01-07-2010, 07:12 AM
Raines was a fantastic player. I can understand why people don't think he was as good as Dawson; but the truth in my eyes is they were two different kinds of players, and both were excellent. Dawson obviously was a 5 tool guy in an era were there were not many 5 tool guys. Lots of power and speed, not to mention excellent defense. As mentioned earlier by PCB, he leads Raines in H, HR, 2B and RBI. However, I think that's stat-picking a bit, without recognizing what Raines was good at too. Raines leads Dawson in R, 3B, SB, SB% (one of Raines largest accomplishments, not only was he a beast on the basepaths, he rarely got caught (84.6%)), OBP, OPS, OPS+, and BB. The other argument I have seen on here against Raines is that he was a beast for 6-7 seasons and then just a alright player. I don't necessarily think that is the case either. I think if you look at the numbers, he was a pretty damn good player til 1993. That's 12 good years (1991 obviously wasnt a good year), and he had a couple decent years after that. Perhaps both players are due some credit for what they did, and both should be in the hall.