HOF: What Should Have Been

HOF plaques

I have spent the better part of the past couple of weeks giving you my thoughts on a myriad of men who were eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame (you can find link to all of those pieces in Is There Room for a DH – just scroll to the bottom for the other reviews). In case you missed it, here is how things played out in the voting that was announced yesterday. Remember, a player must appear on 75 percent of the ballots to gain enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

77.9% – Andre Dawson
72.4 – Bert Blyleven
73.7 – Roberto Alomar
52.3 – Jack Morris
51.6 – Barry Larkin
47.3 – Lee Smith
36.2 – Edgar Martinez
30.4 – Tim Raines
23.7 – Mark McGwire
22.4 – Alan Trammell
21.5 – Fred McGriff

Obviously only Dawson was enshrined. I don’t exactly get the warm and fuzzies there, but a strong case can clearly be made for him (I did just that arguing for him in a piece you can access in the link above. In fact, I previously covered Dawson, Alomar, Martinez, Raines, McGwire and McGriff). My thoughts on the others who gained at least 20 percent of the vote are as follows.

Bert Blyleven: 287 career victories (27th all-time), 3,071 Ks (5th), 4970 IP (14th). Ten times he finished in the top-10 in ERA, but he won 20 games only once, never led the league in victories or ERA, and basically was a very, very good pitcher for a very long time. Was never great, and if that is what the HOF is for, he shouldn’t make it (he never finished above third in the Cy Young voting). Also, how has he gone from 14.1 percent of the vote in his second year of eligibility (1999) to the cusp of enshrinement?

Roberto Alomar: See link above for my thoughts. Bottom line is that 12 All-Star appearances and 10 Gold Gloves should make you a mortal lock for HOF. What are the voters waiting for – Alomar to discover Adamantium (an X-Men reference for those of you that don’t get the inside joke)?

Jack Morris: Much has been made about the fact that his 3.90 ERA would be the worst of any pitcher in the Hall. Like Blyleven, he was very good for a long time but was he every truly great? You can make the argument he was great in big games, but there is more to a career than a World Series outing or two (ask Mr. Perfect, Don Larson). Morris won “only” 254 games, never finished as even the runner-up for the Cy Young Award, never led the league in ERA or WHIP, and only once paced his league in Ks (232 in 1983). One of the best who shouldn’t be in.

Barry Larkin: A case has been made by Jayson Stark of ESPN, and instead of rehashing all of it I will just link you to the piece titled Underrated Larkin Deserves Spot in Hall. Two salient points. (1) Larkin won nine Silver Slugger awards. There has only been one infielder in history with more than that and his name is Alex Rodriguez. (2) His .815 OPS isn’t great, but it’s better than Cal Ripken (.788) and is actually better than all but five shortstops since 1900 who have accrued at least 5,000 at-bats.

Lee Smith: His total of 478 saves is third all-time. He was named to seven All-Star teams, but at the same time he only finished in the top-10 of the Cy Young voting four times in 18 seasons and owns a 3.03 ERA and 1.26 WHIP, hardly awe inspiring numbers. Another case of really good but never really great despite the huge save total.

Edgar Martinez: See link above for my thoughts. I wasn’t at all surprised he didn’t get in, but with all the “Vote for Martinez” and “I Love Edgar” movements floating around, I’m surprised he only got a third of the vote. Will likely one day make it.

Tim Raines: See link above for my thoughts. A travesty. If he wasn’t one of the five best leadoff men of all-time I’ll eat my left shoe with nary an herb to spice it up.

Mark McGwire: See link above for my thoughts. Again, no shock he is on the outside looking in. Clearly voters are punishing him for his connection with performance enhancing drugs as you cannot, as a rational person, dispute his candidacy based on the numbers.

Alan Trammell: Rob Neyer, about as respected a man as there is at knowing the history of the game combined with sabermetric principles, said this week that Trammel is one of the 10-12 greatest shortstops of all-time. I don’t know if that is true or not, I’m inclined to take Neyer at his word, but I do know that Trammel made six All-Star teams, was a top-10 vote getter for MVP three times, won four Gold Gloves, had 2,365 hits and posted a .285 batting average. He also had a season for the ages in 1987 as he hit .343 with 28 homers, 105 RBI, 109 runs and 21 steals.

Fred McGriff: See link above for my thoughts. Using the smell test he just doesn’t make it. Mind numbingly consistent, he was never the best at his position or truly great.

When I have more time I might lament what the hell the voters are thinking, clearly at least a few of the men and women who make the decision when it comes to entry in the Hall need to be replaced for outright stupidity (what sane person would case a vote for David Segui? – and I’m not making that up, he got one vote this year). Luckily for them, I don’t have time to get into that right now because I’m sure I have a scathing review of the entire process germinating in my mind.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: Tim Raines

raines-dawson-carter

Hall of Fame talk is starting to heat up with the announcement of the 2010 inductees mere days away (January 6th). Some players eligible for the first time include Barry Larkin, Andres Galarraga, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez and Roberto Alomar (you can read my thoughts on Alomar in Who Am I?). Other players who return hoping to pick up the required 75 percent vote this season include a host of some of the who’s who in the game the past 30 years: Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Mark McGwire and Tim Raines. The last name on this list is who I’m going to focus on in this piece.

Long considered the best leadoff man in the National League during his career, Tim Raines had the misfortune of being the second best leadoff hitter in the game when he played. Mind you, there is no reason to hang ones head when you are #2 behind the man widely considered to be the best ever to fill the roll in Rickey Henderson, but clearly Raines falls behind Henderson in almost every way you can possible think of. Here are each man’s career bests in the 5×5 categories.

Raines: .334-18-68-133-90
Henderson:.325-28-74-146-130

Mind you the numbers are pretty close, but when we move to the realm of their career totals, the gap does widen.

Raines: .294-170-980-1,571-808
Henderson: .279-297-1,115-2,295-1,406

By the way, Henderson scored more runs and stole more bases than any man who ever lived.

Still, like I said at the start, the decision to vote for Raines shouldn’t be about Raines vs. Henderson, it should be about how Raines staked up against the competition. In this respect, he did very well.

Raines was named to 7-straight All-Star teams (1981-87).

Raines finished in the top-10 in AVG four times (led league at .334 in 1986).

Raines was top-10 in runs scored eight times (led league twice – 1983, 1987).

Raines led the NL in steals 4-straight years (1981-84). He also finished in the top-10 seven other times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in hits six times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in triples nine times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in OBP seven times (led league in 1986 at .413).

Raines finished in the top-10 in OPS four times.

Obviously Raines was one of the most effective players in the game for the majority of a decade as he enjoyed some tremendous success with the Expos. All told, that success led to some marks that clearly place him amongst the all-time greats that the game has ever seen.

Raines scored 1,571 runs, the 50th best total ever.
Raines produced 2,605 hits, the 73rd best total ever.
Raines stole 808 bases, the 5th best total ever.
Raines produced 1,636 Runs Created, the 53rd best mark ever.
Raines produced a 280.9 Power-Speed Number, the 28th best mark ever.

Yes, Mr. Raines was one hell of a player.

So why has he failed to break even 25 percent in the HOF vote in his first two go round in the voting process? My guess is that Raines fails in the most basic of comparisons – he simply wasn’t the best at what he did during his career failing to live up to the impossibly high standards of Henderson. Is that fair? Certainly not. There are a plethora of players enshrined in the Hall who may not have been “the best” when they were playing, just think of the comparison of Yankee teammates Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Should Gehrig have been denied admittance to the Hall since he wasn’t even the best player on his team? Of course not.

In the end I have no idea why Raines has gotten such little respect for what he accomplished as he was clearly the best leadoff man in the National League in the 1980′s. It might take a while for Raines to get his due but I certainly hold out hope that one of these years he will be recognized for what he was, and that was one of the best players every to hit atop of a major league lineup.

DEROSA TO GIANTS?

By Ray Flowers