Mazeroski is like an Ozzie Smith at second base- generally considered the best defender ever at a defensive position. And the big homerun didn't hurt.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Clark slugged 30 points better at a slugger's position.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

career 260 hitter, it was a joke when they let him in.

there are dozens of guys in the hall who have no business in there....raines is not a hof player and neither is anyone else on that list...best leadoff hitter is henderson than brock..lofton and rose>raines

_________________

agreed, the hall of fame needs a purge, not additions. but based on the current standard, guys like larkin and raines should get in.

Im a big Lofton fan, not sure he was better than Raines though.


The other guys you listed are hall of famers.

I think Raines is REAL close.

Like Mofo said, Maz fucks up everything.

I HATE that Blyleven got in and not Morris

Lou Brock wasn't even close to as good as Raines. There isn't a single thing in the game of baseball Brock did better than Raines.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

No Crime Dog love?

He belongs with Clark and Mattingly- really good but not a Hall of Famer.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Do you think Ozzie Smith belongs?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Normally I'd agree, but there is the small matter of this...



Hall of Fame

Alright then. Hell, let's put him in just on his nickname!

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro! Baseball created the monsters ...now recognize them or release the names of the players that tested positive

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.

If there were a HOF for looking the most exhausted before you even entered the game, Lee Arthur would be a unanimous selection.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

do you really need any more proof ?

_________________

you are right about brock..his numbers are not as great as i thought...maybe raines gets in

_________________

No

Tim Raines

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
I don't think so, at least to any large scale. He was considered the best base stealer at one point, the best leadoff guy too, but not the best player. I am sure some dope suggested it though.

Was he the best player on his team?
You could make that argument for some of the Montreal years. Although Dawson would beat him most years. Frank Thomas was clearly better during the White Sox years, and he was too old by the time he got to the Yankees.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
You could argue that he was. His base running skills and OPS were very good/excellent, and he was at least average defensively. The problem is that he played OF, and you've got some other excellent OF candidates out there from a power perspective -- the aforementioned Dawson, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, George Bell, etc. I think this question is a bit difficult to apply to the OF position -- maybe only Bonds would be a definitive answer at OF for this question.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Nothing significant that I can recall. Montreal was not a front runner during Raines era there, the White Sox did reach the pennant race a couple of times with him, but one was the strike year, and in the other they lost, though he did hit .444 and score 5 times. On that 96 Yankees team, he hit only .214 in the WS and .267 in the Division series.

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Definitely -- at 38 years old he was still hitting .290 and OPSing above league average, though the stolen bases had gone way down. He had almost 400 PA that year too.

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. The answer to everyone except Pete Rose is no.

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Well, you are looking primarily at guys that were great leadoff hitters. Rickey Henderson is in the Hall, although I think his numbers are by far better than Raines. Lou Brock also is a comp that is in the Hall, but again his numbers are better than Raines. Purely on stolen bases, everyone that has stolen more than Raines is in the Hall. I am going to say, yes on this one.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
They are right there on the edge. .294 lifetime BA with a .385 lifetime OBP is good. The 800+ steals is outstanding. 1500+ runs scored is also very good. 170 HRs isn't bad for a leadoff hitter either. I would say that they meet the standards, but other than the steals, nothing is shouting HoF.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Obviously Raines had a drug problem. If you account for that decline in his performance, and want to dismiss it as being affected by the drugs, then I think you could say he was better. Today's fan may see cocaine as a more favorable drug in baseball than steroids, which players towards the end of his time started using with regularity -- I haven't heard any suggestions that Raines did other drugs than cocaine. I think this boosts his chances significantly as we move forward into the era where roid players are eligible. There's also the issue of owners colluding against players around the prime of his career... that probably cost him 25 or so steals.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
I'd say this is very likely. Bernie Williams had a much more pedestrian career with inflated numbers due to his team, Tim Salmon had too short of a career with very good but not great seasons, Ruben Sierra had a lengthy career, but not enough great seasons and roids linger in one's mind.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
I'd say 1986 was his best year -- he hit .334/.413/.476 with 70 SB and only 9 CS. He garnered a lot of votes in 1983 when he led the league with 90 steals. He had 5 consecutive years where he finished no worse than 12th in MVP voting, although he never did win the award. Given that he wasn't a power hitter, this isn't terribly surprising.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
He was in seven All-Star games, and had a memorable 13th inning triple to win the game winning the MVP in 1987. Yes, seven all-star games isn't uncommon to see in the Hall of Fame.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
I don't like this question in general, but I think that you could win a pennant with a team where this was the best player, although I would think you would need some very close second best players on that team.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
He introduced a new importance to which way you slide into a base. I don't think he was revolutionary and I'm not aware of any rules that were introduced.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Well there was the cocaine. I think you have to consider that as a character issue. That being said, he did seek treatment for it and overcame the demon it would appear. Other than that, I think he was generally a well liked guy who played the game well.
---
I guess all in all, I would be OK with Raines making the HoF, but he's right on the cusp. With the class being so poor this year, I'd say he's got a reasonable shot to make it, but still guessing he won't.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

Okay. Personally I think there's a place in the Hall for guys that are considered hands down the best ever to play possibly the two most important defensive positions in the game. And they hit enough. We're not talking about Rey Ordonez here.

With regard to Mazeroski, that homerun was giant. Baseball is a game of big moments. To me guys like Fisk and Reggie Jackson are borderline but they had big moments on the big stage that makes them special. I think Magglio Ordonez was as good a player as Reggie Jackson, but he didn't do the things Reggie did. A guy arguing the other side might say he didn't have a chance to and that isn't his fault. But luck does play a big part in baseball. To me a lot of the SABRmetric stuff is an attempt to remove luck from the game and it can't be done. Enough repetitions and the luck should run out. Sometimes it doesn't. Reggie played on teams good enough to get to the big games (in no small part because of Reggie himself) and when they got there Reggie shined bright. That's why he's a Hall of Famer and Magglio isn't.

If I'm taking guys out of the Hall, there are a whole bunch I'd remove before I got to Ozzie and Maz. Let's start with Andre Dawson a guy who wasn't as good as Magglio but somehow got in. Then we can talk about Pop Haines and all the old Giants and Cardinals who were friends of John McGraw.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

None of his numbers are better than Raines. Even his steals aren't better. He got about 130 more steals and got caught 150 more times. Raines is the most efficient base stealer ever among the big steal guys.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Im not sure Ozzie is the best ever.

Magglio hit a walk off homerun to send his team to the World Series.



Magglio is not better. Numbers skewed by eras. Dawson a better baseball player.

Brock led or tied for the league lead in stolen bases 7 seasons. Raines did 4 times. Brock had about 500 more total bases than Raines. Brock had more runs than Raines, and about 400 more hits than Raines. He had 50 more doubles than Raines, and 30 more triples than Raines.

He was caught stealing more often, yes, but don't tell me that none of his numbers are better. That is definitively false.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

Who is? Aparicio? He's in. Vizquel? Will probably get in (I don't think he's a first ballot no-brainer like Hawk does.).



Magglio's adjusted numbers are still better. But anyway, you have to agree they are close enough and neither belongs in a real Hall of FAME. They're guys like Harold Baines or Dave Parker or Dwight Evans or Richie Zisk. Not Hall of Famers.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Raines had a higher OBP and he slugged more. The numbers you're citing are the result of more plate appearances, nothing more. Of course, longevity means something, but both of these guys had long, long careers and Raines' averages are better.

I listen goofs on the radio tell me over and over how Juan Pierre doesn't get on base enough, yet he got on more than Brock.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

H/PA: Brock = 26.907%; Raines = 25.147%
2B/PA: Brock = 4.326%; Raines = 4.151%
3B/PA: Brock = 1.255%; Raines = 1.091%
TB/PA: Brock = 0.3772; Raines = 0.3640

Even accounting for plate appearances, Brock is better in each of these categories than Raines -- not a ton better, but slightly better. So it must be because of some other cause than plate appearances.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

You know what the cause is. Raines walked a lot more. I'm accused of being a hidebound old guy around here, but you're making the old guy's argument. Raines' numbers are far more fashionable than Brock's. Which is why so many people call Juan Pierre "useless" or "bad at baseball" when, in fact, his leadoff man OBP is higher than that of a Hall of Famer and a guy you are promoting as superior to Tim Raines.

As an aside, I think the triples can be explained by the respective parks the two guys played in. Anyway, It's tough to make a case that a guy who got on more, slugged better, played better defense, and stole more efficiently is worse than a guy who got on less, slugged lower, was a butcher in the outfield, and stole at a much lower percentage.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

The problem is you are making arguments and supporting them with the wrong facts. You first said that Brock has no numbers that are better then Raines, then you said that it was because of the plate appearances. Neither of those are true statements.

Here you have a very strong argument -- Brock struck out significantly more than he walked, and Raines was the exact opposite. This is a very desirable skill in a leadoff hitter, and Raines is clearly winning there. OBP is much more important for a leadoff hitter than for other positions in the batting order.


Parks and just the era that the baseball was played in. Towards the end of Raines time HRs were becoming more frequent than ever in baseball history, and triples had been steadily declining since the twenties. It gets tough to compare raw numbers in different eras. There are some good graphs of averages here: http://michaelbein.com/baseball.html


I'll clarify my statement and say that - in terms of non-percentage based statistics - Brock has better offensive totals than Raines. I feel they are fairly comparable players -- if you have a better comp than Brock, that's fine.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

I'm not supporting my arguments with "wrong facts". Apparently we are simply defining "better" differently, with you preferring accumulation over average. Brock's extra plate appearances/at-bats allowed him to accumulate more of certain things. Brock averaged less hits per at-bat, less times on base per plate appearance, less total bases per at-bat, and less steals per attempt than Raines. In light of those facts, it's pretty hard to make a case that Brock was better. Rickey Henderson was the best leadoff man of all-time. Raines was the second best. Yes, they were both better than Pete Rose.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Billy Williams likes to go to Cooperstown early, a few days before the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. On the Friday of the last week in July, he likes to walk through the town in the quiet of the early morning. He looks through the windows of the shops to see the vendors setting up their memorabilia.


"You always go back to when you started playing the game," he said by phone Thursday, "and it's a great feeling."



His Friday walk next summer could be particularly moving for him, because Williams -- a member of the committee which will vote on Hall of Fame candidates from the Golden Era -- believes that his longtime friend and former teammate Ron Santo will be enshrined. "I am really feeling good about it," said Williams, noting the progression of Santo's voting, that he's gotten closer and closer each time. "I've heard in the wind that a lot of people believe he really should be in there."


When Williams is transported emotionally back to when he started playing the game, that means going back to when he and Santo first played together in the minors in 1959. They hit back-to-back in the lineup, both working under the tutelage of Rogers Hornsby, and developed a friendship that deepened through their time together.


Williams knows how much a Hall of Fame induction meant to Santo, because he saw how brokenhearted his friend was after a near-miss in the voting of the Veterans Committee a few years back. After Santo passed away last year, Williams felt sadness because Santo would never be able to experience his election into the Hall.


"When the flag was raised here in Chicago for him, he said, 'This is my Hall of Fame,'" Williams said. "But he wanted to be [in Cooperstown]. He wanted to be up there with Ernie [Banks], myself, Fergie [Jenkins], guys that he played with."


Williams is cognizant, though, of what Santo's induction would mean to his family. Going to Cooperstown next summer may well be about sharing that experience with them, as well as thinking of his friend as he walks along Main Street in the little town in upstate New York.


Ron Santo's career

Seasons: 15
Games: 2,243
Hits: 2,254
Homers: 342
RBI: 1,331
OPS: .826
OPS+: 125
Number of seasons he led NL in walks: 4
All-Star Games: 9
Gold Gloves: 5
Top 10 finish in the MVP voting: 4
Number of seasons ranked in top 10 in his league in WAR: 4, including 1967, when he ranked first, at 10.2.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

To me a lot of conversations in this thread are really about how we see the value of walks from the standpoint of evaluating hitters.

If one removes walks from the equation, Brock and Raines are very similar guys. It's the walks that Raines took (was given?) that boost his fashionable numbers (OBP, OPS, OPS+) far beyond Brock's.

The same thing can be said for Ron Santo. In his time walks were viewed as something that a pitcher allowed rather than as something that a batter took. Despite the current drumbeat from places like Baseball Prospectus and Fangraphs and the parroting of their viewpoints by guys like li'l danny bernsetin, I think the truth is somewhere in between. It's only within the current climate where a walk is viewed as equal to a single that Santo has moved head and shoulders beyond a guy like Ken Boyer.

This is a radical reevaluation of the way we view players historically. For example, does Ferris Fain and his .425 OBP belong in the Hall of Fame rather than Jim Rice?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.