Baseball Digest Daily

If somebody from another planet were to spend any time observing human nature, chances are he would come away thinking that human beings are a living, breathing, contradiction. One of the first lessons we learn regarding the social aspect of life is that reporting the misdeeds of others is taboo.

When we’re a kid, we’re told ‘Don’t be a tattle-tale.’ As we get older, we refer to people do engage in such activity as ‘rats’, ‘snitches’, ‘sell-outs’ and worse. If a friend is pursuing a self-destructive course, we may speak with them, but we will never turn them in so they have little recourse but to confront their demons. Generally, we will--while trying to help the person--slowly, painfully watch the person self-destruct.

By the time we reach adulthood this lesson has been drummed into our collective skulls. If our silence will protect a friend or family member while allowing somebody we don’t know (or like) to take the fall for their sins--then so be it. Rare is the person who will risk ostracism to come forward with the truth.

It’s understood within the framework of professional sports that what happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. If a teammate is jeopardizing his health, his marriage, breaking the law or something else--it stays in-house. We look at the whole Mitchell Report and the fallout from it and other revelations; Jose Canseco, Jason Grimsley, Brian McNamee, Kirk Radomski and others are (or soon will be) persona non grata in the sport.

Why?

They spilt the beans--a social no-no. In today’s society they’re called ‘whistle-blowers’ and all too often they aren’t rewarded and often penalized. Despite coming forward with the truth, they’re viewed as untrustworthy. They become social lepers for becoming among the lowest forms of humanity--the stool pigeon.

It makes me think about the saga of Buck Weaver of the 1919 Chicago White Sox. He was permanently banned from the game, not for participating in the fix, but rather he didn’t blow the whistle regarding what he knew. Some may feel that it served him right and should have stood up and said something.

However, what do we hear the most growing up, ‘stand up and say something’ or something to the effect of ‘don’t be a snitch’? What did we hear from our peers in elementary school, high school, in the workplace etc? What we hear time and again is not to rat out to ‘the man,’ that entity being the authority placed in its position with the mandate to level sanctions against the type of behaviour that we, or somebody we know may be engaging in.

The thing is, when some scandal or other erupts, we hear the same refrain repeatedly: ‘How could something like this happen?’ ‘Why did it go on so long?’ ‘Why didn’t somebody speak up??’

The answer is simple--those are the rules we grew up with; we don’t report what happened, we never intend to, and we don’t wish to become outcasts by blowing the whistle. This is precisely how things like steroids in MLB happen--everybody is following the rules society has taught them. It really is a no-win situation for people ‘in the loop.’ They have one of two choices--be part of a cover up or be a snitch. One generally results in official reprimand, the other peer (reprimand). If we receive penalty from 'the man’ our peer group will generally stand by us--if we’re damned by our peers, then ‘the man’ casts us aside when we are no longer useful to them.

Nobody wants us at that point. Our utility to the authorities is gone as is our standing among our social network--and we’re left to contemplate the repercussions of our decision with no one to commiserate with us.

Not much of a reward is it?

This is why I have trouble with levelling penalties with extreme prejudice regarding the steroid scandal. For every Swede Risberg and Chick Gandil--there’s a Buck Weaver. For every user there is somebody who is aware of that and is scrupulously following the rules he has been taught by his peers his entire life. The conditioning to keep our mouths shut—don’t ask and don’t tell. If it’s violated in some small way when we’re kids we’re buried in vitriol, and smacked upside the head as a reminder of the importance of not being a rat. Come adulthood it becomes almost instinctive.

If people wish to bar the doors to the dirty steroid users then it’s only right and fair that past precedent regarding such matters be followed. The Buck Weavers of the steroid era are lumped in with the rest. As we learned in the Mitchell Report--everybody knew. Juicing was “widespread” according to Mitchell--that being the case there are a lot of Buck Weavers out there. We saw Buck Weaver before the Senate committee a few years back. We’ve read about Buck Weaver in Mitchell’s Report. He’s one of the eight, one of the 85, one of them--a member of the Black Syringes.

As I’ve written before, major league baseball screwed up royally--a world-class fustercluck if there ever was one. We will never know the entire story because the Buck Weavers are still out there living by the code they have been taught since infancy.

If baseball really wants to handle this situation correctly, here is what should happen. Open a Grand Jury and involve the commissioner’s office and the MLBPA. Amnesty with a contractual promise that no penalties now or ever for everyone who testifies truthfully--player and executive alike both inside and outside of the game. If it comes out that somebody allegedly lied, there is a hearing where that person can defend themselves and cross-examine his accusers. If it is proven that the accusation is correct--that person is at the mercy of the commissioner’s office and any law enforcement agencies involved.

This way it will be much easier to take steps that this doesn’t happen again. In my personal opinion, segregation is a far bigger scandal and did more damage to the game than performance-enhancing drugs. We learned from the saga of Jackie Robinson that a lot of players liked to keep things segregated. If we can leave that scandal and move on, we can do likewise with this one. Both had a major impact on the record book and statistics. Just as we know that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in a segregated game, Hank Aaron hit 755 in a game rife with amphetamines--we know that Bonds hit 762 in a steroid-fueled game.

Those numbers are what they are--a product of their time.

Best Regards

John

Leave Comment | Permanent Link

Saturday, December 15

TPoSGD: December 15, 2007 - Humanizing the Mitchell Report...

by Joe Hamrahi on Sat 15 Dec 2007 12:02 AM EST

When you read the report, it’s hard not to come to the following conclusion: anabolic steroids will not turn a stiff into a star. The names mentioned in Mitchell’s tome are very similar to the names we already know about. There are some fringe guys, journeymen, occasional all stars, genuine superstars and of course potential Hall of Famers.

What struck me were Mitchell’s notations that the problem was both widespread but only a minority of players actually used. I do feel that since you can count the suppliers mentioned in the report on one hand without bothering your thumb, that many users have simply went undetected up to this point in time. I think 50% of players being involved in some fashion seems like a reasonable figure.

However, there are some suppositions we’re reading about in the media that really don’t do the evidence (such as it is) justice. It seems that folks are of the opinion that the players outed were all hard-core long-term steroid users. It is good to keep in mind that a number of players simply experimented with the drugs and decided for whatever reason not to continue usage.

This would have been a valuable data point for investigation, who were regular juicers, who were off-and-on and who simply tried it and thought ‘This isn’t for me.’

We have to remember that a major league player generally hits his decline phase in his early 30’s. This is not an advanced age. We are talking about young men who still have a lot to learn about life. They feel they are invincible, bulletproof and generally are not averse to taking risks. These young men are in a highly competitive macho environment where the darker side of natural selection often takes place. They are not just in competition with those wearing different colour uniforms, they are competing with each other for roster spots, playing time etc. Just because the man one locker over wears an identical uniform to you doesn’t mean he won’t try to take something that you desire.

It is a highly competitive environment right from the time they sign their first contract until they receive their final pink slip. Nice guys truly finish last in such a situation. Adding to this is that while you are competitors, you’re also comrades--part of a fraternity. If the guy across from you is using something illicit, you cannot blow the whistle and violate the code of the clubhouse to level the playing field. A decision has to be made--join the ‘arms race’ or be left behind … there is no third option in their purview.

Bearing all this in mind, I find it hard to develop a sense of outrage over somebody whose usage was brief or intermitted. I was 23 and remember how things were. A player hopes to impress at spring training or perhaps getting called up but is being slowed by a nagging injury that is damnably slow in responding and watching a window of opportunity closing. At that particular moment, he feels his whole world, all his dreams are slipping out of his grasp, and desperation is starting to set in.

He takes the plunge.

The malady is now gone and what’s more, the ball is jumping off the bat or really popping the catcher’s mitt. He hears the coach talking that he's turned the corner and his future is a lot brighter.

Whoa … that stuff is amazing!

His friends and family are bragging about him, his teammates are looking up to him, his ears are filling with cheers and finally he sees his first major league pay check.

Oh. My. God! Look at all those zeroes!

Now it’s time to get off that stuff, but, but … what if his game suffers? How can he phone his family and friends and tell them that he has been sent down? Does he really want to lose those extra zeroes on the pay check? Can he sustain this level without it? He's living the dream and made the big leagues, the local papers are saying he's added a spark to the club--his teammates, family, the fans … they’re counting on him. He can’t let them down … he just can’t. He saw the look in his kid brother’s eye when he saw him wearing a big league uniform for the first time--he’s looking up to him. Little bro' told all his friends at school about seeing his brother play on T.V. and said he was his hero.

He thinks: "What do I do? What do I do?"

Is this an evil person? A cheat? A fraud? Or is it somebody that got in over his head, made a bad choice in a moment of desperation.

That’s reality to a lot of these young men. How many are out there? How many were mentioned in the Mitchell Report? This isn’t some surly superstar with a sense of entitlement--this is a local boy who made good. I’m not writing this to condone what they did--merely to understand it. We’re not dealing with embodiments of evil but a system that failed. A system that put pressure on young men to make tough choices without the wisdom and experience that only years can bring. Yes, some deserve derision--they decided to cheat, they did it for the money but many did it because dreams die hard and painfully and are mourned for a long time. Let’s face it, to see those dreams die at such young age is always a terrible thing to witness but that’s the reality of professional sports.

That is why we should blame Bud Selig, Don Fehr, Bob Dupuy, Gene Orza and many others. It is their responsibility to set the parameters in which the dream is pursued and the parameters they set are what has led us to this point in time.

Let’s hope the lesson has been learned.

Best Regards

John

Leave Comment | Permanent Link

Friday, December 14

TPoSGD: December 14, 2007 - Mitchell musings...

by Joe Hamrahi on Fri 14 Dec 2007 12:07 AM EST

I am sure you’re all burned out reading commentary and post mortems on the Mitchell Report. I did read the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation and while it had some useful recommendations, it struck me as more geared toward satisfying the public and Congress rather than anything meaningful. Selig’s comments in the aftermath confirmed this feeling; I get the sense he is still trying to re-write history in his favour.

He wants to be known as the commissioner who ended the steroid era and not the one who allowed it to happen. Most of my brain dump was done on MSN Canada and should be up soon. I did have one epiphany that I didn’t have before that I touched on my yet to be published article that I hadn’t really thought much about before--the black market.

One of the things about obtaining anabolic steroids is that they have to be purchased in that manner. There are no quality controls with black market drugs and all too often, this is how players received these substances. These chemicals are produced in unsanitary and unhygienic conditions and God only knows what else is in them. This is why places like BALCO and Kirk Radomski were so appealing--at least the players knew that the drugs wouldn’t be contaminated.

To me, this is where the MLBPA failed miserably. They never perceived that ownership was O.K. with the players using these substances because it helped them recover from injury faster and it improved performance among superstar talent. It was making them large amounts of money. The union allowed a multi-tiered uneven playing field between users and non-users and those who could afford substances that were more sophisticated and those that were not. Those on the cusp of the big leagues who didn’t have multi-million dollar guaranteed contracts to fund high-grade anabolics were forced to turn to dangerous black market steroids to win or retain a big league job.

Think about it; these young players needed to be protected from the MLBPA as much as ownership. It was the MLBPA that fought tooth-and-nail to keep an environment where young people had to decide between black market drugs and their dreams. The union hasn’t been reticent about their disdain about the Mitchell Report but guess what? They could have commissioned their own study and implement changes themselves to keep the playing field even and safe.

The union is an organization that fights hard against a business that tries to maximize profits at all costs--even if it is done in an unethical fashion. Sadly, the MLBPA is an association that attempts to maximize salaries at all costs--even if it means obligating young men to take hazardous black market anabolic steroids if they wish to join.

Don Fehr and Gene Orza’s single-minded devotion to the salary bar created a hazardous working environment for its constituents. I am skeptical about the Mitchell Report myself, but they have lost the moral high ground because they showed a slavish devotion to lucre. They have to accept equal blame with ownership for this mess. They cannot complain about the Mitchell Report for the simple reason that they could have done something themselves but neglected to do so. They were quite content to continue with a situation where young men had to take dangerous health risks since it helped the quest to push up the salary bar.

How is that any less exploitive than ownership that had pitchers throw both ends of a doubleheader or had stadiums without padding on outfield walls because it improved the bottom line? Before Messersmith/McNally, the superstars were protected by ownership while lesser players were deemed expendable and replaceable. Now superstar salaries are protected by the MLBPA while lesser players are no less expendable and replaceable. Repeatedly, the union tried to allow elite talent to whatever was needed to secure contracts that pushed up the salary bar even if it meant that the rank-and-file had to subject themselves to terrible health risks.

The bottom line is this: George Mitchell’s report is a self-serving exercise designed to pressure the union and burnish Bud Selig’s image. However, regardless of motives behind it, it was an attempt to do something about MLB’s steroid problem. It was one more thing than the MLBPA did--the union chose to do nothing about improving the working conditions of their constituents.

Right now, Bud Selig, Bob Dupuy, Don Fehr and Gene Orza have one thing in common. Their eyes are so blinded by dollar signs that nobody is truly looking out for the players’ best interests.

Cleaning fish…

For those of you that missed it, my latest gutting and filleting of Jeffrey Loria and David ‘he could be taller if took Viagra’ Samson is up at The Hardball Times. If Bud Selig is interested in acting in the ‘best interests of baseball’ why hasn’t he awarded these two a franchise in Atlantis?

Best Regards

John

Leave Comment | Permanent Link

Monday, December 10

TPoSGD: December 10, 2007 - Raines of Terror...

by Joe Hamrahi on Mon 10 Dec 2007 12:14 AM EST

One of my favourite memories of Tim Raines are when he was completely locked in his zone. He would go on month long tears where it was easy to feel sorry for the opposing battery. Before I headed to Baseball-Reference, I first tried to remember some clues that would help me locate them. My instincts told me that Raines tended to start and finish the season on fire.

Sure enough, when I went through the game logs it was generally the case. At any rate, using BB-Ref and my own memory I cobbled together ten of his hottest runs. This isn’t a comprehensive list but most of these line up pretty well with what I remember--not so much the exact stats but more how he would totally dominate the opposition. While Raines was at his best with the Expos, he did have four terrific hot streaks … well, two hot streaks and a couple of spurts, most notably in early 1993 and late 1996.

While endpoints have little usage as an analytical tool, they do have the utility of examining hot and cold streaks. Anyway, I did keep myself to a couple of basic ground rules: one, only one streak per season would be counted and two, the streaks had to be at least 25 games in length. I bent the rules a bit to document Raines’ final two spurts since they have a couple of memories included with them.

First, the 10 ‘Raines of Terror’…


Date                        GP    BA   OBP   SLG   R HR  RBI  SB  CS
Apr 15, 1981-May 17, 1981   30  .366  .470  .500  22  2   10  32   3
Apr  3, 1984-May  7, 1984   28  .336  .432  .477  22  3   16   8   0
Aug 17, 1985-Oct  5, 1985   42  .383  .484  .617  34  5   18  24   3
Apr 24, 1986-May 24, 1986   27  .389  .484  .593  28  2    6  13   1
May 24, 1987-Jun 27, 1987   30  .407  .478  .602  32  4   22  13   0
Apr 23, 1989-May 31, 1989   32  .328  .438  .586  28  4   22  11   3
May 10, 1991-Jun 14, 1991   34  .364  .461  .504  24  1   16  17   2
Aug 24, 1992-Oct  1, 1992   31  .336  .403  .540  23  5   17   7   0
Apr  6, 1993-Jun 12, 1993   22  .338  .453  .649  19  7   14   2   3 
Sep  4, 1996-Sep 29, 1996   22  .316  .433  .633  22  7   16   3   1

What I remember … (with BB-Ref to jog my memory of course)

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Apr 15, 1981-May 17, 1981 30 .366 .470 .500 22 2 10 32 3

April 21, Phillies vs. Expos … Raines led off the game with an infield hit and promptly stole second, then third. In the sixth, he singles driving in a pair and again swipes second and third. He successfully did it off two different pitchers; Dick Ruthven in the first and this time Sparky Lyle was the victim. While he was stranded in the first, he came around to score that time. Raines went 4-for-5 with two doubles, runs scored and RBI and was 4-for-4 in swiping bases including third base twice. The Phillies were PWN3D by the “Rock.”

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Apr 3, 1984-May 7, 1984 28 .336 .432 .477 22 3 16 8 0

April 6, the Expos are in Atlanta and Raines is in CF and batting third. Who was in left and batting leadoff then? None other than Pete Rose; Raines is more than up to the task this day slugging a double and home run scoring a run and driving in three others. He is 4-for-5 this day as well.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Aug 17, 1985-Oct 5, 1985 42 .383 .484 .617 34 5 18 24 3

The Expos are in Busch Stadium for their final series of the year in St. Louis from September 20-22. The Cardinals are leading the division by a couple of games over the Mets. The Expos are out of it but are in an excellent position to play spoiler. It was not to be as the Cardinals swept. Regardless, don’t blame Raines who reached in 10 of his 15 plate appearances and was a perfect 5-for-5 in stealing bases.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Apr 24, 1986-May 24, 1986 27 .389 .484 .593 28 2 6 13 1

Tim Raines had a 17 game hitting streak with seven doubles, two triples a HR, drew 13 walks and wasn’t caught stealing in nine tries. His batting line was a tidy .414/.506/.614 and not surprisingly, the Expos won 13 of those 17 contests.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
May 24, 1987-Jun 27, 1987 30 .407 .478 .602 32 4 22 13 0

There really wasn’t one thing about this stretch that stood out. He opened the season on fire and the only thing I really remember was feeling that Raines was enjoying an MVP season and it was a shame it would not happen. I do recall being happy that when all was said and done Raines returned to the Expos. When he declined arbitration, I was certain he was a goner.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Apr 23, 1989-May 31, 1989 32 .328 .438 .586 28 4 22 11 3

Raines had an uncharacteristically slow start in ‘89; he hadn’t hit a home run, he wasn’t running but he was still getting on base frequently. I eyeballed BB-Ref and noticed that he walked 15 times over his first 18 games and had an OBP of .382. I thought it was lower before I checked. Anyway, game 19 is when he really started to heat up going 3-for-6 against the Cardinals. I didn’t see that particular game but remember reading the box score and noticed that had he went yard, he would’ve hit for the cycle. It was the start of a ten-game hitting streak and while Raines was tearing the cover off the ball, he was still drawing his walks.

One inning of one game stands out: The Expos were 20-17 in mid-May, the Padres 18-21 and San Diego came into Stade Olympique for a three game set. I was hoping for an Expos sweep since the Jays were staggering and finally had canned Jimy Williams and Cito Gaston had taken his place. The Expos dropped the first two and I was hoping they could salvage a game and not fall back to .500 … unfortunately, they were facing Bruce Hurst. Les Expos scored in the first and were up 1-0; Raines lead off the third with a walk and Otis Nixon comes up. “Rock” promptly swipes second and Hurst wild pitches him to third--this is the start of a rally. Hurst whiffs Nixon, but no problem the “Big Cat” Andres Galarraga is up next. They battle but Hurst ends up with another ‘K.’ Next up: Hubie Brooks, next down: Hubie Brooks, Hurst struck out the side. Raines would walk three times and never scored and the Padres would erase a 3-0 lead and swept the Expos back to .500.

Grrrr.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
May 10, 1991-Jun 14, 1991 34 .364 .461 .504 24 1 16 17 2

Tim Raines, American Leaguer?

It was pretty unnerving to see Raines wearing White Sox let me tell you. What I recall most about this is the game before he started his tear. David Wells was on the hill and threw his knee-buckling hook at will. Raines led off the game with a fly out. Boomer struck him out swinging the next two times up and Duane Ward did likewise in the ninth. Welcome to Toronto “Rock.” I was thrilled with Wells’ awesome start and was surprised Gaston didn’t let him pitch the ninth. The big lefty had given up three hits and a walk and struck out the side in the eighth around a Frank Thomas walk and an infield hit by Ozzie Guillen.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Aug 24, 1992-Oct 1, 1992 31 .336 .403 .540 23 5 17 7 0

I remember feeling relieved. I thought Raines was about done. From mid-June 1991 through late August 1992, he looked like a speed merchant and not much else. I checked the numbers and they were gruesome: .268/.358/.344 with 68 steals. The OBP while O.K. wasn’t Raines’ quality however, his knack for pilfering bases was still there. He wasn’t quite as prolific as he was in Montreal but picked his spots well and succeeded almost 90% of the time. As you can see from the numbers, he finished strong. The Jays were making their run to their first World Series title and wasn’t paying much attention to the White Sox. Toronto and Chicago played six games in late August and early September. Raines hit well at New Comiskey but not so well in Toronto--they split the six games.

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Apr 6, 1993-Jun 12, 1993 22 .338 .453 .649 19 7 14 2 3

Raines tore a thumb ligament and was out six weeks. You’d never know it since the 22 game hot streak was before and right after the injury. While I was paying more attention to the Jays that year I remember a series in early June, (I can’t remember which one I attended which is odd, but I suspect it was the opener). It was like watching the Rock of old (except he didn‘t attempt any steals). He scored seven runs, homered twice, doubled and walked four times over the three games. It made for a tidy batting line of .600/.714/.1.300. Thanks for the flashback Tim.

Of course, he wasn’t done … not by a long shot. He was a beast in the LCS versus Toronto, batting .444/.483/.556. Had the White Sox won he may have copped MVP honours (Wilson Alvarez and Frank Thomas also had terrific series although the Jays kept away from Thomas walking him 10 times).

Date GP BA OBP SLG R HR RBI SB CS
Sep 4, 1996-Sep 29, 1996 22 .316 .433 .633 22 7 16 3 1

This time a hamstring injury brought “The Rock” down. However, by September Raines was letting the Yankees know he was ready to contribute in October with a torrid September that included seven HR. Of course, I remember in mid-September Jimmy Key shutting down his old mates with two hits and no walks over 8 IP and Tim Raines pair of three runs jacks off Paul Quantrill. It was a final …

PWN3D!

… against Toronto. Ah well.

Thanks for the memories Rock--I hope to have yet one more in Cooperstown!

Regarding Raines...
TIM RAINES - HALL OF FAME, 2008 (The "Dweeb Team's" Flagship)

Tim Raines: Worthy Hall-of-Famer (MSN Canada)

Cooperstown Needs a Piece of "The Rock" (Hardball Times)

Is 'The Hawk' or 'The Rock' the lock?... (TPoSGD)

Rock Solid Doing the Tango ... (TPoSGD)

Best Regards

John

Leave Comment | Permanent Link

Saturday, December 1

TPoSGD: December 1, 2007 - Is 'The Hawk' or 'The Rock' the lock?...

by Joe Hamrahi on Sat 01 Dec 2007 12:18 AM EST

One of the more popular pastimes in the Blue Jays blogosphere is bashing Toronto Star columnist Richard Griffin. Admittedly, he is not one of my favourite writers. When reading his material, I generally get the impression that he starts with a visceral opinion then searches out factoids that support it rather than looking at the data and drawing conclusions.

But I digress … right off the bat no less!

Regardless, if you’re hoping for a Griffin rip-job you’ll be disappointed. He wrote a column earlier about Tim Raines needing to wait for Andre Dawson’s induction into the Hall of Fame before he is elected. I don’t agree with his opinion and ‘why’ will be the topic of today’s brain dump.

Griffin argues that since Dawson was Raines’ ‘big brother’ figure during their mutual tenure with les Expos, then little bro’ should have to wait his turn. Again, Griffin is letting emotion be the primary factor in his line of reasoning. While I love both players, I think that Raines is more deserving of the honour than “Hawk.”

Aside from their hitting contributions, Dawson was a superb ball-hawk who copped eight Gold Gloves as a centerfielder. He excelled at the more important defensive position than the left fielder Raines. On the other hand, while Dawson did top 300 stolen bases in his career--he was successful in just 74% of his attempts. Raines is not only second in modern NL history in that category; his 84% success rate leaves Dawson in the dirt.

Both have hardware--Dawson has an MVP, Raines a pair of World Series rings. Neither has an outstanding post-season résumé; Dawson hit .186/.238/.237 in 59 AB while in 126 AB “Rock” batted .270/.340/.349. Dawson was an 8-time All Star; Raines made it seven times.

A quick look at their career batting numbers and their four best consecutive seasons:


Andre Dawson 
            Career      4 best (1980-83)
          BA  OBP  SLG    BA  OBP  SLG
Dawson  .279 .323 .482  .302 .350 .518
LG avg. .264 .331 .393  .265 .330 .386
Tim Raines 
            Career      4 best (1984-87)
          BA  OBP  SLG    BA  OBP  SLG
Raines  .294 .385 .425  .323 .409 .477   
LG avg. .264 .333 .400  .263 .331 .395

As to career, Raines has the better OPS+ (123 to 119) however part of that has to be discounted by the fact that Dawson gets a bump for playing a key defensive position at a very high level. However, using Runs Created (RC) Raines was 516 RC above average for his career while Dawson was 300 runs lower (216) despite having 1000 more AB. Using Lee Sinins Runs Created Against Position (to be used with a grain of salt) Raines created 392 more runs than his positional peers while Dawson just 140. There are equally vast spreads in these when you examine their four best consecutive years. In both cases, Raines buries Dawson. RC, RCAA and RCAP are all counting stats and Raines had a higher total despite less than close to two full seasons worth of AB than “Hawk.”

Of course, both were different animals offensively; Dawson was the middle-of-the-order hitter while Raines batted leadoff. Dawson has more HR and RBI while Raines is superior in runs scored and bases on balls. Since the BBWAA tends to look at more conventional measures, let’s examine it on that particular basis.

Let’s deal with what I like to call ‘eyeball runs’ (my pseudonym for a better known measure) An ‘eyeball run’ is something that appears on the scoreboard--if you make contact and a runner crosses the plate (except in the case of a double play)--that’s an ‘eyeball run’ … likewise if you’re the player to cross home plate. Although it’s more tangible, it’s also more crude simply because it doesn’t credit a player who gets a key hit that advances a runner two bases yet doesn’t come around until the next batter. The next guy up can make an out and get the RBI even though that contribution wasn’t as valuable as the player who got the hit that allowed the base runner to get to third.

Just so you know.

‘Eyeball runs’ are easily measured by an old saw--their identical twin: runs produced (Runs+RBI - HR). Dawson had 145 more ‘eyeball runs’ than Raines (2526 to 2381). Oh, it’s not that easy folks; you see runs come at a cost. In a 9-3 game won by the visiting team, both clubs paid 27 outs for their runs. The winning team got nine runs for their 27 outs, the loser--just three. Therefore, we have to look at how many outs each player ‘spent’ to ‘buy’ their ‘eyeball runs.’

Andre Dawson paid 7,261 outs for his 2526 runs produced. Raines paid 6,670 outs for his 2381 ‘eyeball runs.’ The Hawk paid 2.87 outs for each run he produced while Raines purchased his for 2.80 outs. That may not seem like much but it is significant. Consider that Raines had 1055 fewer career at bats than Dawson did, yet Hawk only produced 145 more ‘eyeball runs.’ For Raines to match Dawson’s career spendthrift attitude toward generating runs he would need to play two seasons like 1987 in playing time terms. In that year he had 530 AB in 139 games. In each of those years he would need (rounding off) 73 runs produced. “Rock” averaged seven HR per season so we’ll use that for our imaginary years.

Where does that leave it?

Raines would need two seasons with 50 runs, 7 HR 30 RBI in 530-ish AB. How bad is that? In 2007, 40-year old shortstop Omar Vizquel received 513 AB, scored 54 runs, drive in 51 and hit four home runs. Vizquel had 101 ‘eyeball runs’ last season and our hypothetical seasons would have to be significantly worse than ‘the Vizards’ .246/.305/.316 contributions.

Bottom line, the difference between Raines and Dawson’s careers from this point-of-view is two seasons of sub-2007 Vizquel level production. The difference between 2.87 and 2.80 outs per run produced can add up in a hurry.

It doesn’t matter whether you use traditional or sabermetric measures, the bottom line is Tim Raines had a superior career to Andre Dawson. “The Hawk” is a borderline candidate, which puts Raines over the border and into the Hall of Fame.

Best Regards

John

Leave Comment | Permanent Link