MLB 2010 HOF Induction

The Game Room
1

I don’t see a thread yet, much to my surprise.

The Baseball Hall Of Fame just got a whole lot classier today.

Congrats Hawk and all the rest of the inductees.

Dawson said today that “if you love the game, the game will love you back”. As a fan that sometimes isn’t true these days, but today it feels like it does and it always did when I had the pleasure to watch the Hawk on TV and in person. Hawk, Ryno and Gracie are the reasons I’m a Cubs fan and that’s a gift (and curse) that I will always have with me. Thanks Andre.

2

Glad Dawson went in as an Expo. Hopefully the Blue Jays will have some representation next year with Roberto Alomar, and I’d love to see Tim Raines get in as well.

3

Him going as an Expo was horse shit. It was a slap in the face considering his vocal preference. The HOF basically gave him the bird as a way of exerting their authority. If the Expos were still a franchise with a rabid fan base to appease then I could accept the flimsy longevity argument, but based on what happened to them and their support in the waning years combined with the toll that piece of shit field took on him it’s a heresy.

4

How in the world did Dawson get in ahead of Raines? That’s a far worse crime than Dawson going in as an Expo.

5

My guess is that it’s because Dawson hit more homers and drove in more runs, and those are the writers’ favourite stats.

I’m not sure if Dawson was HOF calibre or not, but IMO he was better than Jim Rice, and Rice got in last year.

6

I love me some Rock Raines and he belongs in the Hall, but he’s not a more valuable player than Dawson. There wasn’t a single moment in the prime of their careers where anyone would have traded Dawson for Raines straight up. End of story.

7

If better than Rice is the standard it is going to be a awfully big hall.

It is certainly possible, but luckily we have a better understanding of hitter’s value today. Raines was better and it isn’t particularly close. The key number

OBP
Raines 385
Dawson 323
The most important thing a batter does is not get out and Raines did it significantly better than Dawson did. He of course did other things better too such running, defending, and being durable.

8

Yes, we’ve been on this Merry-Go-Round a million times. Dawson’s hole in his game is OBP. We get it. He was great everywhere else. Saying that OBP is somehow the only metric that matters is obstinate. Dawson was an all-timer in the field and produced great power numbers for his era and had longevity and was an A+ character guy.

The league perception at the time is not something you can dismiss because we “understand it better” now. The world does not operate in a bubble. Dawson was asked by his coaches and teams to swing away and hit for power because he batted cleanup for pretty much his entire career. It’s naive to think that had Dawson played today he wouldn’t have been able to tweak his game to see more pitches, work counts and take walks. Were there a litany of clean up hitters in the 70s and 80s who played like moneyballers? There are far more guys with .350+ OBPs playing today, does that mean that there are a ton of HOFers playing nowadays? Is Adam Dunn a HOFer and a better player than Dawson solely because of his .380 OBP? Hawk did what everyone else did in his era and did it better than most everyone.

The key questions that should matter in HOF discussion is “was that guy considered the best player at his position in all of baseball at the time” and “was he in that discussion for enough years to deserve the Hall”. Hopefully the numbers and accolades back up those two questions, things like counting stats, rate stats and team performance but they are secondary to those first two questions.

If Dawson was widely considered a better player than Raines in his era by his peers and by the coaches and managers of the time then he’s a better player. You don’t get to move the goal posts on a guy because that doesn’t give the player an opportunity to prove he can do those things that modern baseball people value.

We measure dead ball era players differently than live ball players. We measure steroid era players differently than the batters of the tall mound period. We measure pitchers from the 5-man rotation era different than those from the turn of the century. We actually consider relievers nowadays. And, finally, we should consider moneyball era players differently than we consider players from the 80s. Times and priorities have changed.

One of Tim Raines big assets is his steals totals. Teams ran like crazy back then. Nowadays not so much. When Raines was playing he was never considered elite largely because he was overshadowed by Ricky Henderson, Vince Coleman and others. Times change, but a retired players value doesn’t.

9

I thought Dawson was awesome as a player and I am glad to see he got into the hall of fame. I hate how induction threads lead to the “should he have gotten in discussion”. I would rather have it used as a time to celebrate the great these guys did. Or fun stories about them. There is certainly a place for the discussion, just not here in my opinion.

I didn’t realize Dawson was a victim of collusion. I remember it happening and I remember the fallout. I just didn’t know the names of the people who were affected by it. Interesting to read that.

I remember that MVP season as being filled with all sorts of the best anger sports columnists could come up with. He was a well liked personality and he hit a lot of home runs that year and played pretty well in the field.

10

Wow, he was the only player? Maybe they’ll let in 30 next year to catch up.

11

Am I the only one surprised that Herzog got in? I mean I’m a Cubs fan so I suppose I’m predestined to hate him but his record as a manager is pretty average. He only managed 18 seasons, which is a lot but not enough to make you turn your head, and he only had a .532 winning percentage. He won a World Series and 3 pennants but considering that the Cards were always flush with talent that seems like a disappointment and frankly there are a lot of guys with 1 ring and similar post season records. Hell, the guy only won the division 6 times (only 3 in St Louis). I suppose the guy could get a lifetime achievement award for being a baseball lifer, but I don’t think being a mediocre player and decent manager is all that rare.

I know the Veterans committee is known to do some goofy things but the Herzog thing seems to be pretty widely accepted and I haven’t heard the usual grumbling so I suppose I’m missing something.

12

Top 5 OPS+:
Dawson: 157, 141, 137, 136, 135 (MVP season was 130)
Raines: 151, 149, 145, 138, 138

Best 3-year Stretch (OPS+):
Dawson: 157, 131, 141
Raines: 151, 145, 149

Top 5 WAR:
Dawson: 7.3, 6.8, 6.7, 6.6, 4.2 (his MVP season was 2.7)
Raines: 7.5, 6.8, 6.0, 5.7, 5.4

**Best 3-year Stretch (WAR): **
Dawson: 6.7, 7.3, 6.8
Raines: 7.5, 5.3, 6.8

There is no compelling “end of story” argument here. If you want to make a 5 year argument, I’d probably put up Dawson’s 1979-1983 and Raines’ 1983-1987. (This is hampered a bit by the shortened ‘81 season for Dawson, but it’s a good snapshot. It looks to be about 200 PA.) If I were a betting man, I would guess that the improvement Dawson would have over most teams’ 3rd or 4th hitter wouldn’t be nearly as great as the improvement of Raines over most leadoff batters, and I would guess that it wouldn’t be close at all.

Dawson: 3121 PA, 845 H, 468 R, 121 HR, 439 RBI, .296/.341/.507, 159 SB, 44 CS, 178 BB, 411 SO
Raines : 3394 PA, 928 H, 568 R , 57 HR , 302 RBI, .318/.406/.467, 355 SB, 43 CS, 433 BB, 311 SO

13

I think it’s to the point where no one really pays attention to the Veterans committee choices, as they’re mostly just rewarding the lifers. I’d guess they’re rewarding that aspect of Whitey’s career more than anything.

14

Great summary, Munch. Given just the 5 years you’ve highlighted above, I’d take Raines over Dawson. Interesting that Dawson was actually caught stealing 1 more time than Raines over the same period. I wonder if any of the new age valuation stats take into account the value of the extra bases Raines gained on the basepaths vs. the extra bases Dawson gained with his more powerful bat.

As a biased Braves fan in the 80’s I thought Murphy deserved the MVP in '87 more than Dawson. Always feared and disliked Dawson.

15

I listened to Whitey Herzog’s induction speech, and did I miss it, or did he hardly mention his time with the Royals at all? Three consecutive AL West titles was a major highlight of his career, I’d think.

16

All stats that no one gave a flying fuck about (nor had ever heard of) in 1983. I’m not saying that if they played today Dawson would be considered a better player, though if they played today their numbers probably wouldn’t be the same, I’m saying that during their careers using the current biases of the time Dawson was valued far higher than Raines.

17

Whitey Herzog would totally have taken Raines over Dawson. Sparky Anderson, too. Ditto ditto Earl Weaver, though he would have told Raines to ease off on the baserunning.

18

Thanks for discounting the 5 year totals I put up that use nothing BUT stats people give/gave a flying fuck about.

That’s because people are morons. Dawson was a great player, a class act, and I’m glad to see him in the Hall. Rock was also a great player, a flawed human, and will probably get shafted by the same morons who now vote for the Hall.

However, I’m not so sure Dawson really would be valued higher by everyone. Going through a quick look of teams in 1983, it’s more likely to have a prototypical #3 or #4 hitter of Dawson’s makeup than a transcendent leadoff hitter*. (Sorry for the totally biased language there - but Dawson was a player that took the #3/#4 hitter’s role and truly excelled at it, while Raines took the leadoff spot and totally transformed it (okay, Henderson did, but Rock was really the only other of that type at the time - Coleman doesn’t count because he was a one-dimensional player (the guy slugged over .400 just once!))). It’s pointless to say that most teams would want Dawson over Raines, simply because the role Dawson played was both overvalued as well as saturated in the league, while Raines’ role was new on the scene and undervalued because it was untested/unseen.

Furthermore, you mention that “teams ran like crazy back then”. That’s a total point in favor of Raines, since he didn’t just “run like crazy” but rather “ran like crazy when he wasn’t hitting it all over the place”, and I don’t think he was overshadowed by anyone other than Henderson.

You also wanted to see how others viewed both players at the same time (I disagree, especially since their careers started at different times, which makes it kinda pointless). Usually, a pretty good look at how others value a player is how much he’s being paid (even though it’s a ridiculously terrible metric, but you’re the one that wanted “value” and “biases of the time”) :

1982: Dawson $1.2m, Raines $200k, Coleman DNP
1985: Dawson $1.03m, Raines $1.2m, Coleman $60k
1986: Dawson $1.05m, Raines $1.5m, Coleman $150k
1987: Dawson $700k, Raines $1.66m, Coleman $160k
1988: Dawson $1.8m, Raines $1.66m, Coleman $700k
1989: Dawson $2.1m, Raines $2.1m, Coleman $775k
1990: Dawson $2.1m, Raines $2.05m, Coleman $1.01m
1991: Dawson $3.33m, Raines $3.5m, Coleman $3.1m
1992: Dawson $3.3m, Raines $3.3m, Coleman $3.2m
1993: Dawson $4.8m, Raines $3.5m, Coleman $2.3m
1994: Dawson $4.4m, Raines $3.6m, Coleman $3.3m
1995: Dawson $500k, Raines $3.7m, Coleman $250k
1996: Dawson $500k, Raines $2.1m, Coleman $500k
1997: Dawson DNP, Raines $1.7m, Coleman $500k
1998: Dawson DNP, Raines $1.3m, Coleman DNP
1999: Dawson DNP, Raines $600k, Coleman DNP
Career (est.): Dawson $27m, Raines $35.7m, Coleman $16m
(FTR: Henderson $44.5m)

At their peak, Dawson was “valued” higher - but it wasn’t “far higher”, and it was for an extremely short period of time. And for their careers, Raines was valued higher (“far” higher if you consider a difference of $8 million to be adequate using “the current biases of the time”).

*Was there ever a more out-of-place #3 hitter than Dave Conception?

19

I ignored them because they don’t really contribute to your point. You chose 2 5-year spans that weren’t concurrent, I’m not seeing how that argues my point that teams wouldn’t have traded Dawson for Raines.

Just for kicks lets look at a couple different 5 year spans for Dawson:


1983-1987  	MON,CHC  3059 PA  	397 R 	775 H 	141 HR 505 RBI	80 SB	35 CS 	177 BB	435 K	.276/.321/.492
1987-1991  	CHC  	2938 PA  	371 R	779 H	152 HR 497 RBI	51 SB 	19 CS	168 BB 	383 K 	.286/.329/.517

Now, looking at that with a modern eye a lot of Raines numbers pop out. The Runs and OBP are excellent. But you seem to be implying that the differential in HRs and RBIs wasn’t treated like absolute gold in 1983. A person in 1983 looking at those two stat lines are going to be falling all over themselves to get the guy with more than double the dingers and almost 50% more RBIs from 250 fewer plate appearances. The HR and RBI differentials in the two 5-year spans I highlighted above have an even greater disparity. In the 1980s just about everyone is going to see Dawson’s 87-91 span as the best 5 year group of them all. The only measure by which the 5 year span you chose is Dawson’s best is if you pretend that his OBP and CS numbers were the key stats and that doesn’t jibe with the reality of the time.

If you want to say that Baseball in 1976-1992 was a screwed up time and that the infatuation with HRs and RBIs and ignorance of OBP and OPS then I’ll agree with you. But based on the reality of the time Raines simply wasn’t considered the way Dawson was and that’s how I think the Hall should work.

People might have been morons, but the basis of my point was what those morons who happened to be in charge at the time thought that Dawson was better. There could very well be a case to be made that Raines was in reality better, but at the time no one thought so. (Ok, very few thought so.) Dawson tailored his game to what those morons asked and to now denigrate him for doing what was asked of him is unfair. This modern obsession with “new stats” is probably good for baseball, but it’s just not fair for people to apply modern prejudices to past players who excelled in the way that was valued at the time.

I don’t agree with your presumption that Raines’ role was totally misunderstood. The leadoff man role was pretty well understood then. Rickey, Vince, Mookie, Wille Wilson, hell even back to Lou Brock and other made it famous. What was misunderstood was the value of OBP. Lou Brock was a HOF leadoff man with 938 SBs but had a lousy .343 OBP. Rock and Rickey just seemed to figure out the value of working a count and taking a walk.

Still, at the time Dawson was widely considered more valuable than Raines and it’s worth noting that all statistics aside Dawson was an elite fielder while Raines was average at best. Dawson’s exemplary leadership, professionalism and clubhouse manner had value as well, moreso in the 80s than today even I think. So while Raines might have some great Sabermetric numbers, there weren’t many (any?) GMs back when they played who would have ever considered a Dawson for Raines trade straight up prior to Dawson’s twilight years.

My point is that teams back then became enamored with the concept of a leadoff man who stole bases. Herzog’s Cards and LaRussa’s A’s and Sox among others made it fashionable for every team to have a leadoff man who stole bases. As a result a lot of players who weren’t that good at stealing bases tried a lot and accumulated stats and a lot of players stole a lot of meaningless bases to bolster that stat category because of its notoriety. Raines was a very good base stealer, but if he or Rickey played today managers would rein them in for fear of wasting an out or wasting a runner ahead of a masher.

Long story short, the era of the 80s pumped up steals in the stat book and depressed OBP artificially due to the managing style of the time. This is at least part of the story when you compare Raines and Dawson.

Salary is a crummy measure I agree especially with the collusion of the time skewing things the way they did. Nonetheless, I was alive and a avid baseball fan back then. I know that Dawson would have commanded way more than Raines would have in the trade market throughout the 80s. Raines was really good, but between his less valued specialized role, defensive limitations and clubhouse issues he was miles behind Dawson in terms of regard. I’ll trust my memory on this point, if you remember differently so be it.

20

Lots of snipping content here for clarity, hope it doesn’t backfire on me…

[QUOTE=Omniscient;12737890Just for kicks lets look at a couple different 5 year spans for Dawson:


1983-1987  	MON,CHC  3059 PA  	397 R 	775 H 	141 HR 505 RBI	80 SB	35 CS 	177 BB	435 K	.276/.321/.492
1987-1991  	CHC  	2938 PA  	371 R	779 H	152 HR 497 RBI	51 SB 	19 CS	168 BB 	383 K 	.286/.329/.517

In the 1980s just about everyone is going to see Dawson’s 87-91 span as the best 5 year group of them all. [/quote]

Agreed. That is a MUCH better 5 year span - I’m not sure why I didn’t see it.

  1. No, the OBP is not excellent. .329 is pedestrian, at best.
  2. I’m not implying that HRs and RBIs weren’t treated like gold - I’m saying that they were, and that (nearly) every team had a prototypical big HR/RBI guy on their team.

Collusion was a pretty terrible thing, but wasn’t collusion the act of those exact people in charge, and didn’t they end up giving Dawson less money than Raines? I guess the wiki on Dawson shows that the Cubs owner didn’t place a monetary value to Dawson’s actual value, which he recognized. Collusion’s a weird thing…

This is false. If Dawson wanted to tailor his game to what the morons wanted, he wouldn’t have left Montreal for natural turf to save his knees, and would have cashed in a big paycheck.

Hogwash. In no way am I denegrating anyone, but rather shedding light on a player that contributed to helping his team win far more than the people at the time realized. Just because Pop-Pop didn’t recognize a Hall of Fame talent on the telly shouldn’t belittle Raines’ accomplishments and superior talent to those around him.

Thank you for proving my point. There is no doubt Lou Brock is a Hall of Famer - and Raines was even better, because he was a more complete player. Vince, Willie and Mookie were nearly identical types of players - one-dimension. To compare them to Raines is to totally misunderstand the type of player Tim Raines was. Yes, the leadoff role was famous - but it was famous for slap hitters who did nothing but steal. If you want to apply that label to Raines, I’d ask that you look over his resume once more.
SNIP!

Sorry - gotta run. I’ll cover the second half of your thorough post when I get back to a computer. Thanks for the thoughtful response.