BBWAA HOF Balot

[rocket]

I'd be fine with Lofton getting elected to the HOF

[Rob]

And lets remember, MVPs, All Stars, Gold Gloves... all these "honors" mean jack squat, as rarely as the writers and fans get stuff right.

[AlwaysaCub]

And lets remember, MVPs, All Stars, Gold Gloves... all these "honors" mean jack squat, as rarely as the writers and fans get stuff right.

 

Seriously...Ryan Howard 2nd in the MVP vote this year? On what planet?

[mdwilla]

A 9 time gold glove award winner to a guy that won 0. Sure writers and fan don't know what there talking about but Raines was no where near the fielder Dawson was bad knee's or not. Teams did not run on Hawk.

[mdwilla]

2800 hits

440 HR

500 Doubles

1600 RBI

300 Stolen Bases

8 Gold Gloves (4 in CF)

MVP

ROY

 

 

Insane. Let's also not forget Dawson played in Montreal so the whole small market stuff about Raines is overblown. Dawson also finshed in the top 2 in NL MVP voting 3 times in the 80's. I can't see moving Raines ahead of Dawson based only OBP and Stolen bases. I can't ignore other outfielders who aren't in the hall with better numbers than Raines because he batted leadoff.

.

[mdwilla]

When I look at the career of Tim Raines, to me it is no a brainer that he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. To be enshrined, you should be a dominant player of your generation, not someone who stuck around for 23 seasons and compiled some impressive career statistics. Don’t get me wrong, Raines was a very good, if not great, lead off hitter who had a ton of speed. He had 808 career stolen bases, but more then half, 454 to be exact, of which came in a 6-year period from 1981-1986. That means in his other 17 seasons playing in the major leagues, he had just 354 stolen bases, hardly that impressive. He scored a ton of runs, but had just six seasons where he eclipsed the 100 mark. Brett Butler, a player who I think we would all agree is not worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame, had the same six seasons scoring 100 runs. He was a good hitter, but his career average was under .300. Maybe it was the shadow of Ricky Henderson that hurts Raines’ candidacy, but even with the SB’s his numbers just don’t scream elite player. He had some very good seasons, but he never truly dominated the league. To me, it is possible for a player to stick around too long and ruin the reputation he could have had. People don’t remember the great player that you were, instead the player who just sat on the bench as a reserve, trying to hold onto the game for as long as possible. I know I said last week that if a player was a dominant force of his time, the rest didn’t matter. I still think that applies. To me, however, Raines just wasn’t the dominating force. He was a great player who was one of the elite stolen bases artists, but that was about all he brought to the table. Good elsewhere, but not great, and that doesn’t get you my vote.

 

http://lesterslegends.com/?p=4853

 

 

 

Fun fact of the day - Tim Raines son is named Andre, after a good friend of his Andre Dawson. His son would later change his name to Hawk.

[chopsx9]

Raines has 63 points of OBP on Dawson.

 

Dawson has 57 points of slugging on Raines.

 

But since we know OBP > SLUG,

 

Are we saying .001 OBP > .001 SLG or a player with a high (relative) OBP is better than a player with a high (relative) SLG?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Raines has 63 points of OBP on Dawson.

 

Dawson has 57 points of slugging on Raines.

 

But since we know OBP > SLUG,

 

Are we saying .001 OBP > .001 SLG or a player with a high (relative) OBP is better than a player with a high (relative) SLG?

 

Both.

[chopsx9]

Raines has 63 points of OBP on Dawson.

 

Dawson has 57 points of slugging on Raines.

 

But since we know OBP > SLUG,

 

Are we saying .001 OBP > .001 SLG or a player with a high (relative) OBP is better than a player with a high (relative) SLG?

 

Both.

 

So you would rather have (2008 version) Brian Giles over Ryan Braun? (Offensively speaking)

 

PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS

Ryan Braun MIL 611 92 174 39 7 37 106 42 129 .285 .335 .553 .888

Brian Giles SDG 559 81 171 40 4 12 63 87 52 .306 .398 .456 .854

 

Their stats are virtually identical except Braun had 25 more HRs and Giles had 45 more walks.

 

So we are essentially saying 45 walks > 25 hrs ?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So you would rather have (2008 version) Brian Giles over Ryan Braun? (Offensively speaking)

 

It's pretty close to a wash.

 

 

PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS

Ryan Braun MIL 611 92 174 39 7 37 106 42 129 .285 .335 .553 .888

Brian Giles SDG 559 81 171 40 4 12 63 87 52 .306 .398 .456 .854

 

Their stats are virtually identical except Braun had 25 more HRs and Giles had 45 more walks.

 

So we are essentially saying 45 walks > 25 hrs ?

 

You are missing an important stat. Probably the most important stat.

 

Outs. Braun also made 49 more outs.

[chopsx9]

So you would rather have (2008 version) Brian Giles over Ryan Braun? (Offensively speaking)

 

Yes

 

 

PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS

Ryan Braun MIL 611 92 174 39 7 37 106 42 129 .285 .335 .553 .888

Brian Giles SDG 559 81 171 40 4 12 63 87 52 .306 .398 .456 .854

 

Their stats are virtually identical except Braun had 25 more HRs and Giles had 45 more walks.

 

So we are essentially saying 45 walks > 25 hrs ?

 

You are missing an important stat. Probably the most important stat.

 

Outs. Braun also made 49 more outs.

I didn't miss it that is essentially where Giles 45 walks came from. Yes Braun made more outs but he was more productive with the ways he got on. Giles' 45 walks requires additional production (i.e 2 singles) from his teammates for the team to score. I'll take the 25 guarateed runs (not even factoring in any additional runs driven in that would be all but absent from the walks) In otherwords I'll take the sure thing over the possibility of scoring a run.

[bukie]

EqA:

Brian Giles: .314

Ryan Braun: .294

 

RARP

Giles: 47.6

Braun: 35.6

 

Yes, Giles was a better overall player than Braun last year. So was Aramis Ramirez, actually, although that comparison is a lot closer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I didn't miss it that is essentially where Giles 45 walks came from. Yes Braun made more outs but he was more productive with the ways he got on. Giles' 45 walks requires additional production (i.e 2 singles) from his teammates for the team to score. I'll take the 25 guarateed runs (not even factoring in any additional runs driven in that would be all but absent from the walks) In otherwords I'll take the sure thing over the possibility of scoring a run.

 

You did miss it, because you are discounting the double-value of the avoided out. It's a runner on base and it's not taking away an at-bat from a teammate.

 

Every extra out Braun made is an at-bat he took out of the hands of a teammate.

[chopsx9]

I didn't miss it that is essentially where Giles 45 walks came from. Yes Braun made more outs but he was more productive with the ways he got on. Giles' 45 walks requires additional production (i.e 2 singles) from his teammates for the team to score. I'll take the 25 guarateed runs (not even factoring in any additional runs driven in that would be all but absent from the walks) In otherwords I'll take the sure thing over the possibility of scoring a run.

 

You did miss it, because you are discounting the double-value of the avoided out. It's a runner on base and it's not taking away an at-bat from a teammate.

 

Every extra out Braun made is an at-bat he took out of the hands of a teammate.

 

As I said I understand that. I'm saying 25 HRS more than compensates for 45 outs. I guarantee you the 45 batters that came to the plate after Giles walked did not hit 25 hrs nor did the next 45 nor did the next 45 all summed up. At some point an increased number of outs outweighs the additional 25 hrs; 45 isn't close to that number though.

 

The batter after Giles walks is going get out, on average, 60% time (and I am being monumentally generous) Do the regression if you like and see what the expected production or even OBP is of the those extra (I would guess roughly 60) at bats would be.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I didn't miss it that is essentially where Giles 45 walks came from. Yes Braun made more outs but he was more productive with the ways he got on. Giles' 45 walks requires additional production (i.e 2 singles) from his teammates for the team to score. I'll take the 25 guarateed runs (not even factoring in any additional runs driven in that would be all but absent from the walks) In otherwords I'll take the sure thing over the possibility of scoring a run.

 

You did miss it, because you are discounting the double-value of the avoided out. It's a runner on base and it's not taking away an at-bat from a teammate.

 

Every extra out Braun made is an at-bat he took out of the hands of a teammate.

 

As I said I understand that. I'm saying 25 HRS more than compensates for 45 outs. I guarantee you the 45 batters that came to the plate after Giles walked did not hit 25 hrs nor did the next 45 nor did the next 45 all summed up. At some point an increased number of outs outweighs the additional 25 hrs; 45 isn't close to that number though.

 

The batter after Giles walks is going get out, on average, 60% time (and I am being monumentally generous) Do the regression if you like and see what the expected production or even OBP is of the those extra (I would guess roughly 60) at bats would be.

 

Then why do all the advanced statistical meausures disagree with you and say that Giles produced more offensive value?

[bukie]

It's difficult to get past tradition, which really undervalues the out.

 

The HR is also a lot more exciting and produces more instant gratification than merely not making an out.

 

It's true though, the out is the most valuable commodity in baseball, since the very mechanics of the game are based on a limited number of them.

[chopsx9]

I didn't miss it that is essentially where Giles 45 walks came from. Yes Braun made more outs but he was more productive with the ways he got on. Giles' 45 walks requires additional production (i.e 2 singles) from his teammates for the team to score. I'll take the 25 guarateed runs (not even factoring in any additional runs driven in that would be all but absent from the walks) In otherwords I'll take the sure thing over the possibility of scoring a run.

 

You did miss it, because you are discounting the double-value of the avoided out. It's a runner on base and it's not taking away an at-bat from a teammate.

 

Every extra out Braun made is an at-bat he took out of the hands of a teammate.

 

As I said I understand that. I'm saying 25 HRS more than compensates for 45 outs. I guarantee you the 45 batters that came to the plate after Giles walked did not hit 25 hrs nor did the next 45 nor did the next 45 all summed up. At some point an increased number of outs outweighs the additional 25 hrs; 45 isn't close to that number though.

 

The batter after Giles walks is going get out, on average, 60% time (and I am being monumentally generous) Do the regression if you like and see what the expected production or even OBP is of the those extra (I would guess roughly 60) at bats would be.

 

Then why do all the advanced statistical meausures disagree with you and say that Giles produced more offensive value?

 

'Cause their Wrong?? Joking.

 

I understand the logic of not making outs. I think those stats heavily weight OBP for that reason. However, as in this case, when it can be demonstrated that, yes the batter gave up outs, BUT as a result produced at a significantly higher offensive rate (ie more HRs) the stats (I think) are missleading. Their stats are so similar that it makes the comparison (again in my eyes) very cut and dry. I don't know how often two players would have stats that mesh together so neatly.

 

I am all for OBP and Ryan Braun would be a better player if he could increase his but not to the point where it cost him 25hrs a year. If he could increase it .050-.060 and only drop power a little then I would say he was better for it

[UK1679666180]

Using XR, I have Braun ahead of Giles. Based on 662 PA.

 

Braun 107.44

Giles 97.86

[chopsx9]

It's difficult to get past tradition, which really undervalues the out.

 

The HR is also a lot more exciting and produces more instant gratification than merely not making an out.

 

It's true though, the out is the most valuable commodity in baseball, since the very mechanics of the game are based on a limited number of them.

 

That's fine when the outcome is unknown but in this comparison when the outcome is known, and with the figures we are talking about, I think it is a different story.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Using XR, I have Braun ahead of Giles. Based on 662 PA.

 

Braun 107.44

Giles 97.86

 

Which gets back to what I said earlier, which is that it's close to a wash, depending on which one you use.

 

I don't want to get dragged into reestablishing the wheel and the math behind all of these formulas because someone prefers the "sure thing" of the homer.

[bukie]

It's difficult to get past tradition, which really undervalues the out.

 

The HR is also a lot more exciting and produces more instant gratification than merely not making an out.

 

It's true though, the out is the most valuable commodity in baseball, since the very mechanics of the game are based on a limited number of them.

 

That's fine when the outcome is unknown but in this comparison when the outcome is known, and with the figures we are talking about, I think it is a different story.

 

An out is also a known outcome. Yes, a HR is obviously better than a walk with all other things equal, because a HR contributes equally as a walk to the OBP.

 

Making an out essentially means you've ended 1/27 of the game. Not making an out means you've extended the game without limitation.

[chopsx9]

It's difficult to get past tradition, which really undervalues the out.

 

The HR is also a lot more exciting and produces more instant gratification than merely not making an out.

 

It's true though, the out is the most valuable commodity in baseball, since the very mechanics of the game are based on a limited number of them.

 

That's fine when the outcome is unknown but in this comparison when the outcome is known, and with the figures we are talking about, I think it is a different story.

 

An out is also a known outcome. Yes, a HR is obviously better than a walk with all other things equal, because a HR contributes equally as a walk to the OBP.

 

Making an out essentially means you've ended 1/27 of the game. Not making an out means you've extended the game without limitation.

 

I disagree a bit with the "without limitation" although it may just be semantics. It fine to increase the number of AB's a team gets but the same hard stats tell you that extra AB is going to result in an out 60% of the time . So if you increase the number AB's without achieving anything the benefit is marginal. With this comparison were saying Braun traded 45 outs for 25 HRS I don't think it's that controversial to say that it would be a good trade off.

[Clem Fandango]

When I look at the career of Tim Raines, to me it is no a brainer that he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. To be enshrined, you should be a dominant player of your generation, not someone who stuck around for 23 seasons and compiled some impressive career statistics. Don’t get me wrong, Raines was a very good, if not great, lead off hitter who had a ton of speed. He had 808 career stolen bases, but more then half, 454 to be exact, of which came in a 6-year period from 1981-1986. That means in his other 17 seasons playing in the major leagues, he had just 354 stolen bases, hardly that impressive. He scored a ton of runs, but had just six seasons where he eclipsed the 100 mark. Brett Butler, a player who I think we would all agree is not worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame, had the same six seasons scoring 100 runs. He was a good hitter, but his career average was under .300. Maybe it was the shadow of Ricky Henderson that hurts Raines’ candidacy, but even with the SB’s his numbers just don’t scream elite player. He had some very good seasons, but he never truly dominated the league. To me, it is possible for a player to stick around too long and ruin the reputation he could have had. People don’t remember the great player that you were, instead the player who just sat on the bench as a reserve, trying to hold onto the game for as long as possible. I know I said last week that if a player was a dominant force of his time, the rest didn’t matter. I still think that applies. To me, however, Raines just wasn’t the dominating force. He was a great player who was one of the elite stolen bases artists, but that was about all he brought to the table. Good elsewhere, but not great, and that doesn’t get you my vote.

 

I read this last night when searching around for specific stats and information as well. I dismiss this for several reasons other than it's some guy giving his opinion on his fantasy blog

 

To be enshrined, you should be a dominant player of your generation, not someone who stuck around for 23 seasons and compiled some impressive career statistics.

 

This is a dumb dumb argument. Want to talk about sticking around into your twilight years to achieve impressive numbers? If Rickey Henderson hadn't stuck around for 25 seasons, two more than Raines, he never would've achieved 3,000 hits. He got to 3,000 hits in his 23rd year (infact his last hit of his 23rd year was his 3,000th). I mean if you're going to discredit a guy for sticking around well past your time to get impressive numbers, look no further than Rickey Henderson

 

He had 808 career stolen bases, but more then half, 454 to be exact, of which came in a 6-year period from 1981-1986. That means in his other 17 seasons playing in the major leagues, he had just 354 stolen bases, hardly that impressive.

 

HARDLY IMPRESSIVE!?!?!? 354 stolen bases alone still puts you in the Top 100 of all time stolen base leaders. This guy acts like "Eh, big deal". So getting 354 stolen bases over a 17 year period isn't impressive, but you're also going to dismiss that he got 454 stolen bases within a 6 year period? 454 would put you in the Top 50 all time. And Raines got that in 6 years. This guy is trying to diminish what Raines accomplished by compiling his twilight year stats into the stats that mattered, his stats during which he was a dominant player in the 80's

 

Brett Butler, a player who I think we would all agree is not worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame, had the same six seasons scoring 100 runs

 

This is one of those comparisons where in 2006 you would say "Albert Pujols just scored 100 runs for the 6th time in his career" and someone would respond with "So, Brett Butler did that too, Pujols isn't special"

 

To me, it is possible for a player to stick around too long and ruin the reputation he could have had. People don’t remember the great player that you were, instead the player who just sat on the bench as a reserve, trying to hold onto the game for as long as possible.

 

Uhhhhh.... Rickey Henderson not only did that, but when he was cut from the major league team, he played baseball in the independent leagues. "Oh well he just has a passion for the game, that's different". Why? Because he's Rickey Henderson? Tim Raines didn't play 23 years because he loves the game? He did it because he wanted to beef up his HOF credentials? Henderson didn't do that by sticking around to get 3,000 hits? Here' a fun fact, Rickey Henderson played in 500 more games, yet had only 2,000 more AB than Raines, and had only 3,055 hits, 450 more than Raines had. Had Raines stuck around for two or three more years past his need, perhaps he could've finagled a a few 100 hit seasons and reached 3,000 hits, too. Or maybe if he hadn't been colluded against in the 80's, or played his rookie year in a strike shortened season, he wouldn't have had to. Then we wouldn't be having this debate. So many things worked against Raines' career numbers that should make what he accomplished even more impressive. Between the collusion, the strike, the Montreal turf, his cocaine addiction, and so on and so forth... the guy still put up pretty incredible numbers, and I don't think he should be discredited for that

[chopsx9]

Using XR, I have Braun ahead of Giles. Based on 662 PA.

 

Braun 107.44

Giles 97.86

 

Which gets back to what I said earlier, which is that it's close to a wash, depending on which one you use.

 

I don't want to get dragged into reestablishing the wheel and the math behind all of these formulas because someone prefers the "sure thing" of the homer.

 

But how could you not? That's like saying you'd prefer an unscratched lottery ticket to one that is scratched and has a winning jackpot.

 

In any case there is no law saying we have to agree but I'd like thank yourself and "buckie" for discussing a topic we obviously don't agree on but doing so in a pretty civil manner. Certainly one the stronger draws to this site.

[TruffleShuffle]

When I look at the career of Tim Raines, to me it is no a brainer that he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. To be enshrined, you should be a dominant player of your generation, not someone who stuck around for 23 seasons and compiled some impressive career statistics. Don’t get me wrong, Raines was a very good, if not great, lead off hitter who had a ton of speed. He had 808 career stolen bases, but more then half, 454 to be exact, of which came in a 6-year period from 1981-1986. That means in his other 17 seasons playing in the major leagues, he had just 354 stolen bases, hardly that impressive. He scored a ton of runs, but had just six seasons where he eclipsed the 100 mark. Brett Butler, a player who I think we would all agree is not worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame, had the same six seasons scoring 100 runs. He was a good hitter, but his career average was under .300. Maybe it was the shadow of Ricky Henderson that hurts Raines’ candidacy, but even with the SB’s his numbers just don’t scream elite player. He had some very good seasons, but he never truly dominated the league. To me, it is possible for a player to stick around too long and ruin the reputation he could have had. People don’t remember the great player that you were, instead the player who just sat on the bench as a reserve, trying to hold onto the game for as long as possible. I know I said last week that if a player was a dominant force of his time, the rest didn’t matter. I still think that applies. To me, however, Raines just wasn’t the dominating force. He was a great player who was one of the elite stolen bases artists, but that was about all he brought to the table. Good elsewhere, but not great, and that doesn’t get you my vote.

 

http://lesterslegends.com/?p=4853

 

 

 

Fun fact of the day - Tim Raines son is named Andre, after a good friend of his Andre Dawson. His son would later change his name to Hawk.

 

if you take out 6 years of mark mcgwire's career, he only hit 267 home runs. can't believe we are even considering this guy for the hall of fame.