Operation Zero: The 2013 Hall of Fame Class

I’ve resisted writing about the 2013 MLB Hall of Fame candidates up until this point. Before detailing why it is insane that no players were elected to the Hall of Fame this year, I thought I would simply cut and past some of my tweets from the BaseballGuys’ Twitter feed over the past few days.

So hypocritical – people are busted weekly in NFL for steroids, no one cares. Merriman made the Pro Bowl year he got popped.

We have the Mitchell Report and what else? There’s no way to know what someone did 15 years ago.

Everyone can think what they want, I just think it’s extremely cynical just to assume everyone who is good is guilty.

Did some players use drugs to enhance their performance? Absolutely they did. Do we know everyone who did/didn’t? There is no way to know.

We have to judge players against others in their era. I’m so sick of Everyone accusing Every player of cheating w/o proof.

My point is that we have NO idea who used PEDs and who didn’t. In USA you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Players in the 1970′s all used “greenies” – do we then say everyone in the 70′s is a cheater and should be downgraded?

Can’t we just say the era is tainted and move on? This PED stuff is soooo played out.

Newsflash people – players have cheated since the game was invented.

And this from Dustin Swedelson, a producer at SiriusXM (@dustinswedelson)

Remember when the writers who vote for baseball HOF’s jobs mattered again because of the steroid era? Didn’t hear them investigate then

Here’s my bottom line. We don’t know who did PED’s. We will never know. Baseball needs to decide how it will handle this. (A) We say everyone who played baseball for 15 years can’t be inducted into Cooperstown. (B) We admit that players cheated, compare them against their contemporaries, and judge them based upon their on the field merits. It’s really as simple as that folks. Without evidence, EVIDENCE, we can’t choose to exclude or include this person or that person because of a feeling. Well people can, but it’s grossly misguided and absolutely nonsensical for people to do so. So stop the madness folks. Decide everyone is out or everyone will be judged based on their performance. Short of irrefutable proof that a player cheated it’s an assault on common sense to exclude players simply because you have a “feeling” they cheated. Preposterous.

Here are the actual results of the 2013 vote.

Here are my thoughts on all the players who received at least 10 percent of the 2013 vote.

Craig Biggio (68.2 percent – 75 percent is needed for election): One of the scrappiest player of the last 30 years, Biggio came up as a catcher, won four Gold Gloves at second base, and then moved to the outfield later in his career. Other than a guy like Pete Rose, who has done that at the level of Biggio? Craig is 15th all-time in runs scored, 21st in hits (3,060) and fifth in doubles. Heck, he even went deep 291 times in his career. He should be enshrined.

Jack Morris (67.7 percent): His support continues to grow, but it’s revisionist history. The guy may have thrown a ton of innings and come up big in some big games, but my HOF has no place for a pitcher who never led the league in WHIP or ERA, and only once led his league in strikeouts (232 in 1983). Heck, he was never even the runner up for the Cy Young Award.

Jeff Bagwell (59.6 percent): My thoughts can be found in The Case for Bagwell.

Mike Piazza (57.8 percent): How in the world can the greatest hitting catcher of all-time not be in the HOF? From 1993-2002 an average Pizza season was a .322 average, 35 homers, 107 RBIs, 85 runs scored and an OPS of .969. How many elite level players ever have a season that good once? – and he did it for a decade. While catching.

Tim Raines (52.2 percent): A travesty he’s not been elected. See HOF: Tim Raines.

Lee Smith (47.8 percent): I gave my thoughts on closers in What is a HOF Closer? The 478 saves are amazing, and his longevity is impressive (13-straight years with at least 25 saves from 1983-95). I’m not overly impressive by guys that throw one inning though. I’m even less impressed by a guys save total as saves are a result of opportunity (we all know some teams use their “better” pitcher in a setup role). A 8.73 K/9, 2.57 K/BB, 3.03 ERA and 1.26 WHIP just don’t do it for me.

Curt Schilling (38.8 percent): He was dominant in the post-season going 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and 0.97 WHIP and that’s great, but someone shouldn’t be in or out based on 133.1 playoff innings. Won “only” 216 games but had a solid .597 winning percentage, and for his career his ERA+ was 127 meaning his 3.46 raw ERA was 27 percent better than the league average, an impressive number. He also struck better than 8.5 batters per nine, and for his career his 4.38 K/BB ratio is elite (it’s the best ever for a pitcher who threw 3,000 innings). He’s in – barely.

Roger Clemens (37.6 percent): One of the 10 greatest pitchers of all-time if you judge base on the numbers. An MVP award, seven Cy Young’s, 9th all-time in wins, 3rd in strikeouts and his ERA+ was 143, forty three percent better than the league average (his raw ERA was 3.12, his WHIP 1.17). The case against him is certainly there, but I’m still putting him in.

Barry Bonds (36.2 percent): There may be no more conclusive case about PED use for a player than the case with Bonds. Fourteen All-Star games, eight Gold Gloves, seven MVP awards – separated by eight years (his last of the ‘first’ cycle was in 1993 and his first in the ‘second’ cycle was 2001). First all-time in homers, 3rd in runs, 4th in RBIs, 6th in OBP, 6th in SLG and 4th in OPS. Oh yeah, he also stole 514 bags. One of the three greatest offensive forces the game ever saw. He’s out, and it’s a shame, but honestly, this call is more an indictment of baseball than Bonds.

Edgar Martinez (35.9 percent): See the argument in Is There Room for a DH?

Alan Trammell (33.6 percent): A really good player who had four Gold Gloves and six All-Star games nods. Still, he only finished as a top-5 MVP vote getter once, only had two 20 homer seasons, only one 100 RBI effort and just three seasons of more than 85 runs scored. Really good, but the Hall of Fame is for great – even if he was a very good fielder.

Larry Walker (21.6 percent): My best guess is that he will never be voted in, not because of PED use, but because people hold Coors Field, pre-humidor, against him. He finished his career with more homers than Joe DiMaggio (383 to 361), had more RBIs than Roberto Clemente (1,311 to 1,305), had more runs scored than Barry Larkin (1,355 to 1,329), a better batting average than Manny Ramirez (.313 to .312) and a better OPS than than all but 15 other men who played the game (.965). He’s also the only man since 1930 to have three straight seasons of hitting .360 (1997-99). Based upon the numbers he’s gotta be in, but with only a handful of huge run producing seasons, only four 140 games seasons, and the Coors Field effect, he’s as close as you can get for me without being included.

Fred McGriff (20.7 percent): See the discussion Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

Dale Murphy (18.6 percent): My favorite player as a kid, and even better than his work on the field is the fact that he is an amazing human being who never once had a hint of scandal. From 1980-89 here are Murphy’s ranks among all players: 2nd in extra base hits, 2nd in HRs, 2nd in RBIs and 4th in runs. He also won 2 MVPs, was named to the All-Star team seven times and he won five Gold Gloves. One other plus. In 1980 Murphy was catcher eligible in fantasy baseball (27 games at C in ’79). He went .281-33-89-98-9. Just barely outside without a key to the door. He will have to hope the Veteran’s Committee votes him in as his 15 years on the regular ballot are up.

Mark McGwire (16.9 percent): An admitted cheater. From 1987 through his final year in the big leagues (2001), here is how McGwire ranked in a myriad of categories for that 15-year stretch: McGwire hit 580 homers, the most in baseball (Barry Bonds had 551). McGwire had 1,405 RBI, third most in baseball (Bonds had 1,494). McGwire had a .590 SLG, the third best mark in baseball (Bonds and Manny Ramirez led the way at .594). McGwire had a .985 OPS, fourth in baseball (Bonds at 1.017). I’ll leave him out since he admitted cheating, but even so, I’m inclined to cast my vote in favor of his election given his work on the field. Being honest actually works against McGwire… does that seem right to you?

Don Mattingly (13.2 percent): Mattingly had a very short peak as an elite hitter (before his back went bad), but from ’84-’89 here are his big league rankings: 3rd in AVG, 1st in 2B, 1st in EBH, 1st in RBI, 6th HR, 5th OPS. Mattingly also won nine Gold Gloves for his work at first base. A great player but he’s on the outside looking in cause his elite performance didn’t last long enough.

Sammy Sosa (12.5 percent): Everyone “knows” he cheated, but unlike McGwire he never admitted it (famously Sosa acted like he couldn’t speak English when he was called in front of Congress). From 1994-2003 here is what an “average” Sosa season looked like: .290-47-122-104-13 with a .958 OPS. Since we don’t have “proof” that he cheated, he goes in on my ballot. Remember, I’m not voting people out because we “know” a guy was dirty.

Finally, two articles.

A very informative piece from the NY Times entitled Hall of Fame Has Always Made Room for Infamy.

Jayson Stark’s Take on what the HOF has become.

By Ray Flowers

What is a HOF Closer?

We’d all like to think we could recognize greatness when we see it. When Albert Pujols unleashes his beautifully timed swing with an exquisite follow-through, you know you are witnessing greatness. When Roy Halladay is baffling hitters with pitches from all angles at all speeds going in all directions, you know you are witnessing greatness. But how do you know you are witnessing greatness when we are talking about relief pitchers who only toss an inning per outing?

This question will continue to be raised in the coming years, especially when it comes to Hall of Fame balloting as the voters try to place closers into historical context given that they have truly been a part of the landscape, at least in their current role, for barely 25 years. Is there a number of saves that guarantees election to the Hall of Fame like 300 wins for a pitcher and 3,000 hits for a batter? To this point in the voting process there is no agreed upon number for greatness. Lee Smith, who is third all-time with 478 saves, received only 45.3 percent of the vote in the latest go round (you need 75 percent to be inducted into the Hall). John Franco, who is 4th on the saves list with 424, was named only 27 ballots this year falling below five percent of the vote at 4.6 percent meaning he will no longer be eligible to be voted on during balloting. Apparently, 400 saves doesn’t guarantee you entry to the Hall.

But what about 500 saves? There are currently only two men in that club and one is Mariano Rivera with 559 saves. Will he make the Hall of Fame? Is that the dumbest question I have ever posed on BaseballGuys.com?

What about the other man with at least 500 saves, who is also the only man in history with 600 – Trevor Hoffman – who just announced his retirement from the game? Of course he will make the Hall of Fame, wont he? I say if he doesn’t get elected on the first ballot then the voters are detached from reality. Whatever you think of the save – and frankly it’s not a very good way to judge a pitchers effectiveness – the fact of the matter is that the game is run in order to get a team’s closer into the game in the 9th inning to seal a victory. Given that every team in the game follows this formula, how could you possibly not reward the men that were the best at what they do?

Hoffman led the league in saves, shockingly, only twice (53 in 1998 and 46 in 2006), in his storied career. Still, he is the all-time leader both in saves and games finished (856). Hoffman was also in the top-7 in saves 15 times in 16 seasons, only missing out in 2003 when injury limited him to nine innings. Moreover, Hoffman also had stretches of eight and six years in a row with 30-saves – the run of eight from 1995-2002 is tied with Rivera (2003-10) for the longest stretch in history. That means Hoffman racked up 14 seasons of 30 saves, the most in the history of the game (Rivera has 13 such seasons).

More than just a saves machine, Hoffman and his change-up posted an ERA of 2.87 for his career, 49.1 percent better than the league average of 4.28. Hoffman also registered a stupendous WHIP of 1.06, a K/9 mark of 9.36, and a K.BB ratio of 3.69. All of those numbers, every single one of them, speaks to Hoffman’s HOF credentials.

Obviously Hoffman did his job, arguably, as well as any man who ever played the game. However, he just doesn’t have the mystic of Mariano Rivera who not only pitches for the Yankees but somehow has gotten batters our for all of these years with just a single pitch. Not only that, Rivera has been the greatest postseason pitcher the game has ever seen; Rivera is 8-1 with 42 saves, a 0.71 ERA and a 0.77 WHIP over 139.2 innings whereas Hoffman made just 12 postseason appearances that included a blown save in his only World Series. Hoffman spent virtually his entire career on the West Coast meaning many people may have actually seen him pitch only a handful of times, and that certainly wont help his candidacy. He also toiled away on a second division club for the majority of his career, and his success was predicated on a devastating change-up that sure didn’t impress many who were watching the game from the grandstand. All Hoffman did, day after day, was get people out.

Will that be good enough for the Hall of Fame even if those who watched him pitch never used the word “greatness” to describe his work? Time will tell, but if I had a ballot I would put a check mark next to Trevor Hoffman’s name without hesitation – he was the best to ever fill the role of closer in the history of the National League.

By Ray Flowers

The 2011 Hall of Fame Class

The Hall of Fame vote for 2011 was released today, and unsurprisingly there were two names listed highlighted by the the name of Roberto Alomar, a year after he was denied entry (to all the voters who withheld their vote for Alomar because of the spitting incident, get off your flipping high horse. I’m sure none of you ever did something of questionable moral value). You can read my reasons for having not a scintilla of doubt about the inclusion of Alomar in the Hall of Fame in Who am I? The other player selected was Bert Blyleven who was finally chosen for the Hall in his 14th year on the ballot. Here are the results of the top-5 from this year’s balloting (a player needs to be named on 75% of the ballots to be awarded a spot in the Hall).

Roberto Alomar: 90.0%
Bert Blyleven: 79.7%
Barry Larkin: 62.1%
Jack Morris: 53.5%
Lee Smith: 45.3%

* For the complete results you can visit The Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

Two of my personal favorites failed to reach 45 percent of the votes in Jeff Bagwell (41.7%) and Tim Raines (37.5%). You can find my reasons for supporting Bagwell in HOF: The Case for Bagwell. As for Raines, I wrote a report titled simply HOF: Tim Raines. However, I’ve never written much about Blyleven, so I thought I would share some thoughts on his election. Some facts on Blyleven.

He was named to three All-Star teams.
He won a Cy Young Award.
He won 133 games in his first 10 seasons.
He owns a career winning percentage of .542.
He was top-10 in complete games eight times including four seasons in which he led the league.
He has an ERA+ mark of 1.14 (14 percent better than the league average).

Are you ready to have your mind blown like the first time you saw The Sixth Sense? Those aren’t numbers that belong to Bert Blyleven, they belong to Barry Zito. I’ll give you a moment to comprehend what we are working our way up to here by giving you Blyleven’s real numbers.

Blyleven was named to two All-Star games, one less than Zito.
Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he was 3rd in 1984-85).
Blyleven won 148 games his first 10 years, an average of 1.5 wins a year more than Zito.
Blyleven owns a career winning percentage of .534, .008 less than Zito.
Blyleven was top-10 in complete games 12 times but led the league only once.
Blyleven has an ERA+ mark of 118, slightly better than Zito’s 114 mark.

I think my point should be evident, should it not? I’m not saying Barry Zito should be in the Hall of Fame, but I think it’s rather poignant to think that Barry Zito has been the equal of Blyleven for the first 10 seasons of his career. So I ask, is there anyone out there that thinks Zito will one day deserve to be in the Hall of Fame even if he has another 10 years like his first 10? I mean really, Bert Blyleven was inducted into the Hall of Fame for being a very good pitcher for an awfully long period of time, but when did the Hall of Fame became the domain of very good ball players?

Let me hit on Jack Morris before I leave you today. Let’s compare Morris to Blyleven in some major categories and see if there are real differences between the two.

Blyleven: Two All-Star games
J.Morris: Five All-Star games

Blyleven: 0.45 career shares in Cy Young voting
J.Morris: 0.73 career shares in Cy Young voting

Blyleven: 287 wins, top-10 in wins six times
J.Morris: 254 wins, top-10 in wins 12 times

Blyleven: .534 winning percentage, ERA+ of 118
J.Morris: .577 winning percentage, ERA+ of 105

Blyleven: Hall of Fame Monitor (120), Hall of Fame Standards (50)
J.Morris: Hall of Fame Monitor (122), Hall of Fame Standards (39)

Maybe it’s just me, but I certainly don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between those two other than the fact that Blyleven does have a sizable strikeout lead (6.7 K/9 to 5.8 K/9). My point is that maybe all those Morris supporters will just have to remain patient as it appears that, with time, the voting body will eventually install him in the Hall of Fame.

ADDENDUM

I love the passionate response by everyone below in the Comments section (below). Love it. Wish everyone would share their thoughts more to make things interesting. My point was to cause everyone to get engaged with the topic, and they certainly did.

Let me be clear.

1- Zito is NOT a Hall of Fame pitcher. Period.

2- Zito is NOT as good as Blyleven when you take into count the overall performance of Blyleven over the course of 22 years.

I was merely stating that Zito had more Cy Young’s and All-Star appearances, a better winning percentage, a better K/9 mark and was tougher to get a hit off of than Blyleven. Those are facts, and you can read whatever you would like into them, but I was just pointing out that Blyleven’s efforts weren’t vastly different in many respects. I never said Zito was a better pitcher.

As for Blyleven’s accomplishments, they are historically substantial in terms of his overall workload which was immense (nearly 5,000 innings). The question continues to be – should we reward durability, or should the Hall of Fame be for the best players?

Think of it. Blyleven NEVER led the league in wins or ERA. He only led the league in strikeouts once and only once did he lead in WHIP. In addition, despite all his innings, he only led the league in that category twice. If I add that all up, I don’t know if that’s good enough for the Hall of Fame.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: What Should Have Been

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

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