Hall Of Fame: The Case For Tim Raines

So Tim Raines is up for the Hall Of Fame for the fourth time.  In 2009, he only managed to get 22.6% of the vote, this year he got 30.4%.  So I am going to write an argument for Raines that I have been making for years:  That he is an almost exact clone of Lou Brock, who got in, in 1985 with 79% of the vote.  In this argument, I am making a case FOR Tim Raines, and not against Lou Brock, just to be clear.

	Games	PA	AB	RS	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS
Lou Brock	2616	11235	10332	1610	3023	486	141	149	900	938	307
Tim Raines	2502	10359	8872	1571	2605	430	113	170	980	808	146

	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BB	SO	SF	GDP	TB
Lou Brock	.293	.343	.410	.753	761	1730	46	114	4238
Tim Raines	.294	.385	.425	.810	1330	966	39	142	3771

As you can see, many of the statistics between these two players are very similar.  I see at least six statistics that you could call a statistical tie:  Runs Scored, Home Runs, RBI, Batting Average, Slugging % and Sac Flies.  Lou Brock played in 114 more games and had 1460 more at bats than Tim Raines.

If we take a look at some key statistics, you see that Tim Raines has a higher batting average by .001, a higher on base by .042, a higher slugging by .015, and an overall higher OPS by .057.  These are close, but it can't be discounted that Tim Raines wins each category.  Next, you have the BB to K's.  We see that Lou Brock struck out an amazing 1730 times while only walking 761 times; almost a 1,000 difference.  Tim Raines only struck out 966 times while walking 1330 times.

For a leadoff hitter, I think this is a really important statistic; probably more important than for anyone else in the line up.  Lou Brock had more sac flies and total bases, but as we noted, he had 1460 more at bats.  Brock did however hit into almost 30 fewer double plays, showcasing his blazing speed on the bases.

Now comes a truly important statistic for this particular debate: stolen bases.  Lou Brock made his name stealing bases.  He is most known for his speed on the base paths.  He stole 938 bases, which remained the all time record for Major League Baseball until Ricky Henderson broke it, and finished his career with a whopping 1406.  Lou Brock's 938, though, remains the second most in a career by any player.  Tim Raines, however was not a slouch.  He finished his career with 808 stolen bases.  This puts him fifth on the all time list.

Here is where my argument for Raines becomes strong.  While Lou Brock stole 130 more bases in his career, he also did this by running every single chance he got, even if it was not a good idea.  This can be noted by the caught stealing statistic and steal percentages of both players.  Lou stole 938 while being caught 307 times.  That works out to a 75% success rate.  Tim Raines stole 808 bases while being caught only 146 times.  That works out to an amazing 84% success rate!

To put it in perspective, Ricky Henderson stole 1406 while being caught 335 times, which gives him a success rate of 80%.  Caught stealing was not kept track of during the 1800s, so we cannot determine Billy Hamilton's success rate.  Ty Cobb's caught stealing statistics are incomplete, but with some statistics available, it gives him a success rate around 80%.  Vince Coleman, who is 6th in career SBs, had a success rate of 81%, although Coleman does not really have the cumulative statistics of a Hall Of Fame career.

So if stolen bases are what got Lou Brock into the Hall Of Fame, then why are we seeing Tim Raines garner such little support for his bid?  Tim Raines may have not hit the magic number of 3,000 hits, but he did have what I would call a Hall Of Fame career, if we are calling Brock's career HOF worthy.  Both Brock and Raines won two World Series titles as players, but Raines got one in 2005 as a member of the Chicago White Sox coaching staff.

Tim Raines also holds a Major League record for runs scored.  He scored 133 runs in 1983.  That in itself is not a record, but the record comes when you note the 1983 Montreal Expos total team runs scored of 677.  This means that Tim Raines scored 20% of his team's runs that year, which remains a record.  Let's compare this to Rickey Henderson, who scored the most runs in MLB history.  His best scoring season was 1985 for the Yankees, when he scored 146 times.  That was 'only' good for 17% of his team's runs scored.

To compare the accolades of Brock and Raines, you find yourself noticing a lot of similarities unsurprisingly.  Lou Brock lead the league eight times in stolen bases, while Tim Raines lead the league four times.  Brock lead the league at being caught stealing 7x, Raines no times.  Brock was a 6x All Star, Raines 7x.  Both players had a season in which they finished in the top five of MVP voting.  Both players were a 2x runs scored leader.  Both lead the league in doubles once.  Brock lead the league in triples once, Raines never did.  Raines lead the league in on base percentage once, Brock never did.  Raines won a batting title, All Star Game MVP(1987), and a Silver Slugger; all things Brock never did.

One more often over looked aspect of a player's game is their ability to play the field. I think it should be at least discussed. Both players played a majority of their games at left field. Brock spent 2163 games at left field, Raines spent 1966 there. In those games, Brock posted a .958 Fielding %, making 167 errors in 3983 chances. Raines posted a .988 Fielding %, making 48 errors in 3934 chances. Clearly, Raines was the superior fielder, which only adds to his case. To take this "next level" with an advanced statistic look, we'll use "fielded balls to outs" percentage. Lou Brock's F2O% was 46%, while Tim Raines' was 54%.

Certainly, you would think a guy with the resume that looks like a carbon copy of Lou Brock(and even better in some areas), with three World Series rings, would be able to garner enough support to put his plaque in Cooperstown, right?  Food for thought.  As a prediction, I'll guesstimate that Tim receives around 39.5% of the votes this time around, and that will be a true shame.

***Update 1/9/2012***

Tim Raines received 37.5% of the Hall votes last year.  Today is the day we will find out the voting tallies for 2012, and my new guesstimate is 46%.  It should be 50% though because it's ridiculous that it has taken him this long to get in as referenced above.  Every year he does not get in, the Hall Of Fame voters are telling the world that Lou Brock is not a Hall Of Fame player.