152 Responses to “2500/500/100/200 Club”

1. Johnny Twisto Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:28 am

   he was about as "barrel chested" as it got

   I guess that's true. It seems like a lot of other guys were built like that too -- how big was McGwire's chest? -- but maybe they were just more talented hitters who could adjust their swings.

   The young Ruben: http://bapple2286.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/87-t-rb-sierra.jpg

2. Timmy p Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:29 am

   I wanted to also say that I love players that walk, and that non-power hitters that walk deserve special praise. Joe Morgan .271/.392/.427 ! Joe was kind of a power hitter I guess, and he was awesome! One of my top 5 favorite players. Cat just came back in the room, she leaves whenever Zambrano pitches.

3. BSK Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:35 am

   JT-

   I'm curious about your comment regarding Raines and "filler".

   Over 9 seasons starting in 1994 and ending in his retirement in 2002, Raines racked up 6.1 WAR. That's not very good... roughly 2/3 WAR per season. However, looking more closely, we see that Raines averaged only 85 games and 295 PAs over those 9 seasons. More importantly, those years represent 9 of the 11 seasons that Raines posted a WAR under 2 (the other 2 being his initial call-up in 1980 when he had a 0.4 WAR in 27 PA and his 1982 season when he had a 1.9 in his first full year). Otherwise, he had a WAR of at least 2.8 every year and a WAR over 3.3 every year but 2. During those end-of-career years (when I think it would be fair to say he was a "hanger on" who was filling and not really justifying regular play), he added 555 Hs, 99 2Bs, 46 HRs, and 327 BBs. He posted an OPS+ of 107. I should note here that his offensive contributions were still above board and it was his defense and limited playing time that contributed to his sub par WARs.

   If we ignore 1994 on, Raines posted an OPS+ of 128 and reached base over 3000 times.

   Anyway, this is a long and poorly articulated way of asking, what exactly about Raines career constituted filler? Obviously, he had some sub-par years at the end during which his counting stats grew, but how many HOFs and other elite players did the exact same thing? How much "filler" is allowable? Raines peak wasn't as high as some other guys, he still put together 14 years of great ball with an impressive peak in the middle. Even on the downside, he was still a moderately productive player.

4. BSK Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:38 am

   JT-

   Good point re: Sierra's body type. My response would be that Sierra was more than just broad chested. He literally looked like a barrel on top of relatively skinny legs. He was about as thick through the chest as he was through the waste. Then again, this was towards the end of his career when age has a tendency to have that effect on the body. I'm no expert on Sierra. I just remember wondering how he ever got his arms around that torso of his.

5. Dukeofflatbush Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:38 am

   @ BSK & Johnny Twisto,

   Two well respected career baseball men, Joe Torre and Tony LaRussa, independently called Sierra the dumbest player they ever coached or played with.
   I'm not judging him, just recounting Torre & LaRussa's recollections.
   I believe the line LaRussa used was - "dumber than the village idiot."

6. Johnny Twisto Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:39 am

   I'd say 9 seasons of averaging under 1 WAR per season is filler, and certainly distinct from the career ends of most other great players. I acknowledge he was still an effective player during that time -- much of it was for my Yankees -- but to me those seasons just don't do much for his HOF credentials.

7. John Q Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:41 am

   @85 Chuck,

   Overstatement is putting it mildly, the only thing Raines and Coleman had in common as baseball players is they both stole over 750 bases. Coleman was a horrible baseball player and a total jerk as a human being. A Raines-Coleman comparison is similar to a Gary Carter-Paul Lo Duca comparison.

   Your second sentence is oblique as usual.

   If the HOF worked properly or at minimum was consistent in its selections, then Raines would have been elected already because he meets the standard definition of what they have historically selected as a HOF player in general or a HOF left fielder specifically. As it is now the HOF is a dysfunctional organization that either selects people arbitrarily or basically has refused to select deserving candidates.

   If the HOF had only 50 players then I would have no problem with a Raines snub because that would be a clear definition of what a HOF player is or isn't. The HOF has 200+ members and Raines was probably better than half of them. Chick Hafey, Joe Kelly, Dave Bancroft etc.

   There's a ground swell for the Raines candidacy, things are changing new writers are being given a chance to vote and they are in favor of selecting Raines. People are getting educated, people are evolving.

   There's also going to be very few position players being selected in the next 5-10 years because of steroids. This might also help Raines and other 1980's players.

   I wouldn't be surprised if he's elected in 10 years or so.

8. Johnny Twisto Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:43 am

   Duke, I remember LaRussa's "village idiot" comment. I don't recall Torre specifically calling Sierra a dumb player, but he did say he was the one player he had managed who didn't seem to "get it," which I believe was in reference to sublimating one's ego for the good of the team. But then Torre got some decent use out of Sierra when he returned years later.

9. Luis Gomez Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:46 am

   BSK: I'm aware of that '89 season for the simple reason that Sierra was my favorite player when I was growing up and every time I heard of Yount I can't help but wonder what if...

   He was considered a superstar at age 22, youngest to hit HR from both sides of the plate, one of the youngest ever to hit 30 HR before the age of 23(?), one of the better right field arms in all of baseball. For many baseball people he was the second coming of Roberto Clemente. He wasn't, of course, but he had the potential, however started to fade constantly if not rapidly right after being traded for Jose Canseco.

10. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Johnny @#92

    Comment #89 was somewhat tongue in cheek and somewhat sarcastic at the same time.

    "I don't know what most of them did differently than Sierra did."

    They didn't take as many steriods.

11. Doug Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:29 am

    Hmm. Big torso, skinny legs.

    Maybe it wasn't right for Sierra. But, seemed to work okay for the Babe.

12. Timmy p Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:46 am

    @64 I'm glad you mentioned Zambrano. I was watching Zambrano pitch a few years ago at Miller Park in Milwaukee and had a bad experience. I like to buy 2 seats when I go to the ball game so I can take my pants off and hang them on the seat next to me. I like to be comfortable for a baseball game, I love baseball. Well about 2 minutes after I take my pants off a security gentlemen asks me to put my pants back on and come have a word with him. So I go up to the concourse and he says "what the hell are you doing?" I say I often take my pants off in the Metrodome and it's never been a problem. He says you'll have to keep your pants on during the game or leave. Keep in mind I had my pants on for the national anthem, I would never disrespect my country that way. Once when the Twins were playing the Blue Jays I forgot and had to quick hustle to get them back on. I didn't want to look like I was jumping around so I left them off for Oh Canada, but got them on right as the Star Spangled Banner started, so I felt good about that. So anyway I agree to leave my pants on at Miller Park and return to my seat. Well as I'm walking away the security guy says "Zambrano sucks"! Keep in mind I'm wearing a #38 Cubs alternate blue jersey, XXL because of my muscles. So I turn around and go back to where this guard is and say $#!@ you cheese-eater! Then they jump me, 5 or 6 Wisconsinite police officers and security men. Well the situation was getting serious at this point, I won't lie. I started to get the upper hand when one of the police officers tasered me. Now keep in mind that I've all ready had 2 heart attacks and quintuple bypass surgery. The taser caused me to black out. I came to in a Wisconsin jail cell with the taste of burnt hot dogs in my mouth. I have had generally a clean record, at least for the last 9 years or so and I'd never been in jail in Wisconsin. Illinois and Iowa for sure been in jail, but not Wisconsin. Although I have been arrested often in the past, the conviction rate was low, about as low as Adam Dunn's batting average. Guess what? They have lady guards at the county jail now! Unreal! I tried to explain to a hefty guard named Merna that this is a big mistake, and where are my pants. Needless to say the lines of communication between Merna and myself broke down quickly. I'm standing in my cell with my Zambrano jersey on and no pants and start calling Merna bad names. This is not one of my proudest moments as you can imagine. So I ask Merna to please bring me my nitroglycerin pills so I can live for a few more hours, and you know what she says? "Zambrano sucks"!!!! There was nothing I could do, I was in jail and Merna had the keys. I'd never felt more helpless in my life.

13. Nash Bruce Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 4:46 am

    @99: It seems as though, I remember Molitor always being plagued by nagging injuries. Wonder what Molitor could actually have been, had that not been the case......

14. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 8:19 am

    JT-

    Philosophical question... if Raines walked away after 1993, would his HOF candidacy be stronger or weaker? What if he walked away after 1997? 1999?

    I ask because I wonder if a guy can somehow "lose" his candidacy through hanger on seasons? Obviously, there is the possibility of an extreme case where a guy racks up significantly negative WAR or woefully putrid numbers over a significant number of seasons. But if a guy simply has a few "hanger on" seasons at the end of an otherwise great career, is that really a factor? I realize Raines might not be the best test case for this, so I'm asking more generally.

15. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 9:46 am

    @114 BSK,

    I'd like to add my two cents to that question.

    I don't think there was a huge HOF support for Raines in 1993. Even though he was one of the top 5 players in baseball from '1981-87, he was stuck in Montreal while he was having his career years. Plus the strike of '81 and the collusion of '87 ruined his chance at breaking the stolen base record (1981) and winning an MVP award (1987).

    Also what hurt him was that one of his greatest skills; On base percentage/drawing walks was a skill set that only recently has garnered a lot of attention. He also had to play second fiddle to Rickey Henderson in that category during those years.

    Playing with Yankees in a part-time role from 1996-1998 hurt his chances at getting 3000 hits. The Strike of '94-95 also hurt his chance at 3000 hits. Also, he contracted Lupus in 1999 and was out of baseball for the 2000 season as well which killed any chance he had at 3000 hits.

    Lead Off hitters/On Base Percentage guys haven't fared well in HOF voting historically so that hurt him as well.

    The voters mind set is changing and he's at 38% in only his fourth year on the ballot. There also could be an anti-steroids era backlash in the next 5-10 years so 80's players like Raines could be the beneficiary.

16. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 10:27 am

    @114 BSK,

    The player that jumps to mind about losing his HOF candidacy by "hanging on" is Alan Trammell.

    In the early 90's people used to refer to Trammell as: "Future HOF Alan Trammell." After the 1993 season he was 4th all time in HR among SS, 10th all time among SS in BA (1901-1993, 5000 PA), 7th in Runs Created, plus he was a 4 time GG winner, so he was a rare combination of hitting and defensive skill at the SS position. He played another 3 more years and played pretty poorly in a part time role.

    What really changed after that was an offensive explosion in baseball in the mid 90's and especially in traditionally non power position like SS & 2b. Also what hurt Trammell is that three great SS were dominating the sport (A-Rod, Jeter and Nomar) when he became eligible in 2002.

    Had he become eligible say in 1996-98 he might have fared much better in HOF voting rather than 5 years later in the middle of the steroid era.

    I think hanging on might have hurt Dale Murphy's chances.

    Lou Whitaker probably should have kept playing because he could still hit in 1995. As it was he was 5th all time in HR among 2b in '95 and he was only 25 HR away from second place all time to Hornsby among 2b. He was fourth all time in Runs created among 2b, behind Hornsby, Morgan and Gehringer, when he retired in 1995.

    His One and Done in 2001 is one of the biggest embarrassments among the BBWAA writers ballot in the last 30 years.

17. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 10:29 am

    "Philosophical question... if Raines walked away after 1993, would his HOF candidacy be stronger or weaker?"

    Stronger, for sure.

    The last eight, nine years of his career is hurting him, no doubt.

18. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 10:47 am

    @59/ Chuck Says: "If there was no Rickey, there would be no Raines.
    He's Vince Coleman with more walks. Big whoop."

    Chuck, I gotta agree with John Q in #107 - this is one the most misinformed posts I've ever seen on this blog, which is saying something.

    Without running out a lot of numbers, only Coleman's best full season (1987) is better than Raines' worst full season (1982). Other than both being left fielders who started in the 1980s NL and stole a lot of bases, they are not comparable at all. I think an advantage of 60 points of OBP and 80 points in SLG for Raines, would be more than enough to distinguish the two apart. That's an ENORMOUS difference.

    That's like - well, stating that Johnny Damon is as good as any of the ten players listed at the top of this article. Equating Coleman to Raines severely undercuts your credibility.

19. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 11:05 am

    "Equating Coleman to Raines severely undercuts your credibility"

    Like I said, Lawerence, it was an intentional exaggeration for effect. John and I have had discussions in the past regarding Raines and part of the overstatement was specifically for his benefit.

    The overall intelligence on this site is impressive, the overall lack of common sense is surprising.

    If you're best argument for Raines is how much he potentially lost because of a couple of work stoppages and his stolen base percentage, then that's not much of an argument.

    Lou Whitaker got screwed. So did Dick Allen, and maybe even Trammell and Murphy.

    Raines has not.

20. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 11:23 am

    @119/Chuck Says: "Equating Coleman to Raines severely undercuts your credibility"
    Like I said, Lawrence, it was an intentional exaggeration for effect... ...If you're best argument for Raines is how much he potentially lost because of a couple of work stoppages and his stolen base percentage, then that's not much of an argument."

    No Chuck, the best HOF argument for Raines is that he comfortably fits into the middle-of-the-pack amongst corner outfielders _already_ in the HOF. You'd be much better off comparing him negatively to Gwynn, than bringing up Coleman at all, that's just a pointless diversion.

    I'd rate him about even with Trammell/Whitaker,a little ahead of Allen/Murphy (a little less peak than them,but a lot more career).

21. Dan Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 11:31 am

    If Damon were to retire today, no he's not in. If he goes two more solid years and his stats measure up to Alomar, Yount, Molitor, Clemente and Brock, why shouldn't he be in? Some said he is most like Pinson. Well, so is Clemente. And speaking of selective lists, how about the fact that with only eight more steals, only he and Molitor would make the list if you added a 400 stolen base filter.

22. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 11:51 am

    John Q and Chuck-

    Thanks for weighing in. I suppose my question was more aimed at SHOULD that be the case as opposed to IS IT or HAS IT BEEN. You cite practical examples of ways in which "hanging on" has damaged a guy's HOF status. I'm wondering whether that is fair. My gut feeling is that it is not. To me, that'd be like saying a team that won 95 of it's first 130 games didn't deserve to make the playoffs if they only won 5 of their last 32 (in a season where 100 games would qualify you for the playoffs). It is really hard to "undo" a legitimate Hall of Fame career. Then again, we do have to look at the entire body of work. Complicated question...

23. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    BSK,

    IMO, "hanging on" doesn't help in someone's HOF case.

    Omar Vizquel certainly has done himself more harm than good over the past couple of years.

    But if you look at the last line of Lawrence's comment in #120, he apparently believes career value to be just as important as peak.

    Raines didn't make an All-Star team over his last 13 seasons, or receive an MVP vote over his last eleven.

    He played 23.

    His career would look alot better if he played 15 or 16, and the numbers he put up over his last six or seven years certainly impacted his career value.

    If Raines had retired after the '95 season, his career WAR would have dropped from 64.6 to 61.4, not a significant difference obviously, but he would have posted a positive dWAR.

    One reason why Raines doesn't get alot of HOF support is he was a poor defensive outfielder, but for those who use advanced metrics as part of their voting criteria most certainly would be viewing Raines in a different light.

    IMO, Raines is a better player and a better HOF candidate with a 16 year career than he is with 23.

24. Dukeofflatbush Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    @ 116-117

    Definitely right there. Think of Kirby Pucket playing into his late 30's, and we would of been calling Harold Baines Jr. Or a Ralph Kiner or a Koufax. I guess it is hard to know when to fold them.
    But only the player's know what a diminished Trammel brought to the team that's not measurable.
    From what I recall, it meant a lot to the younger guys. I think Higginson, Fryman and Tony Clark were all pretty impressed and looked up to him.

25. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    BSK, et al: I don't think a guy can play his way out of deserving the HOF. If Raines was qualified after '93, nothing he did subsequently would change that (short of throwing games or something). I do agree that the long tail to his career has probably hurt his candidacy in reality, as voters have somewhat forgotten what a dynamic player he had once been.

    I actually don't agree that Vizquel's coda is hurting him. I hear more about him as a future HOFer now than I did a few years ago. I think he's moved past "washed up player trying to hold on" to "isn't it amazing he can still perform at this age," and his career will be seen as unique.

26. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    @123/ Chuck Says: "BSK, IMO, "hanging on" doesn't help in someone's HOF case. Omar Vizquel certainly has done himself more harm than good over the past couple of years..."

    Chuck, have to disagree in Vizquel's case - three/four years ago, there was very little HOF-talk around him, now I hear a lot of "Omar Vizquel, a future HOFer..." talk. Not that I agree with that sentiment, but he's certainly gotten his name into the discussion by continuing to play, even if it is part-time.

    "... One reason why Raines doesn't get alot of HOF support is he was a poor defensive outfielder..."

    I wouldn't call him a poor defensive OFer, probably average or at worst "adequate". He was certainly better than Lou Brock. It doesn't move his HOF case much in either direction.

    Yes, I do believe career value is just as important as peak value; I understand other people will put more emphasis on one or another in evaluating players.

27. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    I believe in using peak and career values as well, Lawrence, but I also believe Raines is such an extreme case you really can't in his case.

    We've all seen it...guys like Ripken, etc, getting All-Star appearances late in their career when they weren't deserved, and only doing so because of reputation.

    At a time when most guys hit the prime (27-32) part of their careers, Raines was done.

    By the time he got to the age 35 and above and SHOULD have been receiving token AS appearances, he was already forgotten about.

    Raines almost had two different careers, with his "bad" career being longer, and more recent, than his "good" career.

    Next year is a down ballot year, with only Barry Larkin looking like he'll get enough votes.

    Starting in 2013 there will be a dozen years or so with at least one first ballot guy, and more depending how the voters continue to treat the steriod guys.

    Heck, THIS year was a down year and Raines' percentage only increased by 13%

    If Raines doesn't get in next year, which we both know he won't, his only hope will be the VC.

28. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    JT-

    I think I agree. If you didn't think Raines was a HoFer after 1993, that's not going to change. If you did, that probably shouldn't change either. It might, but it shouldn't. I'd be curious to see what is the acceptable level of "hanging on" as evidenced by HoF voting trends, if a trend does exist, whether it is relative (such as 20 amazing years allows for 5 hanger on years but 15 amazing years allows for only 3) or absolute (anything over 4 is considered detrimental). Probably no way to prove it, but most guys, HoFer or otherwise, have a tail end of their career. For some, it is played at a level slightly below their best and for others it is woeful. It'd be interesting to look at how HoF voters have responded to different tail ends.

29. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @119 Chuck,

    "If you're best argument for Raines is how much he potentially lost because of a couple of work stoppages and his stolen base percentage, then that's not much of an argument."

    The time he lost from the labor problems; 1981-1995 were never brought up as "the best argument" for Raines. They were brought as mitigating factors that impacted his perception as a player and he is also the player most negatively affected by the labor problems of that time period. Obviously if he broke Brock's SB record or won the MVP in '87 he would be perceived differently. Also, he lost about 70-80% of a full season because of '81, '87, 94-95 which would have given him an additional 200 times on base or about 4200 for career (Mickey Mantle/Jimmy Foxx territory). Every eligible player over 4050 has been elected to the HOF.

    These would be his best arguments:

    His best HOF argument is that he had 1571 Runs Scored (51rst) which is roughly the same as HOF's George Brett and Rogers Hornsby or MORE Than HOF's Hugh Duffy, Reggie Jackson, Max Carey, George Davis, Frankie Frisch, Dan Brouthers, Wade Boggs, Sam Rice, Eddie Mathews, Roberto Alomar, Mike Schmidt, Al Simmons, Nap Lojie, Goose Goslin, Rod Carew, Roberto Clemente, Tony Gwnn, Harry Hooper, Billy Williams Ernie Banks and Joe Dimaggio. And That's just naming 23 HOF.

    His 1571 Runs scored ranks 6th all time among LF.

    He's 5th all time in Stolen Bases (808) with an 86% success rate.

    He's 55th all time in Runs Created (1636) tied with Tony Gwynn.

    He reached base 3977 times (46th all time), a little bit more than Tony Gwynn.

    8 Times he finished in the top 10 in Runs Scored in his career.

    6 Times he finished in the top 5 in On Base Percentage.

    5 Times he finished in the top 3 in Runs Created.

    He had 1330 Walks (35th all time) in his career.

    9 Times he finished in the top 5 in Stolen Bases.

    9 Times he finished in the top 10 in Triples.

30. Dan Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Vizquel still playing does not hurt his HOF chances. How can playing the infield in your late 40s hurt your hall of fame chances? If anything, he's only become more popular and appreciated. Furthermore, Rusty Staub hung out in the HOF balloting longer than expected for that reason, not in spite of it.

31. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Dan-

    That's in the moment. In 10 years, people who didn't see Vizquel play are going to look at his stats and see he had 5 or 6 years (and counting) at the end of his career where he contributed very little to or actually hurt his team's chances of winning. Whether that is fair or not is another conversation, but it certainly is a factor.

32. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    @122 BSK,

    That's an interesting question.

    I don't think "Hanging On" in general hurts players HOF chances if anything it actually helps them because the HOF voting tends to skew for career value because it's an easier way to vote. Voters can point to a specific milestone and vote accordingly.

    I think retiring early might actually help pitchers sometimes, think Koufax, Drysdale, Ford, Catfish Hunter, Lefty Gomez and Bob Lemon for example.

    I think Kevin Brown hurt his HOF chances by hanging on, same goes with Bret Saberhagen. I think Luis Tiant hurt his HOF image by going to the Yankees/Pirates/Angels and struggling form '79-81.

    I think HOF voting now among Starters is completely skewed towards career value. I think Pedro is the rare pitcher who will get in because of his Peak value.

    The player I think that was most screwed up his HOF chances by hanging on was Ted Simmons. He went from an Image as one of the great offensive catchers in baseball history with a .298 lifetime BA and 8 All star appearances to a overweight DH/1b on the Brewers & Braves. I think what hurt him the most was playing from 1984-1988 when he was pretty awful.

    I think Graig Nettles hurt his image hanging on with the Braves & Expos.

33. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    What is a better career...

    15 years, 5 WAR every year...
    20 years, 5 WAR every year for the first 15 years, 2 WAR every year for the last 5...
    (Assume every season was a full season of everyday play)
    (I deliberately chose a WAR of 2 for those final seasons because that is the agreed upon cutoff between starter and sub)
    I'm pretty confident saying it is the latter (though I'm up for counter-arguments).

    What if those last 5 years are played at a 1.8? 1.5? 1? Will any of that make the latter player's career worse than the former?

34. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Again, I'm not asking necessarily about the perception of players from the fans or HoF voters, but what we can actually say as objectively as possible about those different career paths.

35. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    "I think Kevin Brown hurt his HOF chances by hanging on"

    No, he hurt them by taking steriods.

    With all this recent discussion regarding peak/career values, shouldn't Raines be the poster child for this?

    Raines plays 15-16 years and gets onto the HOF ballot the first time in, say, 2001, he conceivably could be in now.

    The steriod revelations caused an immediate shunning of anyone with seemingly inflated power numbers during the 1987-2000 era, a time when Raines was a still active player.

    In the minds of some, a player with a similar skill set could have his numbers even more legitimized than they are simply because "homeruns" could no longer be mentioned without "PEDS" attached.

    Over the last six years of his career, Raines stole 31 bases.

    What looks better, 808 steals in 23 years, or 776 steals in 16 years?

    And he'd still rank fifth all time.

    He'd lose 196 walks and would drop to a career total of 1134, which would place him 70th instead of his current 35th. That's a pretty big drop on the career list considering he only lost less than 200 walks, but of the guys in between, only Griffey and Biggio are considered HOF locks. Out of the others, ARod, Helton, Manny, McGwire, Edgar Martinez, there are other factors which will impact their vote totals.

    Those last six years or so didn't cost Raines much in terms of numbers and ranks on the career list, but they certainly have impacted the view of him as a HOF worthy player as his career value suffered mightily.

36. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Number of years Tim Raines played: 23

    Number of years Tim Raines posted a WAR of 5.0 or more: 5

    I wonder if any "Hall of Famer" posted fewer, especially with a career of that length?

37. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    BSK/133, certainly the longer career in your example is the better career. I don't think there is any way a player can keep playing and make his career worse. How much those additional seasons add to a HOF resume is another question. I tend to favor a sustained period of greatness, and don't care much about career totals. But my thinking on this will probably continue to evolve....

38. Mark T. Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    I think runs will be a huge part of the argument for Johnny Damon for the HOF. Right now he's at 1598, good for 47th on the all-time list, if he plays 2 more years, and is decent, he'll be at 1700 at least, which would be 27th on the all-time list. Everybody above 1700 runs is in the Hall, except for Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, and Craig Biggio.

39. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Since 1961 (162-game schedule), the following HOFers have five or fewer seasons of at least 5.0 WAR (batters only):

    Alomar
    Aparacio
    Brock
    Cepeda
    Dawson
    Fisk
    Gwynn
    Killebrew
    Murray
    Perez
    Puckett
    Rice
    B. Robinson
    O. Smith
    Stargell
    B. Williams
    Winfield
    Yastrzemski

    So, it's not uncommon.

40. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    JT-

    I think that is where my head is at, unless the guy is actively hurting his team (negative WAR, WPA, etc.).

    I wonder if an ideal measure of HOF candidacy would be to look at a guy's middle 12 years and say, "Looking at these 12 years alone, are they a HOFer?" If a guy can't build a HOF case in 12 years, he probably isn't one. And if he only looks like one over a smaller sample, he probably isn't one. We can play with the years (10 vs 12 vs 15). We could choose the 12-year-span that is most favorable to a guy... so someone like Andruw Jones could get his first 12 while Randy Johnson would probably want the 12 years starting with his age 29 season, but they would have to be consecutive (though maybe choosing the 12 best non-consecutive is better...?). I haven't fully fleshed this out, but I sort of like the idea the more I think of it. We wouldn't have to discredit what is done outside of those 12 years (Aaron would still get credit for all 755 HRs), but we avoid rewarding "compilers" and "flash in the pan" types and look at the portion of the career where the guy was at his most meaningfulness, both on the field and in the fans' perception.

41. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    @136 Chuck,

    Tim Raines posted SIX seasons of 5.0 WAR or more: '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, and 1992 with the White Sox not Five.

    The Strike in 1981 cost him another 5WAR season, he finished with a 4.0 that year. He had seasons like 1985 when he had a 7.5 WAR and he had two 6.0+ WAR seasons so it's not like he just barely went over 5WAR. and Collusion in 1987 cost him another 7 WAR season because he ended the year with a 6.8 WAR.

    Counting Tim Raines 1979-1980 as "Seasons" is a bit weak in that he only had 27 plate appearances.

    In 1999 he went on Kidney dialysis so he only had 164 plate appearances. And he never had more than 114 plate appearances in 2001 or 2002.

42. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Five or six, changes nothing, John.

43. BSK Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Chuck-

    It should change SOMETHING. Maybe not his HOF candidacy. Maybe what it does change it should only change a little. But it certainly should matter. Otherwise, when does another season of accomplishments count? If there is no difference between 5 or 6, is there one between 4 and 5? 6 and 7? 9 and 10? I understand if we're talking small potatoes (the difference between 2999 hits and 3000 hits is so small as to be basically nothing). But an entire season?

44. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Chuck,

    As long as you brought up "WAR" here's how Tim Raines ranks all time among LF who played 50% of their career in LF 1876-2011:

    1-Barry Bonds-171.8-N/E
    2-Ted Williams-125.3*
    3-Rickey Henderson-113.1*
    4-Carl Yastrzemski-88.7*
    5-Ed Delahanty-74.7*
    6-Fred Clarke-73.4*
    7-Jesse Burkett-68.0*
    8-TIM RAINES-64.6
    9-Al Simmons-63.6*
    10-Goose Goslin-63.0*
    11-Sherry Magee-59.1*
    12-Zack Wheat-57.8*
    13-Willie Stargell-57.5*
    14-Billy Williams-57.2*
    15-Joe Medwick-55.8*
    16-Joe Kelley-55.5*
    17-Bob Johnson-53.2
    18-Minnie Minoso-52.8
    19-Jose Cruz-52.2
    20-Jimmy Sheckard-51.8

    *HOF

    HOF LF not in Career Top 20 WAR:
    Ralph Kiner-45.9
    Heinie Manush-44.1
    Jim Rice −41.5
    Lou Brock-39.1
    Chick Hafey-29.5
    Monte Irvin-20.5

    There are 20 HOF left fielders and the Median WAR for a HOF LF is 57.65 which is somewhere between Willie Stargell and Zach Wheat. Tim Raines career WAR is 64.6 so he clearly supersedes the level of a Median HOF left fielder. And on top of that, every left fielder who has surpassed 55 WAR has been elected except for Tim Raines.

45. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    @142 Chuck,

    "Five or six, changes nothing, John."

    Well if it means nothing why bring it up to begin with?

    Your main premise was wrong to begin with in that he had 6 not 5 seasons of 5+ WAR.

    And your main point that Raines is not a HOF players because he "only" had 5 seasons of 5+WAR was also silly as pointed out by the post of Twisto @139.

46. Chuck Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    That's nice, John.

    See what I mean about HOF discussions being pointless?

    Tim Raines is not currently in the HOF, and the odds of him eventually getting there are not good.

    Your opinion, along with mine, has no impact to changing that fact.

47. Neil L. Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    @146
    Chuck, agreed that HOF debates are unwinnable. However they clarify our understanding of baseball and player value. Look at the quality of the posts in this thread.

    It will take me several hours to digest all the good stuff in here.

48. John Q Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    @146 Chuck,

    Well HOF threads are what they are. The world isn't going to end if Raines doesn't get into the HOF and there's a lot more important problems in the world than a guy not getting into the baseball HOF. I mean he's not my favorite player or anything like that and I don't even think he's the most deserving of the group of eligible players.

    As far as Raines getting in....I think it's quite possible. He's at 37% in his fourth year, Duke Snider was at 40% in his 7th year on the ballot. Things are changing, the writers group is changing it's getting younger with different ideas etc. Dawson is in so that should help Raines. Blyleven is in so Raines might be the Statheads new pet cause.

    Like I said before there's an anti steroid era bias towards many players so that might help Raines and other pre-steroid players.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he was elected in 8-11 years

49. BSK Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 12:24 am

    White People Problems... Tim Raines not making it into the HOF because of an underappreciation of advanced statistical analysis.

50. nightfly Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Tim Raines not making it into the HOF because of an underappreciation of advanced statistical analysis his talent and accomplishment.

    FTFY.

51. John Q Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 am

    @149 BSK,

    Yeah, that's a very valid point.

    I made a mistake @144 Sherry Magee isn't in the HOF. I always make that mistake. Magee was one of the big sluggers of the early 20th century dead ball era. So Zach Wheat (57.8) would be your Median HOF Left Fielder.

    Magee has the most Gray Ink not to be elected to the HOF. He has the third most Black Ink among 20th century players not in the HOF after Cravath and Mark Mcgwire.

    Magee finished in the top ten in Slugging 11 times, top ten in RBI 9 times (led the league 4 times), and he finished in the top ten in doubles 10 times, 7 times in the top 3.

    Probably Magee's strongest case other than his Gray Ink score is that every player that led the league in RBI's 4 or more times has been elected to the HOF. There's only been 10 players to lead their league in RBI's 4 or more times and Magee is one of those 10: Anson, Ruth, Gehrig, Wagner, Aaron, Cobb, Greenberg, Hornsby, Schmidt, and T. Williams and Magee.

    So as far as worthy eligible LF for the HOF, Raines, Magee, and Minoso really should be in the HOF. Raines and Magee easily fit the standards of a HOF Left Fielder. Minoso didn't become a full-time player until he was 25 mainly because of the racial prejudices of the day so he really should have been looked upon like Monte Irvin.

52. John Q Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    @150 Nightfly,

    Great point!

    Here's five impressive stats from Raines' early career:

    In 1981 he stole 71/82 (86%) bases in only 88 games played during the strike year of 1981. To follow that up he was on a pace to go 130/150 in a 162 game schedule.

    In 1983 the Expos scored 677 runs, Raines scored 133 of them or 19.6% of his team's runs scored.

    Raines' 133 runs scored in 1983 was the most by any NL player from 1971-1992.

    Raines scored 123 runs in 139 games in 1987. He was on a pace to score 143 runs in 162 games had it not been for the collusion that kept him out of MLB during the first month of that year. 143 runs in 1987 would have been the most runs scored since Chuck Klein's 152 in 1932.

    He led the NL in Runs, Hits, Stolen Bases, Triples and Runs Created for the decade 1981-1990 with 926 runs scored, 1597 Hits, 627 Stolen Bases, 81 Triples, and 1030 Runs Created. He was Second in On Base % (.391) and Walks (769). He was Third in Batting Avg (.302) and Doubles (273).