NBA 2009 nba draft, nba trades

As we did last year, I'll be liveblogging the NBA Draft tomorrow night, starting about 7:00.  The draft doesn't start until 7:30, but there's going to be a ton of movement to discuss before then.  For an idea of what to expect, check out last year's liveblog.

I haven't much more than a faint clue of how things are going to fall out tomorrow night.  There's already been some significant trades, with more likely to come over the next several hours.  Plus, this draft class just isn't very good, so there could be a lot of teams trying to trade out of picks if their guy doesn't fall to them.

That said, here's my last best guess at how the lottery will go:

1. LA Clippers - Blake Griffin, Oklahoma

2. Memphis -  Hasheem Thabeet, Connecticut

3. Oklahoma City - Ricky Rubio, Spain

4. Sacramento - Tyreke Evans, Memphis

5. Minnesota (from Washington) - James Harden, Arizona State

6. Minnesota - DeMar Derozan, USC

7. Golden State - Stephen Curry, Davidson

8. New York - Jrue Holiday, UCLA

9. Toronto - Gerald Henderson, Duke

10. Milwaukee - Brandon Jennings, Italy

11. New Jersey - Jordan Hill, Arizona

12. Charlotte - Earl Clark, Louisville

13. Indiana - Jeff Teague, Wake Forest

14. Phoenix - James Johnson, Wake Forest

NBA nba draft

(via Rush the Court)

Maybe this has slipped through the media cracks, but WKYT dropped what I'd consider to be a bombshell last week regarding the potential status of Jodie Meeks.

Meeks has not signed with an agent as yet.  So, if he is not selected in the NBA draft tomorrow night (and that is looking like a realistic possibility), he could invoke the Randolph Morris loophole and return to Lexington.  According to the UK atheltics department, Meeks has not done anything to jeopardize his amateur status, so this looms as an option.

On talent alone, Meeks probably should get picked.  However, just about every team is in some sort of financial bind (I've heard as many as 27 teams were unprofitable in 2008-09).  They could easily decide to, rather than take a college player that would sit on their roster, select a foreign player that can sit overseas for the upcoming season, and just hold the rights to him until several months down the road and not have to pay him right now.  It's a small cost savings, but it's a savings nonetheless.

If this happens, UK is so far and away the preseason #1 next year it'll be scary.

College Hoops, NBA nba draft, jodie meeks, university of kentucky

With five of the top six teams in the bracket losing last week, it was tough to make major changes.  Last week I felt there were four definitive #1 seeds, and the rest were a step below.  The #1 seeds have not changed, but there's a lot less distance between them and the field.

Midwest Region

(1) Pittsburgh vs. play-in game winner (Alabama State vs. Tennessee-Martin)

(8) Florida vs. (9) UCLA

(5) Purdue vs. (12) Siena

(4) Florida State vs. (13) Davidson

(3) Duke vs. (14) North Dakota State

(6) Arizona vs. (11) Utah State

(7) Syracuse vs. (10) Minnesota

(2) Kansas vs. (15) Belmont

 

South Region

(1) North Carolina vs. (16) Radford

(8) West Virginia vs. (9) Ohio State

(5) Washington vs. (12) Creighton

(4) Gonzaga vs. (13) American

(3) Marquette vs. (14) Weber State

(6) Dayton vs. (11) Maryland

(7) Tennessee vs. (10) Texas A&M

(2) Memphis vs. (15) Robert Morris

 

East Region

(1) Connecticut vs. (16) Morgan State

(8) California vs. (9) UNLV

(5) Utah vs. (12) Michigan

(4) Wake Forest vs. (13) Virginia Commonwealth

(3) Villanova vs. (14) Vermont

(6) Xavier vs. (11) Kentucky

(7) Illinois vs. (10) San Diego State

(2) Missouri vs. (15) Cornell

 

West Region

(1) Oklahoma vs. (16) Long Beach State

(8) Butler vs. (9) Wisconsin

(5) Clemson vs. (12) Temple

(4) Arizona State vs. (13) Western Kentucky

(3) Michigan State vs. (14) Buffalo

(6) LSU vs. (11) Boston College

(7) Texas vs. (10) BYU

(2) Louisville vs. (15) Stephen F. Austin

 

LAST FOUR IN: Kentucky, Temple, Maryland, Michigan

LAST FOUR OUT: Penn State, South Carolina, UAB, Miami (Fla.)

NOTES:

• A rash of losses pushed Memphis, Missouri, and Louisville into #2 seed slots.  Memphis is the most likely to sneak onto the top line, since Louisville still has a couple potential stumbling blocks before the Big East tournament.  Don't count out the Tigers though, who are quickly becoming the team no one wants to have to play. 
• Arizona State and Florida State are quietly creeping up the board, making it to the #4 seed line this week.  The Sun Devils in particular loom as a dark horse Final Four pick, with their strong defense as well as standout SG James Harden.
• Because of all the teams losing around them, Xavier's cold streak isn't going to kill them too badly.  It's going to be very tough for them to crack the top four again though.
• Butler pretty much saved their season yesterday.  Had they lost to Davidson, they likely would have fallen to strictly automatic qualifier status.  They can't afford to slip up again before the conference tournament.
• Ohio State needs to get focused, as the season could really unravel over the next couple weeks (vs. Illinois & Penn State, at Purdue).
• Kentucky looks like they're going to continue riding the roller coaster.  I would hope this week would tell us more about them, but in all likelihood they'll split their games with South Carolina and LSU, and we'll be right back here next week.

College Hoops bracketology, march madness, ncaa tournament

Courtesy of Beyond The Boxscore...I'm pretty sure Muehlekamp is behind this one...

 

MLB dusty baker

More than any other stat in baseball, the stolen base is influenced not just by the player's skill, but also the manager's tendencies to exploit that skill.  If a manager likes to play for the big inning, that's not going to drastically affect a high batting average hitter from putting the ball in play.  Likewise, a manager might believe in manufacturing runs, but that wouldn't make a musclebound slugger any less powerful.  But, if a manager doesn't like his baserunners attempting to steal, then a speedster's ability to affect the game is drastically reduced.

I'm surprised that more people haven't taken this angle when looking at the recent acquisition of Willy Taveras.  Everyone's looked at his gaudy 68 steals from 2008, and has just assumed that 2009 will be more of the same, without ever thinking about whether Dusty will run him often enough to get to that kind of number.

Certainly we can't use last season (when the Reds used 10 different leadoff hitters, including 32 games of - gulp - Corey Patterson) as any sort of barometer of Dusty's running tendencies.  But, in his pre-Cincinnati years, Dusty had two legitimate base stealing threats similar to Taveras - Darren Lewis with the Giants in 1993, and Juan Pierre with the Cubs in 2006.  If we look at those years, and compare them with Taveras' 2008, we might get a better idea of what 2009 might hold for Taveras.  Pierre is a great example in my opinion, because I think Taveras fits the profile of 'poor man's Juan Pierre' very well (incidentally, that would make Joey Gathright a poor man's Willy Taveras).

Player	G	AB	H	1B	BB	K	OBP	SB	CS	SBO %
Lewis	136	522	132	106	30	40	.302	46	15	44.9%
Pierre	162	699	204	156	32	38	.330	58	20	41.5%
Taveras	133	479	120	102	36	79	.308	68	7	54.3%

The SBO% - stolen base opportunity - column is very telling.  All that calculation shows is the percentage of times that the batter reached first base (by a single or walk) that he attempted to steal second base.  Immediately we can see that, when handed a leadoff man with A+ speed, Clint Hurdle was much more willing to let his runners fly than Dusty usually is.  So right there, we can see that it's extremely unlikely that Willy is going to match his steals output from last season.

So let's just assume that, somehow, Taveras gets 500 at-bats with the Reds in 2009 (Patterson got 366 last year - anything's possible).  Let's assume his batting average bounces back up to .280 from last season's .251.  If we figure that all his other numbers stay consistent, here's what his batting line would look like if he gets the green light as much as Pierre did in 2006.

Player	AB	H	1B	BB	K	OBP	SB	CS	SBO %
Taveras	500	140	120	29	83	.330	56	6	41.5%

About 60-ish steal oppotunities in 2009, so 56 steals looks pretty nice, right?  Well, that's assuming that Taveras keeps up his other-worldly 90% steal success rate from 2008, which was over 10 points above his career rate.  Possibly that's a measure of his progression as a base stealer, and that development will stick.  But, if that was a fluke (and that's the more likely answer), then that mix drops to about 50 SB / 12 CS.  And if it ends up being a regression to the mean type season, it could be 45-17, but the 50 steal mark seems pretty reasonable overall, so we'll stick with that.

Even so, right there Taveras just lost 30% of the value that he had going into this season just by coming to the Reds.  And, as countless articles have shown, speed without a passable OBP is fairly worthless - ask Joe Torre, who figured out halfway through last season that Andre Ethier was far more valuable to his lineup than Juan Pierre.

Guestimating, Taveras' baserunning overall probably will net the Reds 1-2 wins overall (if he steals 50 or so with 80% success), which isn't bad but is hardly anything to go crazy over, and his glove will probably net out another win.  But his bat is so abysmal that he'll probably give those wins back at the plate, so the season will probably be a net wash.

What it comes down to is, again, this signing made no sense.  It could very well block Chris Dickerson, who actually has potential to do some damage with his bat, and we're stuck with him for two years.  To do that for a net zero ballplayer at best, is a waste of time, money, player development, and uniform lettering.

MLB willy taveras, dusty baker, juan pierre

Since every other site has a bracketology thing of some sort going on, I figured we should too.  Here's my first stab of likely several at the brackets, updated for results as of posting time:

East Region

(1) Connecticut vs. (16) Radford

(8) LSU vs. (9) Minnesota

(5) Washington vs. (12) Boston College

(4) Gonzaga vs. (13) Virginia Commonwealth

(3) Villanova vs. (14) Robert Morris

(6) Florida State vs. (11) Utah State

(7) Arizona State vs. (10) San Diego State

(2) Memphis vs. (15) North Dakota State

South Region

(1) Oklahoma vs. (16) Cal-State Northridge

(8) Ohio State vs. (9) BYU

(5) Marquette vs. (12) Davidson

(4) Wake Forest vs. (13) Buffalo

(3) Clemson vs. (14) Binghamton

(6) UCLA vs. (11) Wisconsin

(7) Utah vs. (10) Florida

(2) Louisville vs. (15) Tennessee-Martin

Midwest Region

(1) North Carolina vs. (16) Jacksonville

(8) Syracuse vs. (9) UNLV

(5) Illinois vs. (12) Siena

(4) Xavier vs. (13) American

(3) Missouri vs. (14) Weber State

(6) California vs. (11) Kentucky

(7) Dayton vs. (10) Virginia Tech

(2) Michigan State vs. (15) Sam Houston State

West Region

(1) Pittsburgh vs. Play-in game winner (Alabama St./Morgan St.)

(8) Texas vs. (9) Miami (Fla.)

(5) Tennessee vs. (12) Southern California

(4) Butler vs. (13) Northern Iowa

(3) Kansas vs. (14) Arkansas-Little Rock

(6) Purdue vs. (11) Temple

(7) Arizona vs. (10) West Virginia

(2) Duke vs. (15) Cornell

LAST FOUR IN: Wisconsin, Boston College, Temple, USC (Temple had to be bumped up a seed to balance brackets)

• For the local teams, Xavier hasn't been hurt too badly by their two losses over the last 10 days.  Any more defeats (outside of Dayton, maybe) will become a problem and could give the committee an excuse to drop them below a top 4 seed.
• Butler has earned its #3 seed.  Outside of one bad loss, they've done everything they're supposed to do; at some point you can't penalize them any more for the big boys not being willing to play them.  Beating Davidson on Saturday would give them another quality win to go with their Xavier victory.
• Dayton has quietly taken care of business over the past few weeks, and is now in excellent position to get a top 8 seed come Selection Sunday.  The schedule is pretty favorable for them, and if they were to run the table they could probably elevate to a 4-5 seed.
• Kentucky's wins over Florida and Arkansas last week have pushed them into the field of 64 - for now.  Their margin for error is thin; winning two of their next three would put them in pretty good shape.
• Louisville's ceiling is likely at the #2 seed, but they should go no worse than 6-1 over their final seven, and if they do they should feel pretty good about their seeding.
• Cincinnati still has several teams to climb over to get into the dance, and absent a big victory that no one expects, I don't see this changing.  The wins they expected to hang their hats on (Georgetown, Mississippi State, UAB) don't look nearly as good now, and they haven't been competitive in most of their losses against the top 50 RPI teams.

College Hoops bracketology, march madness, ncaa tournament

I found this very cool post on Yahoo!'s Shutdown Corner.  While we're arguing over how great the ending was or whether the refs screwed the Cardinals, there were our boys and girls in Iraq that had to choose between watching the Super Bowl or getting sleep, and had to get an order from the top U.S. commander in Iraq to allow them to have a few beers during the game.  Chris Chase received e-mails from two captains that I'm going to copy in full below; they're a little long, but it's well worth getting a glimpse of what these guys deal with on a daily basis, and how the big game served as momentary relief for them, instead of an excuse to eat chicken fingers and guacamole, as The Boss said.

Army Captain Alex Dorko, 14th Engineer Batallion

I didn't drink anything on Super Bowl Sunday. Nor did I watch the game. Not because I don't like beer or football, but to me the whole operation seemed a bit like a chore. And I'm a Browns fan so watching Big Ben win a Super Bowl would be my own personal hell.

After a work day spent fighting the war on terror, I went back to my little trailer where I sleep and contemplated whether or not I should wake up for my quota of two beers. The game kicked off at 2:28 a.m. in Nasiriyah. Hypothetically, I would have slept for five hours, woken up, put on a complete uniform (which is a hassle, I hate wearing what other people tell me to), and walked ten minutes to the dining facility where they were giving out the beer. Then, I'd have had to wait another ten minutes in the line to get inside.

No one would actually opt to watch the game in the dining facility, but that's where the beer was handed out and you had to drink it while you were inside the dining facility. The game was on all of the flat screen televisions in there. The DFAC has ten of them (thanks, tax payers!). Then I guess I would have left with my mild buzz and found a more comfortable place to sit and watch those tools beat the good-for-nothing Cardinals.

More likely than not I would have then gone back to my little room and fallen asleep again, only to have woken up in a couple hours to use the bathroom. Since my room is 300 meters from the nearest toilet or shower, I tend to intentionally dehydrate myself on a regular basis in order to avoid such things. That second middle of the night field trip would have been the icing on the proverbial Super Bowl-cake and I would have woken up later in the morning with a tiny little hangover and cotton mouth.

Instead of all that, I slept... And I woke up, sharp as ever, and ready to fight the terrorists once again from behind my computer.

Had it been the Browns in that Super Bowl... who am I kidding, Army has a better chance of actually beating Navy than seeing I do of seeting those idiots in the big game.

In case you were wondering, they had Bud, Bud Light, Coors Light, Miller Light, Heineken and Guinness. Most of the Joes drank from the Bud family with Heineken and Guinness sitting right there. I guess they thought they were paying for it.

Captain James Douglas, 570th Sapper Company

It was a great opportunity and a big morale booster for Soldiers in Iraq. It was very well organized and just about every safety precaution was taken. We started out standing in line for about 20 minutes while the start of the Super Bowl was being broadcast on every large screen TV in the chow hall. The Soldiers handing out the beer called us to the counter and verified your military ID and asked you to dab blue ink on your index finger. This is the way the MPs and DEFAC worker could identify you've received your two beers.

Our selection was Guinness, Bud Light, Coors Light, and Heineken. They also provide a large selection of finger foods. The opportunity to watch the Super bowl and have a few beers reminded us of home and gave us a break from reality, if only for a few hours. I really hope the chain of command looks at other special events like the Army Birthday and Independence Day to allow Soldiers to drink a few beers as a morale booster.

NFL super bowl

A week ago Tuesday, Kentucky took a two point lead against Ole Miss into halftime.  As is customary during any ESPN televised game, one of the coaches does a halftime interview on the way to the locker room, and this time it was Gillespie's turn.  Despite the small lead, sideline reporter Jeanine Edwards asked Gillespie a question regarding Jody Meeks' lack of production, and Billy Clyde did not take too kindly to that: 

Kind of an over-reaction if you asked me - and you didn't (nice bland follow-up question on Edwards' part).  But in the five halves of basketball since that interview, the Wildcats have:

• given up 48 points to the Rebels in the second half of that game, and lost going away, 85-80
• committed 21 turnovers in a 78-77 home loss against South Carolina Saturday, and
• scored a grand total of four points in a nine minute stretch during their disappointing 66-57 loss to Mississippi State.

Coincidence?  Perhaps.  But it ought to give Coach Gillespie some pause the next time he treats a reporter's question with such disdain.

(in all seriousness, with games against Florida and at Arkansas and Vandy over the next two weeks, the 'Cats better get their act together quickly if they have any interest in playing a post-season game of any sort.)

College Hoops kentucky, kentucky wildcats, uk, billy gillespie, jeanine edwards

Channel 5 ran a piece regarding the Andy Kennedy arrest from mid-December, and they included the police video from the evening.

 

Wow. 

That doesn't exactly paint him in a favorable light.  Let's set aside the fact that clearly Kennedy had indulged in more than "a few drinks", as the reporter stated - we've all done it, though most of us are usually able to maintain enough control to not get thrown out of a bar by a police officer and then get in an argument with a cab driver.  The bothersome part is how this guy tried to make the argument that they couldn't take him to jail because he was coaching against Rick Pitino the next night.  Really?  I guess it just goes to show you that anyone that thinks they can pull the "do you know who I am" card will take a shot with it.

Kennedy really didn't need to worry, since, as Donald at Cincinnati Blog pointed out, he was released before having to appear before a judge, a move that he found to be more than a bit unusual for someone charged with a violent crime.  And given the weird twists and turns this saga has taken, who knows whether this video or report will have any affect on the outcome of this case.

I will note two interesting items in the video.  First, it doesn't speak well of Kennedy's judgment to hire William Armstrong as his director of basketball operations (2:35 in).  It takes a special kind of clown to tell the police to "I'll go to jail".  Second, the line at 3:46, when the officer tells Kennedy "we deal with the Bengals all the time"...I can only imagine what the national media could do with that one.

College Hoops mississippi state, cincinnati, cincinnati bearcats, andy kennedy

A few weeks ago, Shawn Hoffman over at Baseball Prospectus wrote an excellent column that should be considered a must read for any proponent of a baseball salary cap.  In the article, he envisions what a salary cap might look like were one to be implemented, and examines two aspects that no one ever really talks about; a payroll floor, and the difference between local & national revenue.

A salary cap has to have a payroll floor; without it, there's no incentive for an owner with no interest in winning to do anything more than the bare minimum and walk away with a sizeable profit.  The floor usually is about 75% of the cap.  So, given Hoffman's calculations, a cap in 2009 terms would be about $103 million, with a floor of $77 million.  And here's where the problems start:

[F]ourteen teams would have been under the payroll floor, by a total of $251 million. Even discounting the Marlins' $22 million payroll, the other thirteen teams would have had to spend an average of $15 million more just to meet the minimum. Some of those teams might be able to afford it; most wouldn't...had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but Neal Huntington's long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Not only would that cause immediate problems for smaller franchises, but the power of the big boys could wreak even more havoc for them down the road:

Now fast forward to 2009. Let's say the Pirates' sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team's top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the twenty-seven other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates' purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

The local vs. national revenue argument is one that I don't think people fully appreciate.  Since the NFL derives so much of its income from their national TV contract, it's easy to spread that money evenly and hold the clubs accountable.  But when the Yankees rake in close to $100 million per year in local TV revenue, while smaller clubs struggle to break the $10 million barrier, that's a lot harder to place on an even scale.  I think the small market owners realize that, and that's why they haven't made a more unified push for a cap.

Even lowering the threshold of the luxury tax isn't going to help solve the problem.  Only the Yankees and Tigers exceeded the cap in 2008, and the Tigers just barely crossed the line.  The threshold is so high ($162 million) that it would have to be lowered significantly to have an effect on anyone other than the big 3-4 teams.  Even if you lowered the cap by $30 million, it would only cost the Yankees another $12 million to keep the same payroll.  Since Hank Steinbrenner is already used to paying out $25-30 million in luxury taxes, I doubt this would deter him.  Incidentally, luxury tax revenues do not actually go to the small market clubs; that happens through local revenue sharing, which is a smaller piece of the pie.

The one thing that people can take some solace in, as Hoffman concludes, is baseball's playoff system that evens the playing field greatly for the teams that make it to the post-season.  Consider that, since 1993, MLB has had 10 different World Series winners.  Compare that with an even more ruthlessly capitalistic league, like...say...the English Premier Football league, which has had a grand total of four winners over the same time period, and I think it's far more preferable to have a system like the current one that baseball does.  Besides, having the biggest payroll does not guarantee a winner; ask Hank Steinbrenner how that's worked out over the past eight years.

MLB salary cap, yankees, tigers

With Alabama men's basketball head coach Mark Gottfried resigning Monday after 10+ seasons, under very unusual circumstances, the focus - as always - now shifts to his eventual successor.  As contractually obligated, all speculation immediately begins with Gonzaga head man Mark Few (who isn't going anywhere) and Memphis' John Calipari (who would probably go if the money was big enough).  But there's one name that keeps popping up that strikes me as more than a bit odd: former UK (and current Minnesota) head coach Tubby Smith.

This seemed like a random report initially when the AP threw his name in a quick summary article about the firing of Gottfried.  But it turns out they didn't just pull this out of thin air.  The Birmingham Times ran a column that insinuated that Tubby was the preferred choice of the Crimson Tide boosters if/when Gottfried was displaced, and the Bama Sports Report lists him as one of the two favorites for the job, along with VCU's Anthony Grant.  Additionally, The Big Lead notes that former UK athletic director and former Alabama head coach C.M. Newton (who hired Tubby at UK) likely will have a fairly large say in the selection of Gottfried's replacement.

Now, the immediate question is why would Tubby want a job back in the SEC, less than two years after fleeing Lexington?  Well, for one, the pressure for a basketball coach to succeed at Alabama isn't anything close to that of a Kentucky leader.  That pressure seemed to be the primary reason to want to leave UK.  He might also miss the (usually, except for this season) higher quality of competition that the SEC provides over the Big Ten.  And, even though 'Bama hoops doesn't compare to the importance of the football squad, it's still more revered and respected than Minnesota basketball.

Having said that, Tubby may be quite comfortable as a Golden Gopher: he's got five years left on a $13M contract, and the expectations of him aren't in any way outrageous.  That, in and of itself, might be enough to deter him from looking elsewhere.

This may all be much ado about nothing, but it seems like more than a coincidence that a name like Tubby's, which would seem so out of place in a situation like this, keeps appearing over and over again.  Worth watching.

(h/t The Big Lead for doing the heavy lifting)

College Hoops alabama, mark gottfried, tubby smith

The best college football blog on the internets, The Wiz of Odds, scooped an interesting story this week concerning a possible game between Texas and Wisconsin in 2009.  Though ESPN tried to broker a deal between the two schools to make the game happen, neither side was willing to part with a home game in 2009, so instead they'll stick with playing the likes of Wofford and Louisiana-Monroe.

Set aside for a moment the fact that the Longhorns would probably slaughter the Badgers next season, regardless of the venue.  Wisconsin still is at least a name school, for the time being at least.  Outside of the whole not getting the right two teams in the national championship game issue, my biggest problem with the BCS (which no one seems to want to discuss) is that big name schools simply don't want to play each other in out-of-conference games anymore. 

Because of the one-and-done (or in recent years, one and hope everything falls your way) nature of the BCS era of college football, the incentive of getting a big win against a major opponent is far outweighed by the disincentive of having your season torpedoed by a loss of any sort.  And since the BCS conferences are already difficult enough to get through undefeated, why take the chance of taking the L when you might be able to skate into the championship game with an 11-1 record and a horrendous non-conference schedule?

So we, the college football fans, get treated to more Texas/Wyoming and Wisconsin/Northern Iowa tilts, instead of more marquee games that we grew up watching.  It's something to throw out there the next time one of the five people in the world that likes the bowl structure says that a playoff system would devalue the regular season.  From where we're sitting now, the regular season ain't all that exciting.

College Football university of texas, university of wisconsin, bcs

I have to say, I was a little surprised by the results of the Hall of Fame voting results today.  Obviously Rickey Henderson was a cinch to get in, but I didn't expect Rice to make it as well; I'd figured that his case had become so polarizing that there weren't going to be any defectors from the anti-Rice camp.  But, he slid in on his 15th and final ballot.  As I said a couple weeks back, I don't think he's worth induction, but he's hardly the worst player in the Hall, and he won't devalue induction any.

Andre Dawson's support (67.0%) seemed a bit higher than it should have been, especially in comparison to his former teammate, Tim Raines (22.6%).  Bert Blyleven continues to pick up votes (62.7%), and he'll probably get the call in the next few years.  Jack Morris' support continues to baffle me (44.0%), again considering the low vote totals for his former teammate (and in my mind more deserving candidate) Alan Trammell (17.4%).

David Cone should have gotten more than the 3.9% that he garnered, and will fall off the ballot, along with Tommy John (final year of eligibility), Mark Grace, Matt Williams, Mo Vaughn, Jay Bell, Jesse Orosco, and Dan Plesac.  And the whole Mark McGwire issue (21.9%) isn't going away anytime soon.

Looking ahead to Cooperstown...well I'm excited, as he once told Padres GM Kevin Towers, to hear "Rickey speaking on behalf of Rickey".

MLB hall of fame, ricky henderson, jim rice, bert blyleven, andre dawson, david cone, tommy john, mark grace, matt williams, mo vaughn, jay bell, jesse orosco, dan pleasac, mark mcgwire

"I'm not surprised by the career he had. He had a knack on how to play this game. He was a delight to watch. It didn't make a difference who the pitcher was." - Expos broadcaster Jim Fanning.

THE NUMBERS

2502 G, 2605 H, 1571 R, .294 AVG, .385 OBP, 808 SB

The final of the 23 Hall of Fame candidates reviewed here seems to be the most puzzling case of all of them.  Tim Raines was one of the best leadoff hitters ever, and incredibly exciting on the basepaths.  He ranks fifth all-time in stolen bases.  Doing some research on his case of the Hall of Fame, I couldn't find a single persuasive case for why he's not Hall-worthy.  And yet, he garnered less than 25% of the votes needed for induction in his first year of eligibility last year.  So, I guess this will be just another article on the internets about why he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Raines broke through as a 21 year old left fielder with an exciting young Montreal squad in the strike-shortened 1981 season.  He immediately established himself as a fixture in left field, alongside the previously reviewed Andre Dawson in center field.  His speed terrified catchers and fielders alike, as he stole 71 bases in just 88 games and 313 at-bats (for perspective, in 1982 he had 647 at-bats; at his 1981 rate, he would have stolen 146 bases).  His .304 average and .391 OBP were pretty impressive as well; those numbers earned him the runner-up spot in the NL Rookie of the Year voting, behind the phenomenon that was Fernando Valenzuela.

Things continued this way for the next several years.  From 1981-1986 he stole at least 70 bases each year, and other than an off-year in 1982 his average never dipped below .298, nor his OBP below .393.  Despite all of this, he received absolutely zero offers as a free agent after the 1986 season.  He later found out that this was because of owner collusion.  Nevertheless, he returned to the Expos on May 1st of 1987, and with no spring training, hit .330, with 18 home runs, 68 RBI, 123 runs scored, and 50 steals in just 139 games.  His .429 OBP and .526 slugging percentage both placed him in the top 10 of the NL, an impressive feat for a leadoff man.

Injuries curtailed his production in 1988, and from there he hit .300 only once more.  After two subpar seasons of just 41 and 49 steals in 1989 and 1990, he was dealt to the White Sox.  He was productive in Chicago for a few years before his body began to break down somewhat.  Traded to the Yankees, he succeeded in a part-time role for three seasons and earned two World Series rings before signing with Oakland in 1999.  Early in a very poor season, it was discovered he had lupus, and for all intents and purposes his career ended there (though he did recover enough to return to the majors and play with his son for the Orioles in 2001).

Raines finished his career with the fifth most stolen bases in history, with 808.  Of the ten players in MLB history with 700 steals or more, only three are not in the Hall - Raines, Vince Coleman (who by Hall standards was a very poor hitter), and Arlie Latham (who seems to be a 19th century version of Coleman).  His batting record is clearly not that of an empty hitter; of the non-Hall players with 500 or more steals, only Barry Bonds could be considered a better hitter than Raines.  He led the league in steals four times and runs twice, and finished in the top five nine and four times, respectively.  He made the All-Star game seven consecutive years.

So what's the case against Raines?  Well, he did have an issue with cocaine early in his career, which some voters tend to look down on.  After age 27, he only played 150 games in a season once, and just three times made it through 140 games.  His second half of career was not nearly as productive as his early career - that's a fair point as well, though given his first half, most players would have found that hard to live up to.

One of the other criticisms that I've seen levied against him is that he didn't finish high in the MVP voting often enough.  Well, some of that has to be written off to playing north of the border.  There's no other explanation of why he finished 19th in 1981 with a .304-5 HR-71 SB line, while Dave Concepcion and his .304-5-4 line finished in the top 5.  The voters decided that Mike Schmidt's 40 HR's and .255 average were more valuable than Raines' 90 steals and .298 average in 1983.  Plus, he continually finished behind inferior players who seemed to get bonus point for having played on playoff teams (Gary Matthews in 1984, Tommy Herr in 1985, Glenn Davis in 1986).  I don't think this is a legitimate argument against him.

Raines compares very favorably against Hall members with more than 400 steals, but one comparison in particular that seems appropriate is first ball Hall of Famer Lou Brock.  After all, both were known primarily as speed players.  But, here's what they looked like compared against each other, as well as another Hall member who Raines bears similarity to.

Player	G	AB	R	H	HR	RBI	BB	K	BA	OBP	SB	CS
Raines	2502	8872	1571	2605	170	980	1330	966	.294	.385	808	146
Brock	2616	10332	1610	3023	149	900	761	1730	.293	.343	938	307
Player C	2683	10835	1782	3319	234	1307	1094	1244	.306	.369	504	131

By all accounts, the only areas where Brock was superior to Raines were in volume categories.  And that's not to say that longevity shouldn't be rewarded; milestones are important.  But it's clear that Raines was simply a better hitter than Brock.  He had more power, scored more often, struck out far less, walked far more, got on base more, and stole bases more successfully than Brock (Raines' success percentage is the highest among players with more than 300 steals).

Player C in this comparison?  First ballot Hall of Famer Paul Molitor, who is a step above Raines as a hitter, but not so far above that the 300 steal difference doesn't make up for it.  Quite simply, Raines compares well to two deserving first ballot inductees.  I don't see any reason why he should not be given the courtesy of induction himself.  Unfortunately, it looks like that will have to wait a while, since he's likely to actually lose votes this year because of the inclusion of Rickey Henderson.  Eventually, it should come, and it will be well deserved when it does.

MLB hall of fame, tim raines, lou brock, paul molitor