# MLB 2010 HOF Induction **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [July 25, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985 "2010-07-25T22:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985/21 "2010-07-28T22:02:08Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > 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. I agree. I don’t think we should eliminate our (presumably) superior methods of evaluating players just because a player wasn’t measured against them when he played. Also, it’s a rather weak argument to assert that the Hawk could’ve performed differently had his managers valued OBP as much as they do today. Lots of players today are told to be more patient at the plate and simply can’t do it ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985/22 "2010-07-28T22:52:38Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 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. I was referring to Raines’ excellent OBP. Dawson’s was subpar. Every team had a bopper and K machine in their 4 hole. Dawson was one of the best. Every team had a leadoff guy who tried to steal a crap load of bases. Raines was one of the best. I’m not sure I see how this contradicts anything I said. You might want to note that I said at the beginning that Raines is a HOFer in my book, however I think Dawson’s character, defense and the priority placed on his role at the time makes him worthy of selection ahead of Raines. Don’t imply that I’m arguing anything more than that and I’m not diminishing Raines contributions. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Dawson tailored his game to what those morons asked and to now denigrate him for doing what was asked of him is unfair. > > 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. This doesn’t make any sense. Dawson wanted out of Montreal and due to collusion he didn’t get paid what he was worth. Still, he knew that getting out of Montreal would be the most lucrative thing in the long run because he’d have been out of baseball had he stayed. He also knew hitting HRs and driving in Runs would get him paid more than taking an extra 50 walks a season. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 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. Hey, you don’t need to convince me that Raines is great. Read what I said in post 6. **Yokeroo** asked why Dawson got in first, I’m explaining that’s because for better or worse swinging a big bat was more valued back then and Dawson was considered a better player because of it. Our understanding of OBP has raised Raines status in retrospect, but I still think Dawson is better based on the rest of his game. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 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. What point did I prove? That Raines was a great player? Well, kudos because the only person arguing against that here is the strawman you built. I’m not sure if Brock was better than Raines or not, I never saw Brock play, but it might make an interesting discussion. [QUOTE] > [@unwashed\_brain](#): > > > [@Munch](#): > > > > 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. > > I agree. I don’t think we should eliminate our (presumably) superior methods of evaluating players just because a player wasn’t measured against them when he played. I’m not saying we should throw away modern methods of analysis. But you have to put them into perspective. Would Dawson have been a better player with a OBP, yes. Could Dawson have had a better OBP had he been expected to, it’s impossible to say. Relative to his contemporaries Dawson’s BA and OBP are perfectly fine, that’s relevant. > [@](#): > > Also, it’s a rather weak argument to assert that the Hawk could’ve performed differently had his managers valued OBP as much as they do today. Lots of players today are told to be more patient at the plate and simply can’t do it Why is it so weak? It’s at least fair to say that we don’t know what would happen. Maybe he couldn’t have raised that stat had he been expected to, but it’s unfair to assume he wouldn’t. Base your criticisms of the player based on what the environment he played in at the time was like; how he compared to his peers. Use any measure you want there. But don’t compare him to guys playing today, guys playing in the steroid era or guys playing before integration. Maybe you’ll disagree, but I think HOFers are the best players playing the game when they play. The All Stars of the All Stars. Was the player the best guy in the league at the time he played for an extended period of time? That’s what I want to know. I don’t care about hypotheticals comparing a guy to players that played before and after him. Those are unknowable questions. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985/23 "2010-07-29T00:46:28Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > 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. I agree with the fact that Dawson was an elite fielder, a great teammate, etc. I think the possibility of a trade is still uncertain - Raines was 5 years younger, so there’s no telling how GMs may value future production. > [@](#): > > My point is that teams back then became enamored with the concept of a leadoff man who stole bases. And my point is that Raines didn’t just leadoff and steal, like everyone you mentioned except Henderson did. Raines was so much more of a complete player, it doesn’t make sense why you keep making this point. > [@](#): > > 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. I know we’re running outside the basepath here, but I disagree. Raines was Carl Crawford with an actual batting eye. Running these days is based on who can make it to second efficiently and not get caught. Raines had one of the best success rates in history - a truly underappreciated skill. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, Vince Coleman was a specialist. Lou Brock was a specialist. Mookie Wilson was a specialist. Tim Raines was anything but. > [@](#): > > I was referring to Raines’ excellent OBP. Dawson’s was subpar. Every team had a bopper and K machine in their 4 hole. Dawson was one of the best. Every team had a leadoff guy who tried to steal a crap load of bases. Raines was one of the best. I’m not sure I see how this contradicts anything I said. Ah - I totally misread that. > [@](#): > > Yokeroo asked why Dawson got in first, I’m explaining that’s because for better or worse swinging a big bat was more valued back then and Dawson was considered a better player because of it. Well, the real reason is that Dawson retired 3 years before Raines, but it’ll still be another 4-5 years before Raines gets close enough. > [@](#): > > What point did I prove? That Raines was a great player? Well, kudos because the only person arguing against that here is the strawman you built. I’m not sure if Brock was better than Raines or not, I never saw Brock play, but it might make an interesting discussion. The point you proved was that Raines’ role was misunderstood, since you keep comparing him to one-dimensional specialists. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985/24 "2010-07-29T01:41:36Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I agree with the fact that Dawson was an elite fielder, a great teammate, etc. I think the possibility of a trade is still uncertain - Raines was 5 years younger, so there’s no telling how GMs may value future production. The age thing wasn’t something I was factoring in. Certainly adds a dimension, not sure it’s really worth delving into to debate one broad statement. > [@](#): > > And my point is that Raines didn’t just leadoff and steal, like everyone you mentioned except Henderson did. Raines was so much more of a complete player, it doesn’t make sense why you keep making this point. I concede that Rock and Rickey were in a class of their own. However I don’t think they get credit for revolutionizing the position. I keep comparing them to make the point that Raines wasn’t inventing the wheel there, I’m not convinced he deserves “bonus points” for being an innovator. > [@](#): > > I know we’re running outside the basepath here, but I disagree. Raines was Carl Crawford with an actual batting eye. Running these days is based on who can make it to second efficiently and not get caught. Raines had one of the best success rates in history - a truly underappreciated skill. Agreed on all points. However, you implied that Raines role was a scarce one when he played. I don’t think that’s the case. There were a lot of prototypical leadoff men of varying talent back then. It was a role that was probably at it’s peak of popularity and Raines and Henderson were the elite ones. I don’t think a elite leadoff man was more rare than Dawson’s A+ fielding from a cleanup hitter. > [@](#): > > Again, Vince Coleman was a specialist. Lou Brock was a specialist. Mookie Wilson was a specialist. Tim Raines was anything but. This may be nitpicking semantics, but I said Raines played a specialized role. In other words he was a classic lead off man. That wasn’t intended to imply that he was a limited player. The others were limited and specialized. Raines did more, but I still think a do-it-all leadoff man was less appreciated then than a do-it-all cleanup hitter. To extend the comparison, for as unique as Raines was in his ability to hit for average and power and still play leadoff it might be more common than Dawson’s ability to be a 30-100 guy while also being a gold glove defender. It’s worth noting that Raines wasn’t a great defender while Mookie and Brock were. Dawson shared company with the Greg Luzinski’s of the world. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985/25 "2010-08-05T16:00:11Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > 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. You’re Cubness is showing, I think. You say Herzog benefited from talent on the Cardinals and neglect to mention that he was also the Cardinals’ GM who put that talent together. He also put together the excellent Royals teams of the late 1970s. I think - without having done the research - that most managers who’ve been successful with 2 teams generally make it into the HoF. I’d say - again without having done the research - that Herzog populated the “double-switch.” Before Whitey came to the Cardinals people talked about how much more strategic the NL was over the AL, but it took an AL manager taking over an NL team to put that into operation. IMHO. YMMV. As far as Raines goes, I’d say he was the 2nd best leadoff man of his generation behind R.Henderson, and that as Raines was an excellent leadoff man in his own right, that merits his HoF selection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2010-hof-induction/547985.md?page=1)