectacular players throughout the 80s (though great players from the 80s have been finding the doors to the HoF to be pretty tightly closed), and is probably like a poor man's Rickey Henderson or Lou Brock, but I don't know how that will transcend into HoF chances. My guess is that he'll fall short, but probably much shorter than he'll deserve.

Anyway there is so much good conversation here about various HoF candidates - I really learn a lot about various players and their credentials from the posts on this forum, so I'm really curious to learn what the thoughts are on Tim Raines.

[julusnc]

years 23 seasons
games 2502
ab 8872
runs 1571
hits 2605
2b 430
3b 113
hr 170
rbi 980
sb 808
walks 1330
ba .294
obp .385
slg .425
tb 3771

Tim Raines was the best player in the National League for at least 3 years and maybe the best in the Major Leagues for 2+
years.

He is a poor mans Rickey Henderson but that is a Hall of Fame calibur player.

Raines will face some very popular players getting voted into Cooperstown in the next few years so his induction will be pushed back some but he will make it sometime in the next ten years.

[Cougar]

Raines should go in as soon as he is eligible; he was that good.

I worry about his chances though, because players with a career shape like he had -- a very early prime, followed by a long post-prime decline period, tend to have trouble in the voting, since most of the recent memories of him are of a more ordinary player.

Combine that with the historical bias against leadoff types, and the fact that Raines missed some key milestone numbers (3000 hits, 1000 RBI, 500 2b, 200 HR, .300 BA), and I'm concerned he won't attract the support in the BBWAA he richly deserves.

[leecemark]

--He wasn't as good as Rickey and had the misfortune to be almost his exact contemporary. Of course, Rickey is the best lead off man ever so not being as good as him is no disgrace. I would take Raines over Brock though. Not even close in my book. I've got him ahead of deserving Hall of Fames like Stargell, Williams (Billy not Ted), Medwick, Goslin ,Kiner, Clarke and Wheat - not mention a few less deserving HoF LF who don't merit mention here.
--Unfortunately, I don't think the people who actually have votes will see it the same way. He didn't get nearly the recogniton he deserved when he was active and I think Cougar has nicely summed up the reasons why that is likely to be true in the Hall voting as well.

[Brad Harris]

Don't forget the fact that Raines' best years were with the Expos and that will work against him also. By the time he's eligible the team won't even exist anymore. Look how long it took Gary Carter to get elected. Look how little support Andre Dawson has received. It's not hard to imagine that an outfielder who stole bases and was overshadowed by a great (and much more famous) player will be discounted by an incredibly unfair margin by the idiots in the BBWAA.

Consider this:

Raines will become eligible in the 2008 election which means that ballots will be mailed out to anyone who has been a BBWAA member since 1997.

People who are freshmen voters that year will have seen Raines from 1997-2002, when he was simply a fifth outfielder on any number of teams. Guys with another 5-10 years experience might remember him as the aged corner outfielder for the Yankees or White Sox. Only the old-time writers are going to remember him from his glory days in the 1980s (when he was one of the best players in baseball). And who knows? Half of those voters may hold the cocaine portion of his career as more than a footnote against him.

Personally, I think he belongs and it's a "no-brainer." I'm not at all hopeful that he'll ever be elected, however.

[NOMAR22]

Tim Raines should make the HOF in the future. He is one of the greatest leadoff men ever.

[538280]

A poor man's Lou Brock? I'd take Raines over Brock in a heartbeat. He's the second best leadoff man of all time and should be a first ballot HOFer. He's in my top 50 players of all time.

Left Field List:
1.Barry Bonds
2.Ted Williams
3.Rickey Henderson
4.Stan Musial
5.Tim Raines
6.Turkey Stearnes
7.Willie Stargell
8.Carl Yastrzemski
9.Al Simmons
10.Billy Williams

[Mike D.]

I wrote a couple thousand words on Raines HOF chances on my Blog a month or so back:

HOF Case: Tim Raines

Basically, I think he's in, although it might take the Vets committee to do it...tough to tell. He was hurt by a number of factors, not the least of which was his admission of cocaine use.

[KCGHOST]

I don't think he has a chance in the world. His career was basically spent under the radar. The Vets Committee wouldn't elect Babe Ruth under its current set-up.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

His career was basically spent under the radar. The Vets Committee wouldn't elect Babe Ruth under its current set-up.

I don't think that's true. It simply hasn't elected anyone yet because they're no overly compelling candidate. The old Vets committee pretty much inducted anyone who talked like a hall of famer, walked like a hall of famer, or knew a hall of famer.

Give the new Vets committee some time...as more players become eligible, you'll see more inductees...they just won't keep throwing in players who are extremely borderline.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The current vets committee has voted all of two times, looking at the same candidates that failed to get in more times under the previous veteran's committee, not to mention the hundreds of writers who vote. Too early for the type condemnation they're getting.
The gains players liked Dawson and Rice have made the last couple years lead me to believe Raines will get in, but he probably won't get in first ballot.

[digglahhh]

Even though I reject the notion being the "2nd best leadoff hitter" or even the best, means anything at all- I support Raines.

He'll have more trouble than he deserves though.

Here's a question for Chris the Younger:

Seeing as you are a big fan of Bill James, how does being the "second best leadoff hitter" mean anything to you, when James himself contends that batting order has just about no correlation to the amount of runs a team scores over a season?

[KCGHOST]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't think that's true. It simply hasn't elected anyone yet because they're no overly compelling candidate. The old Vets committee pretty much inducted anyone who talked like a hall of famer, walked like a hall of famer, or knew a hall of famer.

Give the new Vets committee some time...as more players become eligible, you'll see more inductees...they just won't keep throwing in players who are extremely borderline.

That's the problem. The BBWAA is going to elect the obvious guys and even the great majority of the mid-level guys. The VC has to pick out the guys who are just good enough from the guys who aren't quite good enough. And you expect this level of sophisticated voting to be done by a group who cheered their first vote when they elected nobody with cries of "our job is to identify greatness"? Not gonna happen.

Remember everytime you listen to Joe Morgan Chortle about what a great HoFer Tony Perez is that Joe won't vote for Ron Santo because he isn't good enough.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

That's the problem. The BBWAA is going to elect the obvious guys and even the great majority of the mid-level guys. The VC has to pick out the guys who are just good enough from the guys who aren't quite good enough. And you expect this level of sophisticated voting to be done by a group who cheered their first vote when they elected nobody with cries of "our job is to identify greatness"? Not gonna happen.

Remember everytime you listen to Joe Morgan Chortle about what a great HoFer Tony Perez is that Joe won't vote for Ron Santo because he isn't good enough.

Would you rather have the old system, where the Vets committee put in almost as many people as the writers, many of them undeserving? I think after all the years of being a bit too leniant, the vets need to be a little strict for a while.

I would agree a guy like Santo probably should get in...and he might at some point...but the fact that he hasn't been elected since 2000 doesn't make me crazy, either. Let's give the Vets a couple more votes and see who, if anyone, gets elected.

Oh...and for the record....NOBODY should EVER listen to Joe Morgan. It's bad for your health.

[538280]

Originally Posted by digglahhh

Here's a question for Chris the Younger:

Seeing as you are a big fan of Bill James, how does being the "second best leadoff hitter" mean anything to you, when James himself contends that batting order has just about no correlation to the amount of runs a team scores over a season?

I don't always agree with Bill James, but yeah, I agree that the batting order isn't that significant. I don't think it's completely meaningless though. I wasn't really using that as my only reason for Raines, just throwing it out there that he probably was the 2nd best leadoff man of all time.

I honestly don't think Raines needs much explaining for why I think he's a HOFer. IMO, he's a top 50 player all time, maybe even top 40. I agree he'll have more trouble than he should. He wasn't a glamorous player, doesn't have real eye catching stats, and had his peak in obscurity in Montreal.

[KCGHOST]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Would you rather have the old system, where the Vets committee put in almost as many people as the writers, many of them undeserving? I think after all the years of being a bit too leniant, the vets need to be a little strict for a while.

The Old System might be considered better (not sure) in the sense that they did elect a number of very deserving players.

[Brad Harris]

The Veterans Committee must reform their system now!

In the past, when the Hall has tried to apply a stricter standard that what they've used in the past, the result has always been the same: hardly anyone is elected for a while until the public outcry becomes so loud (and the gate attractions in Cooperstown fail to mantain newsworthiness) that the "floodgates open" and all kinds of candidates come pouring in.

We have only to witness what happened last month, with the special elections for the negro leagues, to see the most recent example of this. No way individuals like Andy Cooper and Effa Manley get elected if the Hall had been having an annual negro league vote for the past several years and these candidates had been syphoning in.

It's like a river -- it has an established flow, but - that builds up when you dam it upstream. Eventually, the dam will break under pressure and the river will flood, perhaps even rechart its course in places.

The Veterans Committee hasn't elected anyone since 2001 and doesn't seem any likelier to do so in the next 2-3 years. The Hall needs to wake up and make some much needed structural changes before their damn breaks and god-knows-which-candidates are put in to pacify the mob.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

The Old System might be considered better (not sure) in the sense that they did elect a number of very deserving players.

They also elected at least as many underserving or very borderline players. Hopefully, the current system will show they'll elect the really deserving players, but not the other ones. Time will tell.

The old system was clearly flawed, though...so let's give the new one a chance.