Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Robbie Alomar is a first-ballot HOFer. And, if there's any justice in the world, he will be the first HOFer with a Blue Jay on his cap.

 

And, I almost forgot, it would really be nice if they could finally give the Ford Frick Award for broadcasters to the late, and very deserving, Tom Cheek.

 

Raines' problem, as Steak alluded to, is being the Jazz or the Knicks to Rickey's Bulls. At any other era, he would have been the best at what he did for many years, but he ran into one of the all-timers.

It also hurts him that he basically spent the second half of his career on a gradual decline. Discounting a couple cups of coffee in 1979 and 1980, Raines opened his career with seven straight 50-steal seasons and hit .310 with 504 steals, a .396 OBP and a .448 SLG. He only had one more 50-steal season the rest of his career, though he stole 100 bases from 1989-90 and 145 from 1989-91.

Overall over his final 14 seasons, Raines hit .282 with 297 steals, a .378 OBP and a .408 SLG. He also played for six teams in that span, which gave him the air of a journeyman, and he exceeded 300 ABs just once in his final six seasons (actually, seven, since he sat out 2000 w/lupus), which made it seem like he hung on well past his prime. And he didn't steal more than 13 bases in any of his final eight (actually nine) seasons, which might have allowed people to forget what a force he was in his prime.

All this sounds rather odd coming from someone who would place him first on a ballot if I ever had one. Hopefully, people can take into account how all that diving on the unforgiving turf of Olympic Stadium took on him in his 30s (and 40s). What if he spends his first 10 years on grass? Who knows how much better he is in his second half then?

As it is, though, his Montreal years alone meet the ten years of dominance criteria: .301-634 SBs-.390 OBP-.438 SLG. Rickey in that time: .293-936-.403-.441.

And if nothing else, Raines should be in there alone for what he did on May 2, 1987 against the Mets in his first game back from the collusion-forced limbo. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198705020.shtml Ended up leading the league in runs that season. Chew on THAT for a moment. Missed a month and led the league in runs scored. More notable than hitting 40 homers in a juiced ball season, as far as I'm concerned.

 

That was really well put. I will add this. Will his cocaine abuse hurt him? I know a lot of guys have gone through this debate already, and it should be moot.

 

How many cokeheads are in the Hall?

 

Mr Cowbell,

While were at it, how many alcoholics or wife beaters or felons? In BHOF or Canton or City Hall?

I've always thought that people have it wrong about moral reprobates and the halls (okay not City Hall, but I digress).

OJ and J Brown and Ty Cobb and Adolph Rupp and Rose and Harold Ballard and whoever you want to drag in ... it's not a Hall of Nice Guys and it's not a Hall of Guys Who Were Only "Good For The Game." Those who are in should have done big things in the game and there in, warts and all, as instuctive or cautionary lessons. They had impact but they're not heroic ... "heroic" isn't quite in the sports equation. I think it's good to have those of reputations above reproach alongside those who struggled with personal demons and the occasional scumbag. It should remind us that you go to the arena to cheer what they do and not who they are. It should remind us that when we cheer we're suspending moral judgment. And if it's someone like Raines (or Molitor or Stargell or whomever) who did drugs and got over it or who struggled in some way after his playing days, who are we to sit in judgment and withdraw support. I guess it's hating the sin but not the sinner.

If, however, it has to do with the integrity of the game ... if it makes their accomplishments somehow inauthentic ... then I'm fine with yanking them. The bar would have to be very high, an irrefutable link to enhanced performance rather than just suspicion.

Raines in. The teachable lesson from a glance at his plaque: As good as he was, he could have been better.

o-<

 

in football.. taylor and irvin. In baseball, Cepeda had the drug charges that stalled his election (maybe).

FOF, good point. i just wonder how many voters will think about the cocaine

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how many people think of cocaine when they think of Tim Raines, because it never seemed to affect his play on the field the way it did with guys like Dave Parker, Lonnie Smith or Vida Blue. Though I do have to admit that Raines' habit of sliding headfirst in order to avoid breaking the cocaine vials he kept in his socks is one of my favorite baseball anecdotes ...

 

Whole lotta trailer trash in the first couple of lines of that '13 list.

 

Hey, Alomar definitely deserves to be in...you're absolutely right about that. But it's interesting that you mention the context of the era for Alomar's stolen bases while ignoring the context of the era of Morgan's stats, particularly for the position he played...the idea that Alomar's slugging percentage advantage basically negates Morgan's in OBP is correct (career OPS: .819 for Morgan, .814 for Alomar). The difference is that Morgan's OPS+ was 132 whereas Alomar's was 116--in other words, adjusted for era, Morgan's production was exactly twice as much above the league-average player as Alomar's. And to reiterate, second basemen weren't expected to hit back in the 70s like everyone is expected to now. So yeah, Alomar's a great player and a HOFer. But better than Morgan? As much as I hate his announcing and general ignorance, that's a stretch.

As for everyone else, I'd put in Larkin and McGriff in addition to Blyleven and Raines. And I could maybe be convinced on Martinez, too.

 

I gotta disagree, at least in relation to the coke use. From what I recall, he kicked the habit very early in his career and still had multiple superstar-caliber years thereafter. And he never relapsed, at least as far as we know.

 

All I ask is that you read through this, BB:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2004/12/bert_blyleven_f_1.php

Here's the shorter version -- the writers got it wrong in real time. Don't compound that mistake by getting it wrong BECAUSE they got it wrong.