buzzcut

MLB Hotstove 2016-17

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

As an Expos fan, I'm admittedly biased here. But Raines didn't just "make an impact" - it's actually a travesty he even had to wait this long to get in, especially considering that a worse version of him (Lou Brock) got in on the first ballot with almost 80% of the vote.

 

In addition to being a monster on the basepaths, Raines also had very few peers when it came to getting on base to begin with. He's one of only four post-WWII Hall of Famers with at least 4,000 at-bats in the leadoff spot and an OBP of .385 or better. He also led the entire NL in singles, doubles, triples and walks from 1981 to 1987. Only 18 players in MLB history have at least 2600 hits and 1300 walks, and until this year, only two of them weren't in the Hall. One of them was Pete Rose, who's banned for life; the other one was Raines.

 

If that doesn't convince you, consider this: the two players that Raines always inevitably gets compared to are Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn (both of whom were first-ballot Hall of Famers). Henderson easily laps Raines in total career stolen bases, but Raines has the upper hand in efficiency on the basepaths. Raines is the all-time leader in stolen-base percentage (84.7%) among players with at least 400 attempts. Rickey would have to unretire and successfully steal 448 bases in a row to surpass Raines' efficiency. Raines also stole at least 70 bases in six consecutive seasons between 1981 and 1986 - a feat that no other player, not even Rickey, has ever done. As for Gwynn, while he got more hits and had a higher career batting average than Raines, their career OBPs were essentially equal and Raines actually reached base more often than Gwynn did. Raines also scored almost 200 more career runs than Gwynn did. Back before sabremetrics were a thing, old-school sportswriters and fans were under the impression that he was "Rickey Lite" or "Diet Gwynn." Through the benefit of better metrics, we now know that Raines was just as good in his prime as those two guys were - even better than them in some ways.

 

As far as team success goes, keep in mind that Raines' prime predates the wildcard era, and the Expos were stuck in a stacked NL East in a stretch where the Phillies, Mets and Cardinals all won championships. Many of the teams Raines was on in Montreal would have made the playoffs in today's league but didn't under the rules of his era. That limited the chances he had to make an impact in October during his prime. Later on in his career, he helped lead the White Sox to the ALCS and was a key role player (albeit limited by injuries) for two championship teams with the Yankees.

 

Raines is the perfect example of why the argument that you're somehow less deserving if you don't get inducted on your first few ballots is bull :censored:. Raines is a no-brainer HOFer who had to wait for a decade for reasons that were outside of his control: the arbitrary Rule of Ten creating a logjam of deserving players, the Expos not getting enough attention from the American media because they played in Montreal, and crotchety old sportswriters with outdated attitudes who didn't properly value walks or baserunning.

 

Good points, though calling Lou Brock a "worse version" of him doesn't seem accurate.  I think stats are overrated and aren't always a true measure of impact.  I think the hall is more about impact to the game than it is just about who had the most... whatever.  I was a big baseball fan back then, and yeah, he had some amazing years and was a star (even playing in MTL), but at the end of the day it just doesn't seem like he had the same impact as those other guys.  It's not tangible, I know.  

 

I can't really argue that he's not deserving - so I have no problem with him getting in - I just don't know that I would have voted for him.

 

 

12 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

I'm of the belief that if you don't get in the first time, you shouldn't be in. Do your stats change? What makes someone a hall of fame 10 years after he retired rather than 5 years? I'm pretty much anti-hall of fame for various reasons, this is one of them.

 

In general, I feel this way too - you're either a HOFer or you're not.  If it requires debate, then you're not.

 

Unfortunately there's three things to consider:

1.  it's been watered down to the point where it's no longer binary

2.  some writers are just a-holes and sometimes it takes some new blood to get someone in.

3.  some writers feel so self-important that they reserve "first ballot" for an elite group.  These guys should f themselves.

 

Usually when someone is 3 or 4 years in, the discussion is more about how their numbers compare against someone else that got in that probably shouldn't have.  Then that person becomes the new "worst guy in" that the other borderline candidates get compared to.

 

It's not nearly as bad in baseball as in NFL, where I feel like I'm only a few years away from enshrinement, but it just doesn't seem as exclusive as it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Good points, though calling Lou Brock a "worse version" of him doesn't seem accurate.

Raines and Brock were similar types of players, but Raines is ahead of Brock in batting average, OBP, OPS, OPS+, slugging, wOBA, wRC+, WAR, number of times on base, stolen base percentage and home runs. In Brock's best season, he had an OBP equivalent to Raines' career OBP. He also was never as efficient on the basepaths as Raines was. I think it's safe to say that Brock was the prototype and Raines was the finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a longtime proponent of Raines' Hall of Fame candidacy, so I'm delighted to see him get in. @Lights Out is exactly right that he was Rickey-Lite or Gwynn-Lite - in fact, Raines was very comparable to Gwynn in terms of production and overall value. People's perception of Raines at the time didn't match the actual value of his production. Part of that is because our understanding of production has evolved greatly since the 80's, and part of it was that he was always overlooked by virtue of being in Montreal, and not winning batting titles like Gwynn did. I'm glad to see him finally get his due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/01/2017 at 2:22 PM, smzimbabwe said:

I'm of the belief that if you don't get in the first time, you shouldn't be in. Do your stats change? What makes someone a hall of fame 10 years after he retired rather than 5 years? I'm pretty much anti-hall of fame for various reasons, this is one of them.

Yes & no.  Not until the death of the writers who to this day never ever vote for anyone on their first ballot.  

 

I wouldn't mind having another casual HOF yes or no discussion, only for active players to keep it lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy Marte (formerly of Braves, Indians, and Diamondbacks) has also died in a car crash. It is presumed that alcohol was involved in both crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

Sources saying 2019 MLB All Star Game to be host in Cleveland.

 

Hopefully they can do something to fix the atrocious upper deck at Progressive Field before then.

 

Crazy to think Cleveland will host the MLB AS Game in '19 and NBA AS Game in '20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

Sources saying 2019 MLB All Star Game to be host in Cleveland.

 

Good. Cleveland did a great job hosting in 97 and it'll end the run of 4 straight in NL ballparks. 

 

This means that Citizens Bank and New Yankee Stadium are the only "new" parks that haven't hosted one and aren't set to in the near future. Figure Philly gets it in 2020, Dodger Stadium hasn't hosted since 1980 so they'll probably get a crack, Atlanta and Texas' new stadiums will want one, and then who knows from there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ninersdd said:

Sergio Romo signs with the Dodgers.

 

Honestly, I’ve never really liked Romo that much. GREAT pitcher for awhile who added so much to our pen and is a big part of one of the greatest moments in San Francisco Giants history. He also seemed like a genuinely good dude and came across as pretty funny. But he was also a pretty big schmuck a lot of the time. The way he always bowed down to Brain Wilson was just weird. It was like he had so little of his own style that he had to syphon off of that weird Fear The Beard thing Wilson was doing and I always kinda found that to be a bit off putting. And the comments he made about Bryce Harper last year were completely off base and stupid. Once he went downhill on the mound and his antics picked up moreso, I was over him being a Giant.

 

I appreciate what he did for us, no doubt about that. But I won't really miss him all that much. And I'd be pretty surprised if he did more for the Dodgers than just annoy us at times.  

 

 

BUT, to be totally fair, we'll always have this...

giphy.gif

 

That was pretty nice. Hope he doesn't have another one of those with the Dodgers. 

 

 

And DAMN I hope he doesn't turn out to be as big of a jackass as Brain Wilson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 2001mark said:

https://theringer.com/baseball-mlb-npb-ham-fighters-shohei-otani-takuya-nakashima-6a0e7d22d39f#.mrvpkapea

 

Fun read, including vid of a 12 pitch AB with 8 foul balls before a walk.  Deadball player in the 21st century.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royals just signed Jason hammel to a two year deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell Martin not cleared to play shortstop for Canada at the WBC; insurance caveat from his minor knee surgery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like with automatic intentional walks, this is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There were a whopping 14 games last year that went 14 innings or longer. Out of 2,428 (two games were cancelled and not made up). That's 0.58%. There were another 18 that went 13 innings. So are we going to turn extra innings into MLB's version of 3-on-3 overtime because 1.32% of the time the game goes 13 innings or longer?

 

If they want to do something like that in the low minors where they limit pitcher usage and don't want position players pitching every time the game goes extra innings, fine. But there's no way they should do this at the big league level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, goalieboy82 said:

 

Lol that's my softball extra inning rule. Actually leads to more ties than less bc everyone scores the runner from 2nd and maybe one more and that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't starting the 10th with a runner on second have the same likelihood to extend games as not having the runner there? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.