Posted by bad_luck on 1/20/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 1/20/2017 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/19/2017 8:28:00 PM (view original):
As a result of back and elbow injuries Kiner and Koufax were retired by 32/33. Does that mean they don't belong in the Hall?

I expect those kinds of responses from PSBL not you. Of course those two belong in the Hall.

Wait, so it's ok to be great and then retire in your early thirties, but it's not ok to be great and then just be above average from your mid-late thirties?

Ha! I thought you blocked me. Yeah I never said that. Run along son.

You seem to have implied it. And I don't see why you consider my response inappropriate. If your concern is that Raines didn't do enough after age 32/33, wouldn't that be an even bigger problem for a guy who did nothing over those seasons? From the beginning of his age 33 season in 1993 to retirement Raines played in just under 800 games and hit .283/.382/.423. The steals dried up pretty badly (78/97), but he was still fast and still got on base, so he was still a useful guy at the top of a lineup. Probably part of the reason he didn't steal as much is that he played in some very potent lineups in the mid- to late-90s, especially on those Yankee teams, and his managers probably didn't want to risk baserunners. Obviously those aren't HOF numbers on the back half of his career, but it's a heck of a lot more than the guys I mentioned. Obviously Kiner was better to age 32 than Raines, but it's not a huge gap. In fact, Raines through age 32 has Kiner beat comfortably in career WAR.

I guess my point is that I don't see why being only above-average as an older player disqualifies you from HOF-worthiness if you were incredibly great as a younger player.

My fave player of all time -Stargell finished strongly but still had no business being a first ballot HOF.

Posted by farleyfustle on 1/21/2017 7:30:00 PM (view original):
My fave player of all time -Stargell finished strongly but still had no business being a first ballot HOF.

To this day, still can't tell the difference between Willie Stargell and Willie McCovey. Always get them mixed up

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2017 7:11:00 PM (view original):
You seem to have implied it. And I don't see why you consider my response inappropriate. If your concern is that Raines didn't do enough after age 32/33, wouldn't that be an even bigger problem for a guy who did nothing over those seasons? From the beginning of his age 33 season in 1993 to retirement Raines played in just under 800 games and hit .283/.382/.423. The steals dried up pretty badly (78/97), but he was still fast and still got on base, so he was still a useful guy at the top of a lineup. Probably part of the reason he didn't steal as much is that he played in some very potent lineups in the mid- to late-90s, especially on those Yankee teams, and his managers probably didn't want to risk baserunners. Obviously those aren't HOF numbers on the back half of his career, but it's a heck of a lot more than the guys I mentioned. Obviously Kiner was better to age 32 than Raines, but it's not a huge gap. In fact, Raines through age 32 has Kiner beat comfortably in career WAR.

I guess my point is that I don't see why being only above-average as an older player disqualifies you from HOF-worthiness if you were incredibly great as a younger player.

The first thing I questioned was him being anointed 'the best leadoff hitter ever.'

Then I further commented that the shots against him were that 1) he wasn't durable and 2) he wasn't having hall of fame seasons after age 32-33.

Stat accumulators take hits when it comes to the ballot. You could argue Raines was in that territory. So he waited. He did enough to get in the HOF but he wasn't a first ballot guy. I never said he wasn't a HOF guy. If I missed one of my posts where I said that let me know.

A lot of people posting in the thread have said that they feel Raines was not a HOFer, so you'd understand some confusion.

With that being said, I still think it's kind of a silly comment. We're a little spoiled right now just having come off the back end of the PED era. The reality is that only a handful of players outside of the '90s and '00s have ever put up what would be called "Hall of Fame seasons" in their mid-30s and later, particularly position players. There are a huge number of guys that would generally be considered not only deserving but even inner circle type HOF guys who didn't put up any kind of numbers, or in many cases even play, after that age 32/33 range. Some that come to mind are Bench, Foxx, Mathews, Kiner, Vaughan, and Al Simmons. At least 3 of those guys would make most lists of the top 5 in history at their positions.

Basically, I don't see any reason to care about when a player has his Hall of Fame caliber seasons. Obviously if you're Josh Donaldson you're going to have to do a little more in the late stages of your career to get a serious look. But when you're talking about a guy like Raines who was an All-Star at age 21, what you do over a decade into your Major League career shouldn't necessarily be held against you. Particularly when what he was doing was continuing to be an above-average player into his late 30s.

Then what are your thoughts on Dale Murphy?

There aren't a lot of back-to-back MVPs who haven't gone in, really, but he didn't really deserve one of those. Murphy had far fewer PAs than Raines, a lesser bat, and far less speed. I think he's just a really good player, not HOF-worthy. If he'd actually made it as a Big League catcher it would be a very different case...

"Far more plate appearances."

Could this be because Raines played until he was 42 and Murphy quit at 37? If we look at ABs through the age 37 season, Raines has 500 more than Murphy. Which is probably 50 or so extra ABs per 162 games. Or maybe less. Makes sense. Raines led off and Murph was cleanup.

"Lesser bat"

Hmmm. Through their age 37 seasons they had an identical OPS. And while Murphy whiffed more, he did have 400 HRs. 2000 hits too. I won't argue that Murphy was a better hitter, but I don't think the gap is that much in the end. One's a leadoff hitter. One's a cleanup hitter.

"Far less speed"

Duh.

I do agree that Murphy isn't a HOFer and isn't as good as Raines.

Part of Raines' appeal for the HOF is that he was one of the absolute best in the history of the game at stealing bases. Murphy wasn't that elite at anything. That matters quite a bit too. There are a lot of people who seem to want Jim Thome to get in because he's 7th all-time in HR, which may not necessarily be unreasonable, but also want to discount Raines. Steals matter too. They're not as valuable as HRs, but from my perspective the HOF is at least partly about actual fame and not just maximal on-field value. I think there's room for someone to be a better HOF candidate for being better at a less valuable aspect of the game.

I agree to many of those points. Steals do in fact have good on field value, but a lot of that is tied to who the manager is. The Cardinals in the 80s used the steal to great affect. It was essential to how they played the game. But that era is a long time ago. There are certainly players today that could be just as proficient at stealing bases as Rock Raines, but it just isn't essential anymore. So while his stolen base ability is certainly exceptional, I do look at it with a grain of salt.

Raines was very ordinary after age 27. Not sure why people are picking age 33 as when his drop off started.

Over the 6 years between ages 28 and 33 Raines had a 120 OPS+ and averaged 40 steals and 10 CS. That's not incredible, but it's not "very ordinary" either. He was probably one of the top 25-30 players in baseball still at that point. This is a rather important point since at any given time in baseball history this has been about how many future HOFers are playing.

Posted by sjpoker on 1/22/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):
I agree to many of those points. Steals do in fact have good on field value, but a lot of that is tied to who the manager is. The Cardinals in the 80s used the steal to great affect. It was essential to how they played the game. But that era is a long time ago. There are certainly players today that could be just as proficient at stealing bases as Rock Raines, but it just isn't essential anymore. So while his stolen base ability is certainly exceptional, I do look at it with a grain of salt.

Exactly. The game today is built around the HR and extra base hits. The "big" inning is the goal. Back in late 70s and for most the 80s, speed was a big offensive weapon. Not just stealing of the base but a distraction for a pitcher and intimidation to the fielders. Back then it was not unusual for a pitcher to throw to first 3 or 4 times between pitches to the batter. Most pitchers worked on their "move" to first. A definite cat and mouse game went on. Also these speedsters would bunt for hits and could make a "routine" groundball very very close. So this put pressure on the infielders.

The other factor was that AstroTurf used in many fields back then. It made the ball speed up when it hit the ground and/or have big hops. So you needed speed in your outfield if your home field had it. Since you had to have speed in the OF, the game became a track meet on the base paths.

The game has changed now days, a guy that steals 40-50 is a big deal. Back in the 80s, well that was just good. Not unlike a player today that hits 20 or so home runs. In today's game the HR is more valuable, back in late 70s and 80s....

A steal is never as valuable as a home run. Period. It's simple math. A guy who steals a base increases his chances to score, but he was already on base and had more than a 0% chance of scoring to start with, and after he steals he still doesn't have a 100% chance of scoring unless he stole home. So the run value of a stolen base is definitely less than 1. A guy who hits a home run scores. Anybody who was already on base scores. Of course they also didn't start with a 0% chance of scoring, but the key is that they do finish with 100% chance. So a home run is worth a bare minimum of 1 run and on average quite a bit more than that.

According to The Book, tabulated based on a great deal of historical data, on average a HR is worth 1.397 runs and a steal is worth 0.175 (a CS costs the team 0.467 runs). So basically, to produce the same run value as a HR, you have to steal about 8 bases without getting caught.