THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

So is the drug connection the reason we’re not talking about why Kirby is in and Mattingly isn’t, and why Rice is in but Murphy isn’t?  I guess that’s an interesting theory.

Drugs and he played for the Expos in his prime.  If he was in NY or Boston during that time, he would have already been in.  Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Tango, I your list of players with the highest Win Shares, but not in the HOF, how do they compare with large market and small market teams.

All of Kirby’s personal issues came out after he was inducted wasn’t it?

What drug connections are you talking about regarding Rice?

I don’t think the Montreal thing has anything at all to do with it.  Why in the world would it?  It’s a theory that simply has no evidence to support it.

I think the explanation is much simpler: Hall voters still primarily base their decisions on the traditional stats (batting average, homeruns, RBI). Raines doesn’t fare well when looking at those stats.

Paul Molitor had 3,000 hits. Case closed. The last member of the 3,000 hit club who wasn’t voted in the first time was Paul Waner in 1951 (he had to wait until 1952).

Joe Posnanski had a good piece last month (click my name for the link) where he made this basic point:

“There are really only three entry points into the Hall of Fame.

1. 3,000 hits/500 homers.
2. Positional greatness.
3. The Intangible Argument (rare).”

As I said last year:
http://raines30.com/voters.shtml

411 writers did not visit this site, and therefore saw the facts in a cloud of rounded-numbering, and decided not to vote for Raines. Those writers who correctly implored us not to focus too much on the numbers instead decided to focus so much on the wrong numbers.

When you look at various polls on Raines, you get Hall of Merit that votes him at 100%, Poz’s readers at around 60 or 70%, and on and on, until you get to BBWAA at low 20%.

There is an enomous bias in how to view Raines’ numbers.  The Holy Writers however are those charged with having the least amount of ignorance on the subject.  Instead, they have the most.

The case against Raines is based solely on having a small Hall, an “elect-1” kind of mindset.

Raines is indistinguishable from Tony Gwynn, and is in the ballpark with several recent automatics (Boggs, Molitor).  The Holy Writers however think that a walk is a non-event, and a hit is what wins ballgames.

My point is, the fact that Kirby is in the HoF and Mattingly isn’t, indicates to me a certain lack of racism among voters.  Likewise with the fact that Jim Rice is in but Dale Murphy isn’t.  Add in Raines/Molitor and we have three paired samples; two of which had the black guy get in, one of which had the white guy get in.

So regarding Raines not getting in due to race, there’s two possibilities I see:

(1) Raines didn’t get in because of plain ol’ racism
(2) drug use primed voters to act on secret, hidden, or unconscious racial bias, which didn’t impact their votes on Rice and Kirby because they weren’t similarly primed

The first explanation appears ridiculous, given Kirby and Rice’s induction over similar-statted white guys.  But the second one just seems pretty unlikely… and this is coming from a psych major.  So I just wanted to try to clarify whether you and Keith are proposing Raines’ low vote was due to (1) or (2).

A cocaine-using black guy is perceived differently than a cocaine-using white guy.

How this has anything to do with Puckett/Mattingly, Rice/Murphy, I have no idea.

And, while you used the word “racism”, I said “racially-biased”, which are two different things.

Molitor got 3000 hits and Raines didn’t.  The voters dont think much deeper than that.  I don’t think race has anything to do with it.

The evidence of racially-biased voting, based solely on Paul Molitor, seems flimsy.  Keith Hernandez had drug issues, and although his case isn’t as strong for the HOF as Raines’ case, I think it’s comparable in that both Hernandez and Raines are out because the majority of BBWAA voters don’t understand how to evaluate value, not because Raines OR Hernandez were drug users.

I would be surprised if the voters give a crap about Raines’ cocaine use. I mean, most of them grew up while or after drugs became popular in the 1960s. Many or even most of them probably smoked a little pot in their youth, at the very least. I don’t think there’s any comparison between how they feel about recreational drug use vs steroid use among HOF candidates.

I shy away from wholesale generalization.  It seems possibly (probable) that race came into play, at some level, for a small number of voters.

More relevant might be playing in Henderson’s shadow, his perceived lack of value from the 1987 collusion episode (if no one wants this guy how good can he be?) and the under-appreciation of his on-base skills. And, playing in Montreal probably hurt as well (obviously the voters are voting on something beyond the numbers . . . perhaps number of times they read the name in print).

In any case, I think the racial-bias question will remain unanswered (in any definitive way) until Bonds and Clemens come up for election together.  If they don’t get exactly the same number of votes there will be something to talk about.

#4.

I really believe that players from smaller markets have a disadvantage when it comes to getting into the baseball HOF. There just aren’t as many writers to help spread the cause to others and do the actual vaoting.  Writers from the NYC chapter of the BBWAA have as many votes as writers from San Diego, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Colorado, Cleveland and Atlanta chapters combined.

Jim Rice made it by 7 votes and it does hurt that Boston chapter has ~33 votes, the third highest total.  It would be tough for these voters not to vote for Rice.

"I really believe that players from smaller markets have a disadvantage when it comes to getting into the baseball HOF. “

But this is not a “belief” issue, is it?  There is enough data out there to test your theory.  I would very surprised if there is a market-size bias in HOF or any award voting.

***

With my racial-bias theory (for the HOF), it has to be a belief issue, both in the lack of sample size, plus the difficulty in testing it.

For non-HOF, just society in general, I think it has been well-researched that there is racial-bias with respect to how blacks are treated to whites.  I don’t see the Holy Writers as somehow being less biased than society in general, especially when tasked to consider “character” specifically.

It’s an issue.  I’m not saying it’s the main issue, but it has some effect.

"I would very surprised if there is a market-size bias in HOF or any award voting.”

Depending on how you do the study, there could be. Large market teams have an advantage in getting better players, and win the World Series more often than small market teams. Having at least one ring adds something to a HOF resume. So if someone looks at this, they’d have to control for the quality of the team.

Orlando Cepeda had a drug issue, served 10 months in prison for mj related charges.  He was a dark skinned hispanic player, and he eventually got into the Hall (though by the veterans).

On Raines vs Molitor, Occam’s razor would have to favor the explanation that one player gets 3000 hits, the other didn’t, and that is why Raines is out.  Everyone with 3000 hits is in the hall, except for Pete Rose, and players not yet eligible.

For players on small market teams it seems like they do allright.  Puckett is a prime example.  I think the voters like guys who spend their whole career with one team, and if you can lead a small market team to a championship, as Puckett did twice, that’s even better.

Jim Rice is an example of a player in a big market who gets a boost, but I can’t think of a deserving player who is not in because he was a small market player.  Ron Santo has long been one of the unjustly excluded players, and Chicago is no small market. In almost every case of worthy players being kept out, the reason appears to be that they did not hit certain milestone, and their strengths are the unappreciated skills.

A guy who took a lot of walks, played great defense, and played in a low offense environment (Bobby Grich) is going to have trouble getting in.

#16 Bert B and Tim R?

If Tim Raines had Molitor’s career, would be have been a definite first ballot?  Yes, probably.  The 3000 hits overrides almost all concerns.

If Molitor had Raines’ career, would he be sitting at low 20% two-years running?  Or does the racial-bias allow the “white Raines” to get to 30-40%?  Isn’t it possible that just as white society has a less tolerable view of blacks on drugs than whites on drugs, that this bias permeates among Holy Writers? 

Isn’t it possible that the “clean and sober” white guy gets a better shake on things than the black guy among Holy Writers?  Or are Holy Writers a more tolerable group of people than society in general?  What makes Holy Writers so special as human beings?

Another example of racial-bias, but not racism:

http://www.carolinapeacemaker.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=93743&sID=42

During a recent interview, a NHL Diversity Task Force spokesperson said that the NHL has 750 players that are fluctuating in the league, meaning they move in and out of the NHL and its affiliate leagues. Out of these 750 players, only 16 of them are Black. Of the 16 Black players, 13 are junior pro players, meaning that they could be drafted into the NHL at anytime.... But until the NHL makes a greater effort, many Black sports fans think like Denise McCray, a High Point resident, who said,“I think the majority of African Americans feel like hockey doesn’t do enough to appeal to them. When it comes to hockey, the NHL needs to draft a lot more African American players. It doesn’t appeal to me personally for that reason.”

I think it was Chris Rock who said the reason there aren’t many blacks in hockey is that they have no desire to be around that many white guys holding sticks.

I don’t follow Hockey so correct me if I’m srong, but you can’t draft players if there aren’t any to draft.  First there has to be interest at the amateur level.  And for that to happen we’ll probably need a Tiger Woods of hockey to come along.

Has Tiger had a measurable, lasting impact on people of his non-white races joining the game?  From what I’ve seen, he’s just led to a few more white people playing, and patting themselves on the back about being involved in such a “diverse” sport.

Right, you need an initiative at the NHL-level similar to MLB’s RBI program.

Girls should be equally offended about the lack of executives in an almost all-boy’s club in sports leagues.  There’s no real reason that you can’t have a female coach or manager, is there?

There’s an obvious gender-bias (without a person needing to be sexist).  You simply look at the pool of people you normally would look at, and you don’t expand that view.

Montreal is hardly a “small market”. Maybe mid-sized, but not small. The largest major league cities (including Montreal):

20.0m New York
14.7m Los Angeles
9.0m Chicago
5.8m Toronto
5.5m San Francisco
5.3m Philadelphia
5.2m Miami
5.2m Dallas
4.8m Boston
4.6m Houston
4.3m Washington
4.2m Atlanta
3.9m Detroit
3.5m Phoenix
3.4m Montreal
2.8m San Diego
2.8m Seattle

(source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population)

I think the implication is that it’s a small US-media market, Bryant Gumbel and his tuque notwithstanding.  In any case, no one has proved that it means anything.

Even still, it’s hard to believe Montreal would be off the radar in the Raines era. I’d imagine most fans follow baseball (at least before the Internet and digital cable era) by watching their local team and/or watching the evening highlights. The Expos played the Mets 18 times a year—plenty of coverage in the NY market. And most nightly highlight shows cover all the games. The local team is the first game featured, then maybe the local team’s league, but then it’s mostly random from there. From personal experience, the most underexposed teams in the pre-Internet era were in the opposite division of the opposite league—if the home team was in the AL East, it was hard to follow the NL West (even the Dodgers).

Also Raines played from 1991-98 in Chicago and New York, participated in eight different playoff series. Hard to say he was underexposed. I think the Raines issue is really a case of his value not being reflected in BA/HR/RBI—same reason he didn’t win an MVP award in 1985-87. Rickey is the same kind of player, but he was the all-time best at his craft—130 SBs in one season (122 SBs through August 27/82!) and the career leader.

#24 in ranking of teams it puts it at ~20. 

Also, Montreal no longer has a BBWAA chapter which hurts it.  Here is the approximate list of voters per city chapter.

New York 96
Angeles-Anaheim 45
Boston 33
Baltimore-Washington 33
Chicago 30
San Francisco-Oakland 27
St. Louis 25
Philadelphia 21
Toronto 19
Seattle 19
Miami 19
Cincinnati 17
Detroit 16
Tampa Bay 15
Minneapolis-St. Paul 15
Arizona 14
Cleveland 13
Kansas City 12
Atlanta 12
Dallas-Fort Worth 12
Colorado 11
San Diego 10
Pittsburgh 9
Houston 8
Milwaukee 8

I will eventually look into it if BBWAA is is biased on by cities, add it to the list.  If some else want to look, feel free.

There is a Montreal writer (La Press newspaper) that has a vote.  I think Aislin (cartoonist) still has a vote.  So, there are a few I think.  But, good list…

La Presse ...

The real example of an African-American with a drug issue whose HoF induction was supposedly delayed as a result was Ferguson Jenkins. 

I do think we have to remember tha societal mores on drugs evolve over time and don’t move in the same direction all the time.  So comparing his situation to Raines’, purely on a drug use level, is probably inappropriate.  But you can hardly discuss this without at least bringing him up.

Raines has similar raw numbers to Julio Franco, and I can’t imagine Julio getting in.

       yrs  gp    h     hr  r+rbi  avg
Raines 23  2502  2605  170  2551  .294
Franco 23  2527  2586  173  2479  .298

Some of Tim’s other baseball-ref comps are marginal—good players but maybe not hall of famers—eg Kenny Lofton, Johnny Damon and Jose Cruz.

Also Raines had a bit of a spotty career after his mid-80s heyday. I know Rickey did as well, but Rickey is the SB king and is an automatic entry. Raines only played 150 games in a season once after 1986, was basically finished as a regular in 1995. Never had 200 hits in a season, never hit 20 HRs, never stole 100 bases. Tony Gwynn reached 200 hits five times, drove in 119 runs one season (at age 37 when Raines was basically a bench player), had seasons of .351, .370, .358, .394, .368, .372. Raines got up into the .320-.330 range for a few years, but was basically a .290-.310 hitter. I don’t know if I’d agree that Raines is “indistinguishable” from Gwynn (post 6).

"Raines only played 150 games in a season once after 1986”

The implication being? 

Let’s see, in 1987, collusion kept him out of one month of play, so his 139 games doesn’t meet this “150” standard, as if it was his fault.

In 1989 he had 145 games, with 618 PA, so I don’t see that as a knock.

He has the 1991 season (155 games), which I guess is what you are talking about.

In 1992 he had 144 games and 644 PA.

In the lockout of 1994, he played 101 games, out of 113.

In the shortened season of 1995, he played 133 of 144.

Anyway, I don’t see why “150” is some standard.  Or even why anything is some standard.  This is why we have replacement level.

***

And who really cares how many 200 hit seasons someone had? 

***

The cherry-picking of individual components doesn’t do anything other than reinforce how the writers see things.

As a package, there is almost nothing to distinguish Tony Gwynn from Tim Raines.

I don’t understand why sabermetric types would start a HOF discussion by looking at B-R comps or hits and R+RBI, etc.  Why not start with the big stuff: WAR, Win Shares, Batting Wins, WPA, whatever?

I’m not saying that those have to be your only criteria.  And I understand that there is a different between who “should” be a HoFer and who will be.  But I think if you look at a WAR-type measure, you will see that Raines is light years ahead of Franco and pretty darn close to Gwynn.  The batting averages help explain why he’s not viewed by the writers or the general public in the same way as Gwynn, but they do absolutely nothing to change my opinion of their value.

Oh I’m just trying to show why Raines might not quite be as appealing to a HOF voter as Gwynn or Molitor. Basically Raines has a spotty career after 1987—never created 100 runs, never finished in the top 10 in the MVP vote—didn’t even make the All-Star team! Not really a “famous” player. Gwynn was either an all-star or in the MVP top 20 every year from 1984 to 1999. Same thing with Molitor—211 hits, 111 RBI, .332 average and second in the MVP award for a World Series winner in 1993 when he was 36. Those things impress voters. Whether they’re justified is another story entirely.