Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice elected to Hall of Fame

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The ignorance of the BBWAA is demonstrated once again - Tim Raines is far more of a HOF'er than Jim Rice will ever be. Hell, if Rice is in the HOF, lets add Dante Bichette (stole that quip from BP).

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jim Rice had an OPS+ of 128, adjusting the band-box he played in. That's compared to his era, not anyone else. He was also awful defensively as a LF. He is not a HOF'er by any regard.

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

I won't argue that MLB Hall of Fame voting makes a lot of sense but it is what it is. If Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson weren't 100% vote getters, no one should be. I don't really want the character of that changed. Compared to all the halls of fame, baseball's is the toughest to get into and I'm fine with that.

Given that, I'm fine with anyone leaving Henderson off their ballot. The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams. Everybody got rid of Rickey eventually and it was usually for a good reason. He was the ultimate me first, team second guy in baseball history.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

Using it in addition, not as more important. Rice, in contrast, doesn't have the SBs or the defense.

You add the OPS+, SBs, and defense for Raines and it adds up to a more impressive package than just Rice's hitting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I can't imagine someone who looks at what Blyleven did during his career and doesn't think that's a "big deal". I mean the guy is 5th all time in career strikeouts, after all. Isn't that something we love about Nolan Ryan so much? All the K's?
.

Blyleven just isn't a particularly compelling figure in baseball history.

You're arguing what you think the Hall of Fame should be, I'm discussing what it is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams.

Let's be fair. Most of those teams were when Rickey was in his late 30s and just wanted to find someone who'd pay him what he thought he was worth to play.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Blyleven just isn't a particularly compelling figure in baseball history.

You're arguing what you think the Hall of Fame should be, I'm discussing what it is.

And what we are arguing is that what the HoF is is crap. And it seems by your arguments that you don't mind what the HoF is.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

@ Blyleven not getting in!

+4

The thing about the baseball Hall of Fame you can rely on is that there certain benchmarks that are almost guarantees for the hall. Strikeouts alone should get him there but the 287 wins should have made it a lock. Year in and year in the '70s and early '80s he dominated in allowing runs and WHIP. If hadn't played on sucky teams most of his career, he would have won 13 more games and we wouldn't be debating this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And what we are arguing is that what the HoF is is crap. And it seems by your arguments that you don't mind what the HoF is.

Then why do you get so fired up about who's in and out if it's "crap" anyway?

Everybody has different opinions. Those different than yours aren't "crap".

I happen to like how the HOF does it. It's just based on gut feel, I'd rather not see guys that just accumulated stats for many years for bad teams. I'd rather see guys that were larger than life, big stars, were important in the history of baseball, were excellent on the field, and weren't total asshats. Just my preference.

I'd probably vote for Jack Morris over Blyleven. Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered amongst the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

[ISiddiqui]

Because we want it to be better. Just like those who think the BCS is crap, want to make it better (either by expanding it or changing it).

When those different opinions are at odds at what the institution holds itself up as, then yes, its a crap opinion .

[molson]

Then why do you get so fired up about who's in and out if it's "crap" anyway?

Everybody has different opinions. Those different than yours aren't "crap".

I happen to like how the HOF does it. It's just based on gut feel, I'd rather not see guys that just accumulated stats for many years for bad teams. I'd rather see guys that were larger than life, big stars, were important in the history of baseball, were excellent on the field, and weren't total asshats. Just my preference.

I'd probably vote for Jack Morris over Blyleven. Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered among the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

I always look at MVP voting numbers to see how dominant a guy was over time. I'm not going to crap on OPS+, but Jim Rice was better than Ellis Burks.

Rice finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 6 times. That's pretty remarkable. Henderson and Dawson did it 3 times. Raines once (came close a couple of other times). Just throwing out random other HOFs from that era - Ripken 3, Schmidt 5, Brett 4, Molitor 2.

The HOF is more than on-field statistical performance. There's an element, of well, fame.

Reinforcing the initial idiocy of the writers (these are the guys who gave Morneau the MVP in 2007, when he was the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on his team!, or who Raffy the Gold Glove for playing 28 game) is not a particularly good way to do anything.

Pray lets compare Rice to Burks:

Rice: .298/.352/.502, good for an OPS of .854, OPS+ of 128
Burks: .291/.363/.510, good for an OPS of .873, OPS+ of 126

Career, counting stats:
Rice: was worth 29 wins above the league average hitter, Burks was worth 26. That's an advantage in counting stats for Rice, but he had a 1000 extra AB in which to do it

Defense: Any way you slice it, Rice's defense was awful; he was a LF from the day he started. Burks may not have been great, but he was a credible CF for most of his career, and played RF well into his later years, all with significantly more defensive value than Rice. A CF with an OPS+ of 126 is significantly more valuable than an LF with an OPS+ of 128; Burks had to man Coors Field for a big chunk of that (perhaps the biggest OF in baseball), while Rice had Fenway.

Now, you can certainly argue that Rice had better longevity than Burks, and that Burks injuries reduced him, but the idea that Rice is significantly better than Burks is just ridiculous.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Tim Raines had an OPS+ of 123. Are you going to use OPS+ as a measuring stick and then try to argue that stolen bases and defense are more important than OPS+? That is counter intuitive.

I won't argue that MLB Hall of Fame voting makes a lot of sense but it is what it is. If Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson weren't 100% vote getters, no one should be. I don't really want the character of that changed. Compared to all the halls of fame, baseball's is the toughest to get into and I'm fine with that.

Given that, I'm fine with anyone leaving Henderson off their ballot. The guy was a world class asshat but more to the point, no way in hell does one of the top 10 players of all time play for 9 different teams. Everybody got rid of Rickey eventually and it was usually for a good reason. He was the ultimate me first, team second guy in baseball history.

I don't think you understand the tools in question; OPS+ is a decent snapshot measure of offensive, but it favors high slugging, relatively low OBP types over high OBP leadoff types; a fairer metric would probably use OBP*1.4 (depending on the year and run environment), + Slg. It does not not value great defense and high efficiency SB, both of which Raines excelled at, all while playing a significantly more demanding position (would you argue a 128 OPS+ SS is worth the same as a 128 OPS+ LF?).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because we want it to be better. Just like those who think the BCS is crap, want to make it better (either by expanding it or changing it).

or reducing it (both BCS and HOF).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Reinforcing the initial idiocy of the writers (these are the guys who gave Morneau the MVP in 2007, when he was the 2nd or 3rd most valuable player on his team!, or who Raffy the Gold Glove for playing 28 game) is not a particularly good way to do anything.

Pray lets compare Rice to Burks:

Rice: .298/.352/.502, good for an OPS of .854, OPS+ of 128
Burks: .291/.363/.510, good for an OPS of .873, OPS+ of 126

Career, counting stats:
Rice: was worth 29 wins above the league average hitter, Burks was worth 26. That's an advantage in counting stats for Rice, but he had a 1000 extra AB in which to do it

Defense: Any way you slice it, Rice's defense was awful; he was a LF from the day he started. Burks may not have been great, but he was a credible CF for most of his career, and played RF well into his later years, all with significantly more defensive value than Rice. A CF with an OPS+ of 126 is significantly more valuable than an LF with an OPS+ of 128; Burks had to man Coors Field for a big chunk of that (perhaps the biggest OF in baseball), while Rice had Fenway.

Now, you can certainly argue that Rice had better longevity than Burks, and that Burks injuries reduced him, but the idea that Rice is significantly better than Burks is just ridiculous.

Burks was never considered among the best players in the game. That's what writers look at. Though your comparison to Burks is definitely a strike against Rice, no question.

Peter Gammons, a longtime Rice HOF supporter, made an interesting point today. Rice did was he was supposed to do at the time. He was paid to hit the ball very far, as often as possible. And regarding what was considered important in THAT era, he stands up very, very well. As an example, if you're from an era where Batting AVG is all that mattered, and you hit for average, why should you be evaluated using advanced sabermetrics that were developed much later? Maybe you should, if what we're rewarding here is pure performance and value to a team. But I don't think that's what the HOF chooses to do, and I understand why.

Rice was an all-time, great slugger. He didn't walk as much as some comparable guys today, in an era was the walk wasn't very highly regarded. But he finished #1 or #2 in slugging% 5 times. That's something of a manufactured stat, but I can't find anybody who's done that outside of Bonds and Ruth.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Even knowing that if Blyleven played on teams as good as Morris did, he probably would have had similar success, similar great postseason moments, similar number of years where he was considered among the best. But he didn't. Morris did, and he's a bigger deal.

In my opinion, your opinion is crap, because of statements like this .

And remember that's my opinion, so you can't say that my opinion, that your opinion is crap, is crap.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

He was paid to hit the ball very far, as often as possible. And regarding what was considered important in THAT era, he stands up very, very well.

What in the Hell does that matter? Vince Coleman was paid to steal bases, which was considered important in THAT era, and he stands up very, very well.

Hall of Famer?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

Rice was an all-time, great slugger.

Career .502 slugging percentage puts him 89th all time. He also had the benefit of playing in Fenway.

He is not an all time great slugger. Your statement is wrong. Please try and deal in facts and leave the anecdotal unicorns and rainbows to the sell-out sportswriters.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why exactly should Raines be in the HoF over someone like Dawson?

We'll attribute the first number in each column to player A and the 2nd number to player B. I'll also give credit to Jay Jaffe from BP for doing the initial comparison of these two players.

Avg.: .338/.294
OBP: .388/.385
SLG: .459/.425
EQA: .307/.307
HR: 135/170
SB: 319/838
TOB: 3,955/3,977
TB: 4,259/3,771
R: 1,383/1,517
RBI: 1,138/980


The players seem pretty even. Player A's 500ish edge in total bases is more or less made up by Player B's significant edge in stolen bases. Player A is Tony Gwynn, who received 97.6% of the vote in his first year of eligibility. Player B, of course, is Tim Raines. A guy that hasn't even broken 25% in his 2 years on the ballot.

[ISiddiqui]

Great analysis and looking at those numbers how Raines can be denied is ridiculous.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Rollie *is* the mustache Hall of Fame

SI

[lungs]

I guess I understand that it is called the Hall of FAME. It just doesn't mean it's the Hall of Best Baseball Players.

Which is pretty damn stupid.

Jack Morris or Bert Blyleven?? My goodness.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

Career .502 slugging percentage puts him 89th all time. He also had the benefit of playing in Fenway.

He is not an all time great slugger. Your statement is wrong. Please try and deal in facts and leave the anecdotal unicorns and rainbows to the sell-out sportswriters.

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

Then you have people like you that throw 'nerd' into the argument to discredit it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

Finishing #1 or #2 in SLG for 5 years should carry more weight than career SLG? A Hall of Fame career should be built on simply 5 years of topping the league? You arguments have to make sense in order to avoid being called a "moron", you realize.

If Rice, now, had five years where he was blowing everyone away to a point no one had seen in that era, like SLG% in the .700s, that's something (of course then his career SLG would be much higher). OTOH, Rice's best SLG% year (1978) is 302nd all time.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career. That's hardly cherry-picking.

You don't deserve the Hall of Fame based on five CHERRY PICKED years of your career.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Raines:

very good defense in 23 seasons.

Dawson:

with Ok defense and,

I think you are biased in your defensive evaluations:

Raines - no gold gloves in 23 seasons

Dawson - 8 in 21

[johnnyshaka]

I became an A's fan because of Rickey. I'd always check the box scores to see how many bases he'd stolen the previous night because to me, a 6-7 year old kid, the stolen base was the most exciting play in baseball. I had those old Topps/Opee-chee (sp???) sticker books and remember one year where there was like an 8-sticker picture of Rickey in the midst of stealing...it was awesome. Sure, he's asshat but what kid cares about that so long as he's doing what you love best...stealing bases??

Growing up in Ottawa I was primarily exposed to the Jays and Expos and therefore have a soft spot for guys like Raines, Dawson, and even Gary Carter. I wonder if Dawson and Raines would be in the HoF already had they started their careers anywhere else but Montreal, or Toronto, for that matter? Let's face it, Carter's already in because of his life after Montreal and he even wanted to go in as a Met so how much were Raines' and Dawson's careers hurt by the lack of attention the Expos got or were able to generate around the league...or I guess around the US??

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Raines and/or Dawson deserve to be HoF'ers but maybe their legacies would be somewhat different if say Raines played for the Whitesox for 15 years instead of 5 and Dawson spent most of his time in a Cubs uni...no??

Obviously the "statheads" would disagree but I think those guys might sit higher up on the lists of some of the voters simply because they would've probably heard their names menitoned more often than they likely did while they toiled away in Montreal.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Subby

I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career. That's hardly cherry-picking.

You don't deserve the Hall of Fame based on five CHERRY PICKED years of your career.

I do heart you.

Me thinks molson might have a better argument if his terminology done get better.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Subby

I cherry picked career slugging? You called him an all-time great slugger. I used SLUGGING PERCENTAGE over his entire career.

Going by McGwire's decreasing number of votes I guess him, Bonds, and Clemons might have a hard time getting in. It'll be weird years down the road when the all-time leaders in hits and home runs are left out.

The Raines backers have made some good arguments in this thread, it's bizarre to me that he gets so few votes.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

You cherry-picked that stat, I cherry picked another one that shows he's all time slugger.

That's what can be kind of fun about baseball arguments....It's too bad you're not capable of that and have to bring your pretentiousness into everything. Everyone's a moron unless you strictly adhere to the latest nerd-stat cutoffs.

No, he's pointing out that you're full of shit; there are things that correlate with success, and other's that do not. You made a stupid claim, and he pointed out why it was stupid; calling him a stat-nerd or anything else just is a display of your own ignorance. If you say the sky is orange and I say the sky is blue, are we supposed to settle on a mid-point in order to compromise?

[Crapshoot]

Wheel of mystery Hall of Fame contenders | U.S.S. Mariner

A very very good read.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I like the Bill James quote about Rickey:

"If you could split him in two, you'd have two Hall of Famers."

[larrymcg421]

Well, we had "nerd" thrown out already. It's only a matter of time until someone invokes "mom's basement".

[gstelmack]

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

But Rice didn't play as well as many think. I wonder how famous he'd be had he played elsewhere. More due to Fenway being generous, before Boston folks start jumping on me. But yeah, playing in Boston did help.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I think you are biased in your defensive evaluations:

Raines - no gold gloves in 23 seasons

Dawson - 8 in 21

... we are basing defensive prowess on Gold Gloves?!

I take it you believe Derek Jeter is one of the great defensive SS's of our time?

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I just don't understand how "Hall of Fame" became "Hall of Best Stats". Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson were famous players who played well (as opposed to say Bob Uecker who was famous but not for his baseball), why shouldn't they be in?

Well, I guess it should be "Hall of best baseball players" if we are going to get literal. And how do you determine who the best baseball players are? I would think stats would be the best place to start, no?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lungs

But Rice didn't play as well as many think. I wonder how famous he'd be had he played elsewhere. More due to Fenway being generous, before Boston folks start jumping on me. But yeah, playing in Boston did help.

Yep. The whole premise behind the sabermetric "nerds" (as they say) is to dispel common knowledge that just doesn't stand up to the facts.

The Hall of Fame is generally accepted to mean the Hall of the Best. How do you determine who is the best? I'd argue that in depth statistical analysis is, by far, the best way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

To wit: I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Jim Rice wasn't one of the best of his time period, even if the window is small (~5 years). However, his career OPS+ matches modern luminaries like Ryan Klesko, John Olerud, and Tim Salmon.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

On the other hand, that's only 20% of the total and baseball, being around for over 100 years (or something like 90 since the end of the dead ball era), you may expect that.

In the Top 20, for example, only 3 are active players, and one is Barry Bonds, who it is arguably is still active. The other is Frank Thomas, who may be retiring soon enough. And in the Top 30, the only addition among active players is Manny Ramirez (in a 4 way tie for 22nd).

There are more active players down the list, but remember a lot of them are in their early 30s, which means as they go on with their careers, their skills will diminish (though these days with modern training, it may be less pronounced than earlier eras) and they will fall back. For example, I don't expect Travis Hafner to stay at 61st (currently with an OPS+ of 142 at 31 years of age).

[molson]

I actually didn't mean "nerd-stat" as an insult, I do agree that the evolution of statistical analysis has given us accurate tools to evaluate a player's contribution to his team. (Though I don't believe it's given us a cut-off where everyone above a certain number is worthy and everyone below isn't...There's still limits to any evaluation tool). And the HOF goes far beyond, pure on-field performance. I realize ISiddiqui, that you don't agree with that, and that you think the HOF should exclusively reward statistical performance, but that's a minority opinion. You're entitled to it. But it's just an opinion. I don't believe Peter Gammons is a moron. He's just looking at this, like me, in a different way that you don't accept.

I'm really surprised at the douchebagery in this thread though, and how certain people get so personally offended at contrary opinions.

I'll duck out to the civil discussion of the MLB thread...oh wait...

[larrymcg421]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the HOF should exclusively reward statistical performance, but that if someone has attained fantastic statistical performance, then they should probably be in. That doesn't mean other factors can't be taken into consideration.

[sterlingice]

I've never quite understood the Raines argument. He was a little before my time so I only saw him towards the second half of his career.

Or maybe I've never heard it so could someone paint the picture to me? He looks like a nice leadoff hitter, but is a career .810 OPS even for a good fielding center fielder HOF credentials? Or a 123 career OPS+? That's nice, but when I think HOF CF, we're talking, again Ricky, who was like Raines but with power and even more speed, or someone like Griffey.

I'm not disagreeing that he should be in the HOF- I just have never seen a good, cogent argument presented for him other than that he's a poor man's Ricky Henderson. I loved watching Dawson for the Cubs, but I never felt I was watching a HOF'er. But, again, I saw him in the second half of his career. But, the point with saying that is that the argument made between Dawson and him doesn't really convince me either.

So, what's the scoop on Rock? If I were a HOF voter, why should I vote for him? Educate me

SI

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

To wit: I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Jim Rice wasn't one of the best of his time period, even if the window is small (~5 years). However, his career OPS+ matches modern luminaries like Ryan Klesko, John Olerud, and Tim Salmon.

Olerud should be in the HOF.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I don't think you understand the tools in question; OPS+ is a decent snapshot measure of offensive, but it favors high slugging, relatively low OBP types over high OBP leadoff types; a fairer metric would probably use OBP*1.4 (depending on the year and run environment), + Slg. It does not not value great defense and high efficiency SB, both of which Raines excelled at, all while playing a significantly more demanding position (would you argue a 128 OPS+ SS is worth the same as a 128 OPS+ LF?).

Then why didn't you use OBP*1.4 as your argument saying Rice doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame over Burks, then aguing for Raines? My main point was that the statisticians who created OPS+ and live and die by these stats would tell you that stolen bases and defense are highly overrated, which makes it illogical to use OPS+ as measuring stick then arguing that stolen bases and defenses can make up for an OPS gap.

You lost me at the end there -- what does a SS have to with it? You are aware that Tim Raines and Jim Rice were BOTH left fielders aren't you? Raines played a more demanding position? They played the same position.

Frankly, I think at the end of the day Rice and Burks are more or less equal. I would give Rice a slight edge simply based on eras and intangibles. Anyone determining Hall of Famers based solely on statistics and not on intangibles and analysis of the statistics is not going about it the right way. Players are more than just agate type.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, what's the scoop on Rock? If I were a HOF voter, why should I vote for him? Educate me

123 career OPS+ and 808 steals (with an 85% success rate).

For comparison, Rickey Henderson had a career OPS+ of 127 (and of course, 1406 steals). Oh, and Rickey had a career .820 OPS .

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

My main point was that the statisticians who created OPS+ and live and die by these stats would tell you that stolen bases and defense are highly overrated

Overrated does not mean useless. What they counsel is that the cost of being caught stealing is far higher than the benefits of stealing a base. Therefore, steals are less valuable because you have to factor in the caught stealing as well. For those players with very high success rates (like Raines or Henderson) those complaints are not that pressing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Me thinks molson might have a better argument if his terminology done get better.

I'm sure that's true, I know I certainly haven't been able to articulate it properly.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Serious question here, though: If OPS+ (which seems to be the stat-of-the-moment) is meant to normalize era, ballpark, league, etc, then what does it mean for using it in HOF purposes that 20 out of the Top 100 all-time are active players? Why does it seem to skew in this way? Is the steroid affect that large?

I'll take a stab at this...times have changed. More money in the game means more guys want a piece of the pie and whether that means guys are working harder to make themselves better (legally or otherwise) or better athletes are taking an interest in the sport instead of say, joining the military or playing another sport. Also, with more money comes more responsibility in terms of training (players take much better care of their bodies than they used to and that will continue as new research continues to show how to get more out of the human body for longer) and also being more responsible off the field. Long gone are the days of smoking and drinking before, during, and after a game.

Another big factor has to be the influx of foreign talent, primarily from Latin America. Add to that the effect of expansion and you have more teams, more good players, and therefore more guys on the leaderboards.

Simply stated, today's athletes are "professional" athletes and look at it more like a job because of the money involved and because it's a lucrative business, there are more guys willing to do whatever it takes to make it. That's not to say that Ted Williams wasn't a professional, but he was the exception, not the rule.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

123 career OPS+ and 808 steals (with an 85% success rate).

For comparison, Rickey Henderson had a career OPS+ of 127 (and of course, 1406 steals). Oh, and Rickey had a career .820 OPS .

Well, you just showed me that Raines has a 15% worse OPS than Ricky (27/23 not 127/123) and has less than 60% of his steals. That's not quite a compelling case. Sell me better.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, you just showed me that Raines has a 15% worse OPS than Ricky (27/23 not 127/123) and has less than 60% of his steals. That's not quite a compelling case. Sell me better.

SI

Considering Rickey may be one of the Top 20 players of all time, that's not bad. Especially when considering steals wise, Raines is 4th since the modern era and only 84 steals behind Ty Cobb. How about we take someone who has 15% less OPS than, say, Stan Musial (who is at 159... or rather 59)?

Question is, how many steals (at an 85% success rate) impresses you .

In addition you have the list a little bit higher which shows Raines as similar to Tony Gwynn.