THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I am more impressed with the plate discipline he had, even as a rookie. And he wasn’t just a passive batter--on one of the video ABs he got a pitch he liked on the first pitch and put it into play…

Checking quickly, it looks like Raines added about 5 runs per 650 PA season with his basestealing. But what about the extra baserunning runs he might have added had he stayed at first. Has anyone looked into this question to see what the net gain really was? Also, what about the extra wear and tear over the season which might tire him out and affect his batting? What about the increased chance of going to the DL with an injury from sliding?

If I’m a manager, I don’t think I want to risk all that with a star batter for a gain of a 3 or 4 runs, regardless of how ‘feared’ he might be…

Right, Raines had a fantastic eye.  Did you know that in EVERY season except one (his cocaine year), he had more walks than strikeouts?

He was as cool as they came.

As for his SB, there’s no question that he HAD to steal, because that’s what got him into the league (among other things).  If the fastest player in the league, and possibly the smartest runner as well, did NOT steal, on the idea that it would give him the indirect benefit of less injuries, keep him fresher, and he’d be able to do 1-to-3 on singles anyway, how would the manager react?  Especially when his rival (Rickey) stole more bases (at a worse rate).

That said, David’s question is legitimate, if only inappropriate for 1981.

Btw, I just LOVED how frustrated Vida Blue got. We talk about how you can affect a player, and it was so visibly apparent there.  And Vida got affected not because he didn’t get the called strike on the corner, but because he didn’t get it against Raines specifically.

I mean, the manager comes out to calm him down, and to talk strategy?  Blue knew that walking Raines was like walking him to 2B, so it really affected him.

(Did you also notice that Vida was on his jersey?)

I watched this game last night, and there were so many enjoyable discussions and things to notice. There was loads of talk about Giants manager Frank Robinson using a computer. One announcer was very derisive of this. I’d really like to see what type of machine Robinson was using back in ‘81 and what output he got from it.

At the same time, there was plenty of talk about the “scientific” work done (read: with a stopwatch) to time pitchers’ deliveries and catchers’ throws to second base and how Raines (Mr. Excitement) was too fast to catch stealing.

Yes, the broadcast doesn’t have commercials, but the wider strike zone and lack of batter/pitcher activity between pitches and the infrequency of catcher-pitcher discussions really seemed to improve game pace. One result of this is there are far fewer replays shown. Sure, some of that is probably different production values back then, but often there simply isn’t time.

And speaking of production values, there’s a noticeable difference. Camera workers today are much better at tracking the ball and the action than they appeared to be 30 years ago.

I had no idea that in Canada there was a candy bar named after Warren Cromartie. It was called the Cro Bar. That’s fantastic.

Wow.  So many of my favorites in that game:  Rogers, Dawson, Raines, Vida Blue, Frank Robinson, Gary Carter.

Has there been any study to determine how much the running game and speed disrupts pitching and defense and is there a measurable effect in runs?  As a Bluejays fan, I have been frustrated in the past with their performance against the Angels, who seem to get under the Jays’ pitchers’ skin when they get speed on the basepaths.  The video that is posted here, seems to illustrate the same thing:  Blue gets quite agitated when Raines gets on.

Tim Raines for the HOF!

I think it’s been said before, but there’s only one reason Raines isn’t in the HOF:

Rickey

Otherwise, I think the BBWAA would have voted him in as the best leadoff man of the era. It’s not right, but I guess that’s what people do…

I agree that that’s a big reason. 

And also how incredibly short-sighted some of the writers are to compare him to Vince Coleman.

I’ve said this before, and may or may not be accurate, but IMO the reason Raines isn’t in the HoF is because of Vince Coleman.

On the bases, Coleman was far more feared than Raines. If I had a nickel for every time I heard “he’s got both feet on the turf!” (in regards to Vince’s leadoff length), I’d have a fistfull of dollars.

I don’t think any voter holds Rickey against Raines.

Tim Raines was a leadoff man in the days when leadoff men were measured by SBs.

Here’s the stolen base leaders for the years in the 1980s:

1981: 71 - Raines
1982: 78 - Raines
1983: 90 - Raines
1984: 75 - Raines
1985: 110 - Coleman
1986: 107 - Coleman
1987: 109 - Coleman
1988: 81 - Coleman
1989: 65 - Coleman
1990: 77 - Coleman

Raines was an All-Star from 81-87, then never again. Coleman was the all-star in 88 and 89.

In the AL Rickey basically led the league in SB every year except for partial seasons. There’s was no one matching his dominance. In the NL, Coleman took over Raines, and did so in rather dramatic fashion. Henderson also stole 100 bases 3 times, Raines never did.

Now, you and I know that Henderson’s greatest value was his walks. We also know that Raines getting on base more than coleman is more valuable than stealing 30 extra bases for 3 years.

But, to the writers, hitting leadoff is all about speed, which is also evident by how under-appreciated even Wade Boggs is.

My memory is that Raines was basically viewed as the NL’s best leadoff man and speed threat until Colemn, who came in and made Raines’s SB numbers look drastically less impressive than the previously did. I think the perception was “Okay maybe he’s not that fast, or maybe he’s not the best leadoff man, or maybe he’s not the scariest guy on the bases.”

In order for Raines to get into the HoF, 75% of writers are going to need to understand that for a leadoff man walks are greater than speed. In 2011, “good” managers like LaRussa still bat low OBP, speedy (or somewhat speedy) guys in the leadoff spot. My guess is that writers are going to take far too long to “learn about walks” for Raines to get into the HoF. A year like this year would have been perfect because of the thin ballot. A Raines-Larkin-Edgar would have been a nice, diverse enshrinement class.

Dangit, Tango beat me to it.

I also wanted to point out ahead of time, becuase this topic blew up in my face at FG previously, that I am NOT syaing that Vince Coleman had a better career than Tim raines or was a better leadoff man. I’m saying [1] Vince Coleman stole a lot more bases/season when they were playing at the same time, and [2] in the writer’s minds replaced Raines as the scariest base stealer, and [3] writers don’t understand OBP in the leadoff position.

One thing I don’t get about the Raines love is why fangraphs and folks here are so fixated on Raines as opposed to the other, more qualified, players not in the Hall.
Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Garry Carter and Larry Walker all out WAR Raines by both measures. And Larry Walker is still on the ballot, but has flatlined at 20%

And while Alan Trammel does get some notice, he’s essentially identical to Raines stats-wise, but has been on the ballot for 6 more years, yet the clamor is far more subdued.

Is it the Canada thing? Or the fond memories?

Trammell and Walker are valid.

Grich and Whitaker are not on the ballot.  So not much you can do.  At some point their fate will be decided by a veteran’s committee. Not every Saberist is convinced Lou is a HOFer, But I’ve never heard of one who thinks being one and done was a worthwhile fate.

Carter?  You mean Hall of Fame catcher Gary Carter?  If you mean Garry Carter then I confess I know little of his contributions to baseball.

Raines was my “first love” so to speak. I wouldn’t use my views as representative.

Have any writers not voting for Raines come out and said it’s because of his past drug issues? I’ve always wondered if this plays a role for some of them.

It didn’t affect Molitor…