Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

I agree that Jeter is better, but it's not by much.

You are such a skilled persuader though, not sure how you aren't a million dollar sales executive with such convincing quips as "to argue otherwise is massively retarded."

My goal is not to persuade you, since you're so goddamned stubborn and convinced of your superior knowledge of baseball that nobody can change your mind. On anything.

So I don't bother to try to make a persuading argument with you. It would be like trying to persuade a rock to get up and walk.

I'll wait here while you list all the times you changed your mind during a baseball argument, Pot.

Comparing Raines to Jeter really is stupid. I know I've said this a million times but it's the Hall of FAME. Guys can get famous from where they play or when they play. Jeter and Jackson have some post-season moments that far outshine ANYTHING Raines ever did. It's just a fact. They had long, productive careers in the spotlight. They weren't slugs who played in NY or in the playoffs. They were big names who were productive.

As I said before, it's not just OPS+ and oWAR. There are other aspects. As soon as a certain someone recognizes that, the HOF discussions will change.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

Raines is something like the 8th- or 9th-best LF of all time. Jeter is something like the 6th- or 7th-best shortstop.

So maybe, relatively speaking, Jeter is a little bit better?

The reality is that a lot of players get in. Using 8000 PAs as the standard of a rough minimum to be likely to considered for induction, there have been only 45 guys in history to play long enough to get in and spend at least a few years at SS (IE that counts Banks, even though he played more of his career at first). There have been 46 at LF, and that includes Ruth, Musial, Robinson, etc. In fact, there are only 275 players in history with 8000 PAs. Total. So basically, if you're good enough to stick around for a long career, you're already almost halfway into the Hall. Even if you pared it down to guys who "feel" right, that's probably close to 1/3 or at least 1/4 of long careers. Raines feels right to me, but beyond that, I just don't see any reasonable sort of standard by which his numbers don't belong. Dude is the 2nd-best base thief in 150 years of professional baseball. You'd think that would count for something with you stat-fearing old farts.

****. I guess I started a post and said "**** it. What's the point?"

I tend to look at productive years vs career numbers. One way to start is MVP finishes. I think Raines was top 5 a couple of times, top 10 a couple more. Not bad. Bagwell was better than that(he won 1). Unfortunately, neither played a a "defensive" position. Greg Luzinski played LF. I think Adam Dunn spent some time out there before he played a poor 1B. Giambi played the worst 1B this side of Piazza trying to convert to 1B. You just can't put LF/1B in the HOF unless their batting screams for it. These two do not scream.

As for basethiefs, Vince Coleman was sick. Yeah, OK.

This is where the relativity argument comes in. If a guy doesn't "feel" like a HOFer, but is equal to or better than someone already in, should he still be inducted?

I wouldn't complain if Raines got in or if he didn't, but it's difficult to argue someone like Jim Rice was better.

He was an admitted cokehead. Quick, rattle off a list of admitted cokeheads in the HOF.

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
He was an admitted cokehead. Quick, rattle off a list of admitted cokeheads in the HOF.

As opposed to admitted users of greenies and uppers?

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/16/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
He was an admitted cokehead. Quick, rattle off a list of admitted cokeheads in the HOF.

As opposed to admitted users of greenies and uppers?

I'm just asking. Are there any admitted cokeheads in the HOF?

I know about the greenies and uppers. I'm pretty sure that the perception of those aren't quite as problematic as the perception of COCAINE.

Why would drugs that improve player performance be less worrisome from a HOF perspective than recreational drugs? Are we gonna ban raging alcoholics too?

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/16/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
He was an admitted cokehead. Quick, rattle off a list of admitted cokeheads in the HOF.

As opposed to admitted users of greenies and uppers?

I'm just asking. Are there any admitted cokeheads in the HOF?

I know about the greenies and uppers. I'm pretty sure that the perception of those aren't quite as problematic as the perception of COCAINE.

Really? What about cocaine is so much worse than amphetamines?

Perception.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 5:15:00 PM (view original):
Perception.

Oh ok. In other words, nothing.