Talk:Tim Raines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] POV

"Tim has possibly been the most overlooked player of the 1980s" nPOV?? 63.84.231.3 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname re: drug use

On November 9, 2005, a change was made stating that Tim Raines nickname, "Rock", came from his cocaine use. I do not believe this is true; if anyone can provide a reference, can they do so?

Raines continued to use the nickname "Rock" well after his cocaine usage was known, which would seem unlikely if this was the original source. In fact, at the start of one season, he asked to be referred to as "Rock Raines", and the scoreboard and PA in Olympic Stadium announced him in this way (this did not last; some time during the season, they reverted to "Tim Raines").

The Montreal media has always reported the origin of "Rock" being the fact that Raines's muscles appeared as solid as a rock.

Unless someone can provide a reference to the contrary, I propose removing the claim that the nickname came from Raines's drug use. Isaac Lin 15:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Raines was called "Rock" because of his chiseled physique.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnbeast (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's common knowledge he gained the nickname "Rock" because he was a cocaine user. He always slid headfirst into a base so that he wouldn't risk breaking the vial of coke in his back bocket. Everyone knows this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.180.110 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to provide a verifiable source for this. Please do so before readding. Jpers36 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to provide sources for common knowledge, otherwise we would need to provide sources for every math problem, or capitals of states. Please shut the fuck up before reading. Also please provide a source for the word "readding", as I do not think it is a real word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.180.110 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lupus

Has Lupus [1], should also add to the lupus page under "famous people with lupus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.190.128 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career Stolen Base Percentage Leader

Just wanted to make it aware that the quotation about Raines being the all-time leader in career SB% (for those with at least 300 attempts) will likely need to be deleted or altered (i.e. changed to higher number of attempts) next season because Carlos Beltran is currently at 250-for-288 (87%) for his career. Jjj222

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping list of achievements in intro

The lengthy list of achievements in the third paragraph of the introduction reads too much like a miscellaneous list, and largely does not capture the most notable characteristics of Raines — his achievements as a switch hitter are not what he is known for. His team-leading stats are already noted in the sidebar. I propose returning the switch-hitting information to the "Accomplishments" section of the article, and deleting the team leader records (which are already in the "Accomplishments" section). Isaac Lin (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

His batting accomplishments should definitely be included in the intro, rather than only his base stealing info. Team records (esp. career records) are usually included in the intro of player articles, as are career rankings in the top ten of various categories. It's unfortunate that much of the focus is on rankings among switch hitters, but the material in the third par is what most clearly sets him apart historically. If there's a better way to illustrate that, I'm open to it; but if he is to be descibed as one of the best leadoff hitters, then focusing only on his baserunning does no good. The intro isn't too long as is (three paragraphs is reasonable for an article of this size, and fairly standard for an FA bio article; the Lee Smith intro is slightly longer), but I understand your point of view. MisfitToys (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting to remove Raines's batting accomplishments in general, just the switch-hitting rankings and the team leader records, as I do not believe an exhaustive listing is the best way to summarize Raines's career. Focusing on a specific set of accomplishments would be better. Rickey Henderson's introduction has just two paragraphs that summarize his characteristics. Other articles I have looked at (Barry Bonds, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Hank Aaron, and switch hitters ahead of Raines in various career categories like Pete Rose, Mickey Mantle, Lance Berkman, and Chipper Jones) don't have the same breadth of categories listed in their introductions. I suggest a summary of the key highlights of his career offensive stats:
Raines had an on-base percentage of .385 and batting average of .294 over his 23-year career, with a peak of .334 in 1986 when he became the third switch hitter ever to win the NL batting title. Raines hit over .300 in five complete seasons, and over .320 from 1985 to 1987. He is the seventh player whose career began after 1945 to retire with over 1,500 runs and 100 triples, and his 1,966 games in left field ranked seventh in major league history when he retired.
The entire list of switch-hitting rankings would be restored to the "Accomplishments" section. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, the intros on many of the other articles (including Henderson, Boggs, etc.) are rather inadequate; Mantle's intro is very poor. Rose's intro appropriately focuses on his ranking among all hitters rather than just switch hitters, though his playing accomplishments need to be fleshed out more. As for the suggested revision, Raines' career batting average and OBP are unremarkable without any context, as neither ranks among the top 100 of all time (and the BA isn't among the top ten by a switch hitter). The team records are major aspects of his historical importance and should remain; I still think at least some of the career rankings for switch hitters should also remain - at least hits, runs, walks and times on base, as these are most germane to his role as a leadoff hitter. MisfitToys (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, Raines's total performance as a hitter is what made him an outstanding leadoff hitter, not his ranking as a switch hitter (which frankly isn't a very useful way of evaluating a player; looking at the platoon differential might be more enlightening in some scenarios). A summary of Raines's abilities should focus on specific attributes that illustrate his skills, otherwise, his defining characteristics get lost in a sea of trivial stats. His career OBP and BA do not become any more or less remarkable when placed in context of his switch hitting rankings. His value was ultimately the ability to avoid being put out at the plate or on the base paths, and a summary of Raines's career should reflect this, regardless of where this might rank him amongst all players. In addition to the proposed revision to the third paragraph, I propose retaining the following sentence to cover the franchise records held by Raines:
Raines holds Expos/Washington Nationals franchise records for career runs, steals, singles, triples, and walks.
Isaac Lin (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But his switch hitting rankings (particularly in the major areas such as hits, walks, etc.) do illustrate his longevity and excellence as a hitter. I'd have to disagree that rankings among switch hitters aren't useful in evaluating players; the fact that Frankie Frisch's career BA is the highest by a switch hitter is certainly a major indication of his skill, especially since there are no switch hitters in the top 60 all-time. Raines had an excellent OBP, though there were over 100 other players who were more successful in getting on base, so without data specifically related to OBPs among leadoff hitters the career totals are probably most useful. Including the totals (esp. for the team records) is important to establish context and scope. If the career rankings are trimmed as I proposed, the paragraph becomes the following, which doesn't run on excessively and I believe is thoroughly reasonable:
He batted .334 in 1986, becoming the third switch hitter ever to win the NL batting title; at the end of his career he ranked sixth among switch hitters in career hits (2,605), and fourth in runs (1,571), walks (1,330) and times on base (3,977). He holds Expos/Washington Nationals franchise records for career runs (947), steals (635), singles (1,163), triples (82) and walks (793), and was the seventh player whose career began after 1945 to retire with over 1,500 runs and 100 triples; his 1,966 games in left field ranked seventh in major league history when he retired.
MisfitToys (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a switch hitter is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. A non-switch hitter with the same performance against lefties and righties would be of equal value, and the length of his career would be due to this performance, regardless of the side of the plate he bats from. Unless you're doing a study specifically on switch hitting or platoon differential, whether one bats left-handed, right-handed, or switch hits is not used to analyze a player's value. Switch-hitting rankings are not generally reported anywhere (I had to derive them from Baseball Reference's overall rankings), and switch hitters are not compared to each other when evaluating players — they're compared against all hitters.
I don't quite follow your reasoning about there being no switch hitters in the top 60 career batting averages. Are you thinking that switch hitting is disadvantageous and so Frisch must have been skilled to be 69th on the career batting average list? In this case, it is the overall ranking that illustrates this, not the switch-hitting ranking. Even Frisch's article only mentions one switch-hitting stat (oddly enough, not batting average, where he ranks first), and as the leading switch hitter in BA, it is a more interesting bit of trivia than in Raines's case.
Based on your comments on OBP by leadoff hitters, I'm wondering if you are attempting to use switch-hitting stats as a proxy for leadoff hitter stats? In this case, I'd more inclined to use something like this article, "ANALYSIS — Leadoff Hitters", to establish context instead. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect most switch hitters are naturally right-handed (Raines, Frisch, Mantle, Rose, Chipper Jones, Eddie Murray, Ted Simmons, Bobby Bonilla, George Davis, etc. all threw right-handed), and thus must go to a greater effort to train themselves to bat left-handed; if they only batted right-handed, their averages would likely be quite a bit lower. It's not that switch hitting is disadvantageous; it's that they face a natural disadvantage as hitters due to being right-handed, and switch hitting is a particular skill which is employed to overcome that disadvantage. Raines' excellence at that particular skill is noteworthy. (Keep in mind that the issue of whether a player bats right- or left-handed or switch hits is an important aspect of how teams build their rosters and lineups, and isn't just incidental.) The Hall of Fame plaques for Murray and Davis both refer to their being switch hitters, as do the HoF bios for Frisch and Mantle, so it is regarded as a factor in their importance. (I doubt that any plaques or bios refer specifically to anyone hitting left-handed, as it's so common.) I'm not using switch-hitting stats as a proxy for leadoff hitter stats, but more complete data for leadoff hitters might produce better material for the intro. The article you linked includes material only for a select few players (Hall members and a couple of others), and basically compares Raines to just 10 other leadoff hitters of the past 50 years; I think a link from the intro would need to use data covering all leadoff hitters, and not just the ones who were outstanding all-around players from the post-1957 era. The study doesn't include leadoff hitters such as Richie Ashburn, Luis Aparicio or Luke Appling, and I really don't know to what extent players like Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, HArry Hooper or Eddie Collins batted leadoff. Another way to approach the issue is to ask what Raines' most significant batting accomplishments are. Apart from the batting title, he didn't lead the league in much (doubles once), and never had 200 hits, 100 RBI, 20 HRs or even 100 walks. Clearly some of his top accomplishments are related to his career totals such as 2,605 hits (84% of the eligible players with that many have been elected to the Hall), and this seems like the most informative way to work those totals into the intro. If we could find a source which indicated that his career total of hits in the leadoff spot was among the highest all-time, that would perhaps be better for inclusion. MisfitToys (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a right-handed, left-handed, or switch hitter is a key characteristic of a player that should be included in bios; however, a player's ranking compared to only other switch hitters is not. In any analysis of a player's value, I have never seen anyone use the player's ranking amongst switch hitters as a contributing factor. The player must after all compete against all players (including players who have the same stats against lefties and righties but only hit from one side of the plate), so a comparison limited to switch hitters has no value. To illustrate a player's ability to overcome the platoon disadvantage, his stats against left-handed and right-handed pitchers should be stated. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree, in regards to evaluation of skill and ability as opposed to effect; a right-handed hitter who bats .316 is inherently a better hitter than a left-hander with the same average (all other factors being equal), as he has a natural disadvantage. We're not simply comparing someone's ability against differing pitchers, but also their relative ability compared to other hitters with the same batting style. And there are many sources which compare switch hitters to one another, right-handed hitters to one another, etc., with no discussion of their comparative strength against right- and left-handed pitchers. Major League Baseball recognizes official records for switch hitters, right-handed hitters etc.; there was a lot of attention when Barry Bonds broke Babe Ruth's record for career HRs by a left-handed hitter. Another couple of comparisons: 1) Rickey Henderson holds the record for career home runs leading off a game; it's one of things he's most known for. But certainly there's no difference in offensive value between a HR hit to lead off a game and one hit later on (indeed, it's the only point in the game when you can be certain no one will be on base), and most of the top power hitters rarely (if ever) hit leadoff, so the number of excellent hitters competing for the record is reduced through no fault of their own. But it's nonetheless often regarded as a major indicator of his impact and ability. 2) Jeff Kent and Mike Piazza hold the records for career home runs by a second baseman and catcher, respectively. But obviously HRs hit by players at those positions are no more valuable than those hit by right fielders or first basemen (and Kent isn't even among the top 60 players overall); the reason the records are noteworthy is that they play more difficult defensive positions, where players generally don't hit as well as right fielders or first basemen. They are compared only to those players who are similar in ways unrelated to raw batting stats. The same things apply to switch hitters; Raines is being compared to those players whose natural disadvantages and batting skills match his own. MisfitToys (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Teams are required to field a second baseman and a catcher, so rankings within a position help provide a context for performance in that role. They are also required to field a leadoff hitter, so a player can be compared to others filling this role — note though a manager could choose anyone to bat leadoff, so when evaluating a leadoff hitter's total value to the team, a comparison to all players is appropriate. A team is not required to field a switch hitter, and so there are no conditions within the game where using this context would alter the evaluation of a player's performance. Players choose all kinds of different approaches to hitting, including bat weight, bat composition, body armor, and switch hitting, and what matters is the results of these choices — no bonus runs are awarded based on the amount of improvement made by players using a particular technique. Even if you were to try to evaluate the effectiveness of a given choice, the comparison would have to be made against the opposite group would did not make the same choice, rather than others who did. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be best resolved by asking other editors at WikiProject Baseball to offer their thoughts, as it doesn't seem either of us is convincing the other. (And actually, teams aren't required to field a second baseman or catcher; they're only required to field nine players. A pitcher is necessary to conduct play, the absence of a catcher would have a drastic impact on defense, and there are rules governing gloves used by catchers and first basemen, but if a team wants to field five outfielders or six infielders, they're free to do so. The rules also do not require that positions be designated on the lineup card, although they often are. The positions have been established by convention and the demonstrated effectiveness of positioning, not by the formal rules of the game.) MisfitToys (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting evidence for "top leadoff hitter"

I added the references to Raines being at the top of the leaderboard in OBP in order to show why Raines is considered a top leadoff hitter rather than just stating it, in accordance with Wikipedia style guidelines. As a strong on base percentage is the primary characteristic of an excellent leadoff hitter, it seems remiss to not mention Raines's skills in this area. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but being among the league's top 5 in OBP for a couple of years really isn't much support for saying he was one of the best leadoff hitters ever, and apart from that it isn't nearly notable enough to include at the top. A high OBP might be described as a characteristic of a top leadoff hitter, though there have been varying approaches over the years; some might prefer a player with speed who steals bases and scores more runs (as Raines did), even if his OBP isn't as high. Some noted players regarded as excellent leadoff hitters had somewhat unremarkable OBPs, such as Lou Brock .343, Maury Wills .330, Willie Wilson .326, Luis Aparicio .311, etc.; Aparicio, Wills and Wilson were never in the league's top 10, and Brock only once, yet they were regarded as premier leadoff men. It's not that there's no correlation between OBP and value as a leadoff hitter, it's just that I don't think it's a good idea to presume that OBP is always regarded as the most important measuring stick. In this area, I think quotes, annual ratings, etc. would be a much better way to establish that Raines was regarded as a top leadoff man. MisfitToys (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not just for a couple of years, but for five straight seasons, Raines finished no lower than fourth in OBP, and in 1989, Raines finished fifth. OBP remains one of Raines's key skills that I believe should be described in the introduction. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
But finishing among the league leaders for a few years isn't generally included in article intros; if someone finished in the top five in HRs or steals a few times, but only led the league once, that probably wouldn't merit mentioning either, as there would likely be better standards by which to evaluate them. Again, I think that because a high OBP doesn't automatically mean someone was thought of as a top leadoff hitter (in fact, most players with high OBPs don't hit leadoff at all), using quotes and other citations to support the point is more ideal. MisfitToys (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vial

Suprisingly enough I'm finding multiple sources (albiet not the best ones, at least not that I can see with just a brief google search) that verify this. I'll leave referencing this fact to someone with a better knowledge of the material, but there is no need for an edit war over an unplesant fact. I'll be moving on to something that's ACTUALLY being vandalized now. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it for the time being. If anyone wants to reinstate it with a reference added, feel free, but not without one. Katharineamy (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The next time someone states that information is true but needs sourcing, please feel free to simply move allong if you are not willing to do the part of the job that actually needs doing. Removing an item that has been verified but was left unsourced simply because I am not familiar with the best baseball sites to reference for it. It's unhelpfull and lazy. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I was quite happy for a third party to replace it, since I've got no more knowledge of the topic than you do, indeed possibly less. However, unreferenced controversial facts do have to be removed under WP:BLP, whether they're known to be true or not. Katharineamy (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess my point is that you took the quick route that cased someone else more work, instead of doing a slightly larger amount of work in the first place to cite a reference. I full agree with unsourced controversial materials, but far too many people seem to take the tactic of simply not bothering to see if there is a source for them. At any rate I have a source now, and am looking for a better one (a copy of the transcript itself) later on. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)