Jason Michael Barker

One of the best left fielders in baseball history retired this past week, with surprisingly little fanfare. Perhaps that's because he hasn't really contributed very much in the past couple of seasons, because he spent his best years toiling in the obscurity of Montreal, or because he's spent the majority of his career in the shadow of another similar player.

I'm speaking about Tim Raines, of course, who decided to call it quits last week once it was clear he wasn't going to have an Opening Day roster spot with the Yankees. Rather than toil in the minors or try to catch on with another team, Raines walked away on his own terms, having done what he set out to do in the first place -- prove that he could come back and play baseball after battling lupus last year.

While Rickey Henderson was the marquee lead-off man and basestealer in the American League in the 1980s, Raines was doing the same things in the National League. Both players debuted at age 20, just a year apart (Raines in 1980, Henderson in 1979), so it's easy to compare numbers without worrying about era differences. That's "era," not "ERA" -- as far as I know, neither Raines or Henderson ever pitched in the majors.

As a 21-year old rookie in 1981, Raines stole 71 bases -- in 81 games -- and was caught just 11 times, all while putting up a .391 on-base percentage. The year before, in his first full season, Henderson had stolen 100 bases in 158 games with a .420 OBP, so the race (no pun intended) was on.

Before we get carried away here, I'm not out to prove that Tim Raines was better than Rickey Henderson, or even that he was as good, because he simply wasn't. Their numbers are probably much closer than the casual observer might think, however.

Henderson's 1334 stolen bases are tops in baseball history, and he's swiped them at an 81% success rate. Raines' 807 steals are fifth in history, but when you consider that he stole bases at an 85% clip and played roughly 400 fewer games than Henderson, the gap between the two players doesn't seem nearly as big.

Henderson has a big advantage in OBP, .405 to .385, thanks to the third highest walk total (1972) in history. Henderson also has more of a power-hitting reputation, what with all those lead-off homers, but is the reputation deserved? Perhaps not. Despite a 278-168 Henderson home run edge, their career slugging percentages are a nearly identical .428 (Henderson) and .427 (Raines). Must be the triples -- Raines' 112 are nearly twice Henderson's career total of 60.

The final important number to look at, particularly for lead-off hitters, is runs scored. Henderson has another big advantage here, and in fact his 2103 runs scored are tops among active players and fifth in history. Raines' 1548 are good for just 36th all-time, though third among active players (as of a week ago, of course).

Certainly, a large chuck of this difference comes from the fact that Henderson has simply on base more than Raines was, both in terms of rate and total opportunities. The first reason, rate, stems from all those walks, while the second comes from playing 400 more games. Henderson also played on better teams than Raines did, teams that scored more runs, which counts for something as well, and it shouldn't be counted against Raines.

Overall, Rickey Henderson has been an elite player over the course of his career, while Tim Raines was a very good, if not great, player. Forgetting about Henderson for a minute (and don't the Mets wish they could!), in my book Tim Raines deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame. Not this very second, of course -- he still has to wait his five years like everyone else.

In addition to his nice accumulated totals, such as 2561 hits, 807 steals, 1290 walks, 112 triples and 1548 runs scored, Raines had an excellent peak -- for several years in the mid-80s, he was not only the best player in Montreal, but the best player in the National League as a whole.

Sadly, I think the fact that he spent his best seasons in Montreal coupled with his lack of productivity near the end of his career will probably cost him a spot in the Hall.

If you're interesting in probing further into the careers of either Tim Raines or Rickey Henderson, here's a great place to start -- each player's entry on the Big Bad Baseball website (an extremely valuable resource for all sorts of queries, not to mention a great place to spend hours perusing statistics).

Rickey Henderson entry

Finally, I stumbled upon an interesting tidbit of information while researching this article. By now you know that Tim Raines ranks fifth on the all-time stolen base list, but can you guess who's right behind him? None other than Vince Coleman, with 752 steals in 929 attempts (81%).

The interesting thing about Coleman is that he stole so many bases in so few games -- 1371, or nearly .55 steals per game. Henderson checks in at .49 steals per game, Raines at just .34 per game. If you project out Coleman's rate over a career as long as Henderson's, you get 1500 stolen bases -- 12% more than Henderson himself. If only Coleman could have fooled general managers into thinking he was a good lead-off man for a few more seasons...

about the author

Jason Michael Barker has been fooling GMs and others alike for years now, and look at what he's got to show for it: a big stack of nothing. Tell him that and a dime will get him a cup full of ice at jmb@strikethree.com

Custom Search