It's hard to believe that any player in baseball could be over- or under-rated. Most activities on the field involve one player per team at a time and are measured down to the individual nose hair by the Elias Sports Bureau, whose count is duly recorded for posterity by 73 websites staffed by megageeks who atomize the information and subject it all to regression analysis.
Nonetheless, as long as willfully ignorant sportswriters and sportscasters dominate the debate -- and the Hall of Fame vote -- the wrong measurements will remain valued over those that provide a broader, fuller and more accurate picture of player accomplishments.
The profile of an under-rated player is predictable: Sports media over-rates batting average as opposed to on-base percentage, home runs as opposed to double and triples, RBIs as opposed to runs scored, offense as opposed to defense (except in extraordinary situations), steals as opposed to base stealing percentage, accomplishments in an accommodating ballpark (except in extraordinary situations), being prodigious in a particular facet of the game as opposed to demonstrating broad-based excellence, and maybe most of all, playing on a winning team. In addition, players whose teammates propel them into spotlight games -- specifically the World Series -- in which to demonstrate their transcendence, often bask in that glow.
(This, of course, applies to everyday players, not pitchers. Pitching wins is probably the single most over-rated statistic in baseball, but that's another story.)
Consequently, the quintessential under-rated player toiled for lousy teams and rarely made the playoffs. He batted in a pitchers' park most of his career, hitting lots of doubles and triples, but not a ton of homers. He was an excellent, but not flashy, fielder who stole bases at a very high rate, hit for a good but not great average while walking like a mall rat, scored a mess of runs but never knocked any in. Our particular fellow may have been the second-best lead-off hitter of all time, but played Scottie Pippen to Rickey Henderson's Michael Jordan.
This player belongs in the Hall of Fame, and not the ancillary wing with Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Phil Rizzuto, Don Drysdale, Don Sutton and Bill Mazeroski. Unfortunately, he'll never sniff Cooperstown without a ride from the Albany airport. Last year, his first year of eligibility, he tallied less than 25% of the Hall vote. It might be his high-water mark.
He's Tim Raines, and he's the most under-rated player of my lifetime. Raines was a superman who could do everything well, under the worst circumstances, but we didn't notice, because we were looking at all the wrong things.
Let me quote the great Joe Posnanski, from an epistle supporting his Hall vote for Raines based on peak and lengevity.
From 1983-87 -- (his) five year peak -- he hit .318/.406/.467 for a 142 OPS+, the same OPS+ that Jim Rice had during his five-year peak. During those five years, he averaged 114 runs scored, 34 doubles, 10 triples, 11 home runs and 71 stolen bases a year. He led the league in runs scored twice, batting and on-base percentage once, doubles once, stolen bases twice, and could have won three MVP awards. He had 163 win shares in those five years -- an average of 32.6. Bill (James, the mastermind behind Win Shares) says a 30-win share season is an MVP-type year.
That's not even the half of it. Raines' lifetime slugging percentage is higher than Rickey Henderson's and two points lower than Joe Morgan's, despite playing much of his career in that hangar the Expos called home. He's fifth on the stolen base list, but first all-time in success rate (84.7%) among guys with 300 steals.
Baseball writers use an affective-cognitive-conative approach to Hall of Fame voting. First, they use the smell test: did this guy seem like a Hall of Famer. Raines did not, because we were obsessed with batting average (.294 lifetime) and home runs (130 lifetime) during his career. Then they do their due diligence, noting the mediocrity of his triple crown stats (never more than 71 RBIs in a season.) Then they move on to someone else.
On objective measuring systems, Raines is a front row Hall of Famer. On the aforementioned Win Shares scale, which attempts to determine a player's share of responsibility for team wins, he places 40th all time, ahead of the likes of Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson, Jackie Robinson, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Yogi Berra and Paul Waner. Not too shabby.
I know, I know, you don't care about Win Shares.You don't care about OPS or stolen base percentage or any of those fancy doo-dads like VORP and BABIP. I understand. We've got a recession, two wars and nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea to worry about, and there's no room in your head for a new understanding of how baseball really works. I get that. And that's why Tim Raines will remain under-rated and on the wrong side of the doors to the Hall of Fame.
b
(This, of course, applies to everyday players, not pitchers. Pitching wins is probably the single most over-rated statistic in baseball, but that's another story.)
Consequently, the quintessential under-rated player toiled for lousy teams and rarely made the playoffs. He batted in a pitchers' park most of his career, hitting lots of doubles and triples, but not a ton of homers. He was an excellent, but not flashy, fielder who stole bases at a very high rate, hit for a good but not great average while walking like a mall rat, scored a mess of runs but never knocked any in. Our particular fellow may have been the second-best lead-off hitter of all time, but played Scottie Pippen to Rickey Henderson's Michael Jordan.
This player belongs in the Hall of Fame, and not the ancillary wing with Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Phil Rizzuto, Don Drysdale, Don Sutton and Bill Mazeroski. Unfortunately, he'll never sniff Cooperstown without a ride from the Albany airport. Last year, his first year of eligibility, he tallied less than 25% of the Hall vote. It might be his high-water mark.
He's Tim Raines, and he's the most under-rated player of my lifetime. Raines was a superman who could do everything well, under the worst circumstances, but we didn't notice, because we were looking at all the wrong things.
Let me quote the great Joe Posnanski, from an epistle supporting his Hall vote for Raines based on peak and lengevity.
From 1983-87 -- (his) five year peak -- he hit .318/.406/.467 for a 142 OPS+, the same OPS+ that Jim Rice had during his five-year peak. During those five years, he averaged 114 runs scored, 34 doubles, 10 triples, 11 home runs and 71 stolen bases a year. He led the league in runs scored twice, batting and on-base percentage once, doubles once, stolen bases twice, and could have won three MVP awards. He had 163 win shares in those five years -- an average of 32.6. Bill (James, the mastermind behind Win Shares) says a 30-win share season is an MVP-type year.
That's not even the half of it. Raines' lifetime slugging percentage is higher than Rickey Henderson's and two points lower than Joe Morgan's, despite playing much of his career in that hangar the Expos called home. He's fifth on the stolen base list, but first all-time in success rate (84.7%) among guys with 300 steals.
Baseball writers use an affective-cognitive-conative approach to Hall of Fame voting. First, they use the smell test: did this guy seem like a Hall of Famer. Raines did not, because we were obsessed with batting average (.294 lifetime) and home runs (130 lifetime) during his career. Then they do their due diligence, noting the mediocrity of his triple crown stats (never more than 71 RBIs in a season.) Then they move on to someone else.
On objective measuring systems, Raines is a front row Hall of Famer. On the aforementioned Win Shares scale, which attempts to determine a player's share of responsibility for team wins, he places 40th all time, ahead of the likes of Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson, Jackie Robinson, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Yogi Berra and Paul Waner. Not too shabby.
I know, I know, you don't care about Win Shares.You don't care about OPS or stolen base percentage or any of those fancy doo-dads like VORP and BABIP. I understand. We've got a recession, two wars and nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea to worry about, and there's no room in your head for a new understanding of how baseball really works. I get that. And that's why Tim Raines will remain under-rated and on the wrong side of the doors to the Hall of Fame.
b
No comments:
Post a Comment