From my perspective, though, I think he was the beneficiary of being on some very good teams. His win totals don’t really tell you how good he was – they just tell you how good he was compared to his team. Compare him to somebody like Blyleven, who was better in every way except that he played for bad teams and got fewer wins. (The larger point here is that wins and losses tell you basically nothing about how good a pitcher is.)

Morris was a good but not great pitcher who played for some great teams. Yes, definitely, extra credit for his postseason heroics but, for me, he falls well short.

This Joe Posnanski blog article illuminates part of the argument against him: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/09/12/pitching-to-the-score/

Both guys are known for their stolen bases, and both players tend to be wildy underrated in terms of their other skills. Raines unfortunately seems to be saddled with a lot of the attributes of the underrated player – his big years were in Montreal, his triple-crown stats don’t reflect his strengths as a player, he didn’t get much of a chance to play in the post-season, and though he had a long and productive career, his play in his 30’s lacked any star years, so at best they defy a handy narrative and at worst he’s seen as one who “just hung around.”

It’s too bad. 80’s baseball was very different from today’s environment and Raines was a special player. Looks like Raines has the most runs scored for any post-1900, HoF-eligible ballplayer who is not in the HoF.

My hypothetical ballot:

Raines
Blyleven
Trammell
Alomar
Larkin
Martinez
McGriff