The Great Debate
Monday, December 31st, 2007ESPN is running an article right now about a subject that’s near and dear to my heart: a debate on Tim Raines’ Hall of Fame worthiness. In doing so, Peter Gammons proves why he is the most overrated columnist in all of baseball.
In this “debate” that the guys in Bristol have set up, they’ve pitted Gammons up against Jayson Stark, which is kind of like putting the Little League World Series champs up against the AL All Stars. Let’s see what kind of points these two guys make, shall we?
Stark: Tim Raines was nearly as good of a leadoff hitter as Rickey Henderson, even though he didn’t have the mouth to back it up.
He and Rickey Henderson towered over the leadoff hitters of their generation. Rickey was just a lot louder about it. You might have noticed that.
We’ll forgive you for not actually throwing out any numbers or justification for this claim, Jayson, since we agree with you.
Gammons: Even though he was a great player who made his teams play better, Tim Raines didn’t finish high enough in the MVP voting for my liking.
My problem is that he never finished higher than fifth in the MVP balloting.
Peter, all this proves is that he spent most of his career in the void that is Montreal.
Gammons: Also, let’s make sure we compare him to Jim Rice, since I’m a Red Sox homer and that’s how I roll. Any chance to mention Jim Rice is a good thing in my opinion.
Today, we check what Baseball Reference calls black lines — league leaders — and Raines had 20 black lines, as opposed to Jim Rice’s 33. He led the league in batting average once, on-base percentage once, doubles once and steals four times.
I want you to stop and read this, because it’s VERY important.
Among the “33″ categories that Jim Rice led the league in during his career: Grounding into double plays (4 times), Outs (2 times), Salary (2 times), At bats (2 times), Strikeouts (once), and Plate appearances (once). Seriously? You’re SERIOUSLY going to tell me that THOSE statistics help make Jim Rice a better player than Tim Raines? Give me a break.
Stark: Okay, PG, time to drop some knowledge on you.
You make a great case for Rice. But he and Tim Raines were two completely different players. They played the same position, but I think the MVP elections and league-leader numbers don’t accurately reflect what a great player Raines was.
Those Expos teams he played for made the playoffs once — and that was during the split strike season in 1981, which was Raines’ rookie year. So Andre Dawson and Gary Carter were stars and the dominant personalities on that team, and that’s understandable. But I still think Tim Raines was the driving offensive force on the Expos for the first seven full seasons of his career.
I always try to put those league-leader numbers in context: If a player didn’t lead the league a bunch of times, did he at least come close? Well, when we look at Raines more closely, here’s what we find:
He finished in the top five in steals nine times, in the top five in on-base percentage six times and in the top five in most times reaching base six times. He finished first or second in runs scored four times. He finished in the top three in three batting races.
And if we move on to the less traditional categories, he fared great in the sabermetricians’ favorite departments: top five in total average six times; top five in offensive winning percentage six times; top five in runs created five times; and top five in runs created per game six times.
I have nothing to add here. Stark just bitch-slapped Gammons on this one.
Gammons: Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to completely change the subject in hopes that you get too confused to keep debating this with me.
I do not hold it against Raines that he was at his best when baseball as an industry was learning that speed alone is not the key to being a great leadoff hitter. I just wish the greatness of his career had lasted longer.
I do look at the damage done by the collusion. I spent time with him in Florida when the Peter Ueberroth collusion was forcing him back to Les Expos. Which raises another question: Should any baseball official or owner who willingly participated in collusion be eligible for the Hall of Fame? That was an egregious form of cheating.
Sure, let’s take this debate about Tim Raines and begin asking questions about the Hall of Fame eligibility of people who were involved in collusion. Now THAT’S how we make a coherent point, ladies and gents.
Stark: I’m going to take this ridiculous question you just asked, and use it to prove my next point. Take that, old man.
But I’m glad you brought up collusion, because it leads me to a couple of points.
The first is that Raines finished with 2,605 hits: 395 away from 3,000. How many more would he have had if he’d played in an era of labor sanity? Think of all the games that were surgically removed from his career by collusion and labor strife. It adds up to almost a full season of his career — half of it in that period when he was one of the best players in baseball.
I have no doubt that if he was a member of the 3,000-hit club, he’d cruise on into Cooperstown. And he’d be awfully close to 3,000 if he’d played in an era where they actually played out full seasons every year.
(Hey, I need to introduce a quick aside: This is off-topic, but since I mentioned Gwynn, did you know Tim Raines reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn did — and that they had nearly identical career on-base percentages? And did you know that every eligible player who reached base as many times as Raines did, and had as high an on-base percentage as he had, is in the Hall of Fame?)
OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming. My other collusion point is this: If you were compiling a list of greatest leadoff seasons of modern times, where would you rank Raines’ season in 1987 — the year he missed all of spring training and all of April thanks to collusion, and still scored 123 runs? That .330 AVG/.429 OBP/.526 SLUG stat line is leadoff wizardry at its greatest, don’t you think?
There’s actually a lot to digest here. First of all, he’s right - Raines WAS hurt by labor strife and unrest in baseball. Also, he is hurt because he never reached this mythical “3,000 hit” barrier, even though he walked so many times he was on base MORE often than Tony Gwynn. Further proof why fixed “milestones” shouldn’t be a criteria for enshrinement into the Hall of Fame.
Gammons: You’re right. I quit.
I think if he’d had that extra half season, 3,000 hits would have been more important, and he might have reached the magic figure. I also respect him immensely for never backing off open discussions about the drug problems he overcame, and consider him a role model for those afflicted.
There is a reason that I wait so long to file my ballot, and this debate is a great example. Given that he reached base more than Gwynn and, with Henderson and Boggs, helped change the leadoff position (if someone reaches base, one has a rally), I throw up my arms, beg mea culpa and am now voting for Raines.
Seriously Peter? You’re just going to give up on something you believe in so easily? Pushover.
Obviously you can tell where I fall on this issue (I’d vote Raines into the Hall on the first-ballot, no questions asked), but where do you fit? Should Raines be in Cooperstown, or does he fall just short? And don’t worry, I won’t tear you apart like I did Gammons if you disagree with me. He’s just such an easy target.
