Whenever A Baseball Writer Has Nothing to Write About, He Takes a Borderline HOF Candidate and Claims That Player is a First-Ballot Player

Jeff Pearlman says Tim Raines is a First-Ballot HOFer

In this article, Jeff does the standard "Player X, Though Most People Think is a Marginal Candidate, Should Actually Be A Lock". I feel like these articles come in packs every few years. I've probably read a dozen about Jim "My Legacy Is No Longer About My Skills Playing Baseball But Actually My Historic Inability Achieving the Hall of Fame" Rice. In these articles, the writer refutes the claim that X is marginal by downplaying the stats normally referenced in candidacy and emphasizing other things that the average fan wouldn't realize. Let's have a look:

"Tim Raines will not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Most likely this is a correct assumption.

I say this because I know a large number of voters -- many of whom adhere to a strict, in-depth, complicated scientific equation of Pythagorean inanity when it comes to determining Cooperstown worthiness.

What's nice is that I do not know a large number of voters and I can still predict these votes with a small degree of accuracy. But I am not Jeff Pearlman.

Actually, it seems to me that most writers use the complicated system of : Does he have 500 homers? Does he have 3000 hits? Most of these stats are not of any complexity at all. Now, I actually praised an article that referenced an actual complex-inane-Pythagorean-Euclidean formula because it made a lot of sense if you have a basic comprehension of mathematics. But most people hate all those numbers, so they fall back to 500/3000.

Here's where I call bullshit Jeff:

1. The voters elected Gary Carter
2. Gary Carter has shitty stats.
3. Jeff says the voters are stat maniacs.

If #1 and #2 are true, then #3 is not true. Here's what I think: Jeff knows a dozen voters who look at stats a lot, and those voters said (rightfully) take your ass back to Montreal, Gary Carter. The voters who are not friends with Jeff said, come on down, Gary! I conclude: Jeff doesn't know as many voters' preferences as he thinks he does! If I were teaching Baseball Journalism I, I would do the same thing I do when I teach English I: ban first-person pronouns.

Aside: I hate the fact that Gary Carter is in the HOF. I recall saying this to chris w a few years back and I stand by it.

It happened to Keith Hernandez. It happened to Jim Rice. It happened to Ron Santo. For some reason, players more than worthy of enshrinement are picked apart like chicken carcasses at my mother-in-law's house (it's an ugly scene), ripped to the bone and left for naught.

I feel like more people rag on Keith Hernandez for the fact that he had only 160 career homers, or Santo for the fact that he was never really dominant. Still, these men had career OPS+ over 125, which kicks the shit out of Hall-of-Famer Gary Carter's 115. A fair point, Mr. Pearlman, but the fact is that there are reasons these candidates are marginal, and it has little to do with chicken. Or your mother-in-law. Leave her out of our baseball discussions, please.

Trust me, because this one's a lock: When Raines' name is officially listed on the next ballot, electors will look over his 23-year major league career and cite the following:

A. His early days of cocaine abuse

B. His (only) 2,605 career hits and sub-.300 average

C. His time spent playing in the baseball-indifferent city of Montreal

D. His career numbers compared to Rickey Henderson, Raines' leadoff-hitting contemporary.

Then, with nary a flinch, they will vote: No.

A dark, dark day, that will be.

I'm so confused. Pearlman takes a shot at complicated statistics in the first paragraph, and the later complains that the voters will only look at number totals. Also, if the voters looked at (C), wouldn't they consider that a disadvantage Raines overcame? Or does Jeff Pearlman really see voters having the following inner monologue: "Gee, this guy played in Montreal. People in Montreal didn't care much for baseball. I guess he doesn't really belong". I feel like playing in Montreal helped Gary Carter's candidacy, but we already know I hate him irrationally.

Also I imagine the day that Raines is not elected will be just as bright as any other day for everybody except Jeff Pearlman and Tim Raines.

To start with, Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer. Not a Bruce Sutter Hall of Famer. (Translation: A player who inexplicably gets in based on five stellar seasons.) Not a Don Sutton Hall of Famer. (Translation: A solid lengthy career results in the compilation of gaudy numbers, and thus enshrinement). Not a Ty Cobb Hall of Famer. (Translation: A jackass with great stats.)

Earth to Jeff Pearlman: Ty Cobb was one of the best baseball players ever. His statistical prowess is an indication of his incredible skill at the game. If you want to talk unbreakable records, his .367 lifetime BA is nearly untouchable. Do you really believe, in some Pythagorean-inane-way, that Ty Cobb's "great stats" are somehow engineered to overhype his skill at the game of baseball? At least look at his batting average, if you won't look at his utterly disgusting 18 straight seasons of OBP over .400 and his 167 career OPS+.

Also, Jeff: why the fuck do you bitch about voters considering Raines' off-field life (his cocaine use) and then insert a snide comment about Cobb's off-field life? This is one of the most fucking idiotic things I have ever read. Does Pearlman honestly believe that being mean disqualifies you for the HOF? This is among the more ludicrous statements I've heard recently. Of all the names I was expecting in this paragraph, Ty Cobb was not one of them.

In the history of the game, there have been two -- maybe three -- better leadoff hitters than Raines during his 10 prime seasons with the Montreal Expos. In that span, from 1981-1990, Raines led the National League in steals four times, and ranked second once, third once and fourth twice. In 1986 he led the NL with a .334 batting average, and two other times he ranked third. In seven of those seasons, Raines ranked in the top 10 in on-base percentage. He hit 30 or more doubles six times, and at least seven triples in eight seasons.

Well well well. Well! He had at least seven triples in eight seasons. I imagine that the fingerprint-scanner on the doors at Cooperstown is tagged to career stats that include how many fucking triples they hit. Or even doubles. Do sportswriters have to write a certain number of words in these columns? I can't honestly think of any reason to include his doubles or triples. About the doubles: the man you mentioned earlier, Keith Hernandez (98 career SB) had eight seasons of 30 doubles or more. Two more than Raines.

Also.. he wasn't even the most dominant basestealer in his league in the 80s. That honor goes to Vince Coleman, who swiped 50 fewer bases in 3000 fewer AB, as well as winning FIVE titles in the 80s.

Pearlman goes on to compare Raines to Lou Brock, and his analysis is fairly accurate. Raines compares quite favorably to the surprisingly average Brock. Pearlman mentions that Brock of course deserved HOF induction, even though his career OPS is actually a sad 109, and had a unimpressive career OBP of .343. This makes me think: gee, Lou Brock should actually be a lot closer to being with Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter and the rest of the picked-over chicken bones of the perpetual doorknockers on the HOF than I thought.

But here's the gem of the article, a Raines bit from a personal interview done by the one and only Jeff Pearlman.

At the time, I asked Raines whether he pondered the Hall.

""I do," he said. "But mostly I think about playing the game the right way. If that's my legacy, I'll be very content."

Well, even if that damn Pythagoras and those damn voters who consider ballplayers' personal lives (like you, Jeff Pearlman) are going to keep Raines from being a first balloter, at least he mostly thinks about playing the game the right way. I feel like playing the game the right way mostly means running the bases in the correct order. I would like to see all the major leaguers who are currently not focused on playing the game the right way and as such are playing it the wrong way. The only players, I think, who play the game the wrong way are Jimmy Piersall and those Guys Who Are Suspected Of Spitballing. And maybe Barry Bonds. Tim, you should've been more like Ryan Freel.

Actually, Tim, your legacy is more than that. It's the legacy of a good player who has his name exactly where it belongs: on the ballot, but certainly not in on the first. And Jeff, your legacy is to keep showing up on this site until your articles are without ad hominem attacks on honest first-ballot Hall of Famers and one-sentence paragraphs predicting solar eclipses when events take their natural course.