I remember being floored 25 years ago learning that Harold Baines number had already been retired by the White Sox (during his playing career) as some sort of publicity stunt. But I mean seriously? Harold Baines?? He must be one hell of a guy. I guess the 2866 hits with A+ personality is worth a lot.
I think this means Dale Murphy is a mortal lock for the HOF (also led the majors in RBIs during the 80's so that should count for something).
Mark Grace led the majors in base hits during the 90's and was a A+ character guy, so...
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Career WAR of some of the players mentioned in this thread:
(+ some reference points)
29.0 Lee Smith
38.7 Harold Baines
40.1 Dave Parker
42.4 Don Mattingly
46.4 Mark Grace
46.5 Dale Murphy
56.2 Mariano Rivera
56.5 Will Clark
57.9 Bobby Bonds
75.1 Lou Whitaker
123.1 Ted Williams
162.8 Barry Bonds
182.5 Babe Ruth
Most statistically similar careers to Baines per baseball reference:
Tony Perez*
Al Kaline *
Dave Parker
Billy Williams *
Andre Dawson *
Rusty Staub
Luis Gonzalez
Dwight Evans
Carlos Beltran
Torii Hunter
are players in the HOF
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
Rivera obviously makes it, and I'm alright with Eckersley being in too. Take the middle group of Fingers, Wilhelm, Trevor Hoffman and Goose out of your mind for a bit, and I feel like there's a pretty far gap between Rivera/Eck vs. Sutts/Smith
Nobody agrees with me on this but I think Eckersley was a terrible choice. Go back and REALLY look at his career. He was "meh" as a starter (149 wins, 3.71 ERA). As a reliever, he had five good years - 1988-92. After that, three bad years, two "meh", one incomplete.
Don’t think either one really belongs but if I had my choice from that ballot it would’ve been Hershiser and Clark. At least they had real “peaks”. But if we’re gonna water down the Hall I’d have rather seen guys like Hodges and Minoso whose numbers seemed more in line with their contemporaries...IMO.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
Per MLB.com, you can look at it using advanced metrics like Wins Above Replacement (WAR) and Wins Above Average (WAA), which measure wins above an average player:
The fact that Satchel Paige and Harold Baines are in the same sentence as elected by the veterans committee is ridiculous and I can’t put into words...
Will the MLB HOF be moving from New York to Wyoming to continue the lessening of its relevance?
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Are people high on glue or drunk on 2 gallons of Mad Dog 20/20 when they Ebay list something like the Baines lot above? I remember chasing Baines and Lee Smith in packs as a kid but had basically completely forgot about them until this thread was started about the HOF. Shouldn't the HOF be a little more sacred.....
If memory serves there is an error version of the ‘82 Fleer Smith with the Cubs logo reversed on the back of the card. No idea if the error or corrected version is less common.
Thanks for chiming in and stating what I tried to convey even better. I understand where people are coming from thinking Baines was a very good player, just not a HOFer. However, one has to put him in the context of baseball history. He paved the way for DH as a legitimate position on a team. Its not just about his numbers, there was something more to him, and that is why he was voted in. It takes many years to realize a player's historical value. Now that we have a few great DHs come through baseball, we can look back and really see where this all started. Edgar Martinez might have never been if Baines did not revolutionize baseball first.
On similar note, both Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly were very good players (maybe even great), but they were hands down untouchable defensive first baseman. This was a position where one placed a good hitter that did not know how to field, but both Mattingly and Hernandez defined the first baseman role differently. The likes of Wally Joyner, Mark McGwire, John Olerud, etc. were very good (maybe great) players who could actually field and were not a defensive liabilities, rather, great athletes all around who played their position very well. History will be the judge if first base is still a hiding place for poor fielders.
I just thought I throw all that out there. A lot of different variables and criteria exist that one can use to consider HOF candidacy. While I like ERA+ and OPS+ as those are excellent stats for pitchers and hitters, respectively, judging a career for peek value or longevity are also legitimate arguments as well as historical significance to the game. I was not so bothered by Baines getting elected to the HOF as I understand his place in baseball history and I hear he is quite a nice guy on top of that. How can you not share this with your children?
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I just read an article complaining about Harold Baines' election to the Hall of Fame. I found it interesting, that apparently "An 11-member group of BBWAA veterans" is who nominates the people who are to be considered by the voting committee. This is confirmed on the Hall of Fame's website:
"Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot."
So it seems to me that the writers themselves are responsible for Harold Baines being considered in the first place. If there are better players who should be considered, why did the writers not nominate them? The writers must have thought Baines was one of the best candidates. Also, who is better to judge a person's accomplishments, than his own peers (who comprised the majority of the voting committee)?
This year's committee considered players whose greatest contributions to the game were realized after 1987, and who have been retired at least 15 years.
so now that Baines is in, is Garvey next? > @DeutscherGeist said:
rbsalezman,
Thanks for chiming in and stating what I tried to convey even better. I understand where people are coming from thinking Baines was a very good player, just not a HOFer. However, one has to put him in the context of baseball history. He paved the way for DH as a legitimate position on a team. Its not just about his numbers, there was something more to him, and that is why he was voted in. It takes many years to realize a player's historical value. Now that we have a few great DHs come through baseball, we can look back and really see where this all started. Edgar Martinez might have never been if Baines did not revolutionize baseball first.
On similar note, both Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly were very good players (maybe even great), but they were hands down untouchable defensive first baseman. This was a position where one placed a good hitter that did not know how to field, but both Mattingly and Hernandez defined the first baseman role differently. The likes of Wally Joyner, Mark McGwire, John Olerud, etc. were very good (maybe great) players who could actually field and were not a defensive liabilities, rather, great athletes all around who played their position very well. History will be the judge if first base is still a hiding place for poor fielders.
I just thought I throw all that out there. A lot of different variables and criteria exist that one can use to consider HOF candidacy. While I like ERA+ and OPS+ as those are excellent stats for pitchers and hitters, respectively, judging a career for peek value or longevity are also legitimate arguments as well as historical significance to the game. I was not so bothered by Baines getting elected to the HOF as I understand his place in baseball history and I hear he is quite a nice guy on top of that. How can you not share this with your children?
I would disagree that Baines was a trail blazer or historically significant. the true trail blazer was Ron Blomberg as he happened to be the first. I actually think if you want to have a part of the hall for historically significant players/events etc. that it should be Don Baylor as first full time DH. he started DHing full time in 1981, six full years before Baines. I really dont think Baines paved the way for anyone, other players actually paved the way for him. now if you want a display, or a portion of the Hall set aside for historically significant events or players, that is fine, but to induct someone because they were the first to do something, or were well known for it seems a bit much if there contribution to their team falls below the top 1.3 % or so of the greatest players of all time. that seems to be the benchmark so far for players elected. Harold may crack the top 10%.
Thanks for chiming in and stating what I tried to convey even better. I understand where people are coming from thinking Baines was a very good player, just not a HOFer. However, one has to put him in the context of baseball history. He paved the way for DH as a legitimate position on a team. Its not just about his numbers, there was something more to him, and that is why he was voted in. It takes many years to realize a player's historical value. Now that we have a few great DHs come through baseball, we can look back and really see where this all started. Edgar Martinez might have never been if Baines did not revolutionize baseball first.
On similar note, both Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly were very good players (maybe even great), but they were hands down untouchable defensive first baseman. This was a position where one placed a good hitter that did not know how to field, but both Mattingly and Hernandez defined the first baseman role differently. The likes of Wally Joyner, Mark McGwire, John Olerud, etc. were very good (maybe great) players who could actually field and were not a defensive liabilities, rather, great athletes all around who played their position very well. History will be the judge if first base is still a hiding place for poor fielders.
I just thought I throw all that out there. A lot of different variables and criteria exist that one can use to consider HOF candidacy. While I like ERA+ and OPS+ as those are excellent stats for pitchers and hitters, respectively, judging a career for peek value or longevity are also legitimate arguments as well as historical significance to the game. I was not so bothered by Baines getting elected to the HOF as I understand his place in baseball history and I hear he is quite a nice guy on top of that. How can you not share this with your children?
I would disagree that Baines was a trail blazer or historically significant. the true trail blazer was Ron Blomberg as he happened to be the first. I actually think if you want to have a part of the hall for historically significant players/events etc. that it should be Don Baylor as first full time DH. he started DHing full time in 1981, six full years before Baines. I really dont think Baines paved the way for anyone, other players actually paved the way for him. now if you want a display, or a portion of the Hall set aside for historically significant events or players, that is fine, but to induct someone because they were the first to do something, or were well known for it seems a bit much if there contribution to their team falls below the top 1.3 % or so of the greatest players of all time. that seems to be the benchmark so far for players elected. Harold may crack the top 10%.
You could/should say the same for Tony Oliva as a pioneering DH.
Several players mentioned "deserve" HOF WAY before Baines; Oliva, Walker, Madlock, Mattingly, Hodges and some of the others mentioned.
I did find Baines' numbers against my Twins, he was most certainly a HOFer when he played us!
Congratulations to Harold Baines.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@SDSportsFan said:
I just read an article complaining about Harold Baines' election to the Hall of Fame. I found it interesting, that apparently "An 11-member group of BBWAA veterans" is who nominates the people who are to be considered by the voting committee. This is confirmed on the Hall of Fame's website:
"Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot."
So it seems to me that the writers themselves are responsible for Harold Baines being considered in the first place. If there are better players who should be considered, why did the writers not nominate them? The writers must have thought Baines was one of the best candidates. Also, who is better to judge a person's accomplishments, than his own peers (who comprised the majority of the voting committee)?
This year's committee considered players whose greatest contributions to the game were realized after 1987, and who have been retired at least 15 years.
Steve
First off, the BBWAA are not necessarily the best group to be voting for the HOF. the only reason that group was chosen initially is because of the times. In the 1930's radio was rare and television nonexistent for most households, so the only way to see the players was to go to the park and watch live. It was also very difficult to get simple statistics, much less more advanced ones. the only group who was able to see significant portions of the season were the writers. so, they were tasked with voting for the HOF.
well, times have changed and information is so widely available, and has been for many years. It seems the BBWAA is no longer in the elite/singular position they were in 60 or 70 years ago. some writers have not covered a team for years, and some try to play politics by leaving ballots blank. while some do take voting seriously, many do not. there also is personal bias at times with the writers that can effect votes.
Personal peers should not be part of the process. this leads to the obvious result of cronyism. look at the frisch elections in the 70's. it could be going on right now. there is no transparency at all. we will not know who did and did not vote for Baines. the system as it stands now is flawed. there should be a large panel of historians, executives, statisticians, researchers and yes, some writers involved in the process.
@SDSportsFan said:
I just read an article complaining about Harold Baines' election to the Hall of Fame. I found it interesting, that apparently "An 11-member group of BBWAA veterans" is who nominates the people who are to be considered by the voting committee. This is confirmed on the Hall of Fame's website:
"Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot."
So it seems to me that the writers themselves are responsible for Harold Baines being considered in the first place. If there are better players who should be considered, why did the writers not nominate them? The writers must have thought Baines was one of the best candidates. Also, who is better to judge a person's accomplishments, than his own peers (who comprised the majority of the voting committee)?
This year's committee considered players whose greatest contributions to the game were realized after 1987, and who have been retired at least 15 years.
Steve
First off, the BBWAA are not necessarily the best group to be voting for the HOF. the only reason that group was chosen initially is because of the times. In the 1930's radio was rare and television nonexistent for most households, so the only way to see the players was to go to the park and watch live. It was also very difficult to get simple statistics, much less more advanced ones. the only group who was able to see significant portions of the season were the writers. so, they were tasked with voting for the HOF.
well, times have changed and information is so widely available, and has been for many years. It seems the BBWAA is no longer in the elite/singular position they were in 60 or 70 years ago. some writers have not covered a team for years, and some try to play politics by leaving ballots blank. while some do take voting seriously, many do not. there also is personal bias at times with the writers that can effect votes.
Personal peers should not be part of the process. this leads to the obvious result of cronyism. look at the frisch elections in the 70's. it could be going on right now. there is no transparency at all. we will not know who did and did not vote for Baines. the system as it stands now is flawed. there should be a large panel of historians, executives, statisticians, researchers and yes, some writers involved in the process.
I actually agree with you.
I've always wondered why guys like Pedro Gomez are allowed to vote for the HOF, while others like Vin Scully, Jack Buck and Ernie Harwell are not, simply because they aren't members of the "writers' association". Vin Scully has 1,000 times more baseball knowledge in his pinkie finger, than Pedro Gomez ever will in his entire pea-brain!
I also feel that while actual HOFers should be part of the voting committee, I agree that they should be impartial, i.e., that teammates/managers/etc should be excluded.
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
Comments
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
I remember being floored 25 years ago learning that Harold Baines number had already been retired by the White Sox (during his playing career) as some sort of publicity stunt. But I mean seriously? Harold Baines?? He must be one hell of a guy. I guess the 2866 hits with A+ personality is worth a lot.
I think this means Dale Murphy is a mortal lock for the HOF (also led the majors in RBIs during the 80's so that should count for something).
Mark Grace led the majors in base hits during the 90's and was a A+ character guy, so...
saucywombat@hotmail.com
A+? He got fired as an announcer for having too many DUIs out here in AZ: http://archive.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/20121025mark-grace-indicted-dui-counts.html
Career WAR of some of the players mentioned in this thread:
(+ some reference points)
29.0 Lee Smith
38.7 Harold Baines
40.1 Dave Parker
42.4 Don Mattingly
46.4 Mark Grace
46.5 Dale Murphy
56.2 Mariano Rivera
56.5 Will Clark
57.9 Bobby Bonds
75.1 Lou Whitaker
123.1 Ted Williams
162.8 Barry Bonds
182.5 Babe Ruth
Most statistically similar careers to Baines per baseball reference:
Tony Perez*
Al Kaline *
Dave Parker
Billy Williams *
Andre Dawson *
Rusty Staub
Luis Gonzalez
Dwight Evans
Carlos Beltran
Torii Hunter
saucywombat@hotmail.com
If Baines had played for the Yankees instead of the White Sox, he'd have been elected on the first ballot!
Steve
Nobody agrees with me on this but I think Eckersley was a terrible choice. Go back and REALLY look at his career. He was "meh" as a starter (149 wins, 3.71 ERA). As a reliever, he had five good years - 1988-92. After that, three bad years, two "meh", one incomplete.
That's not a HOF resume, folks.
Wasn't aware of that. I'm sure the writers, owners ans teammates would vouch for him though.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
If Baines deserves to be in the HoF for redefining the DH position, perhaps he belongs in the Candy Cummings wing.
Agreed, never heard a peep bad about him during his playing days. If it wasn't local, I wouldn't have known about it either.
Don’t think either one really belongs but if I had my choice from that ballot it would’ve been Hershiser and Clark. At least they had real “peaks”. But if we’re gonna water down the Hall I’d have rather seen guys like Hodges and Minoso whose numbers seemed more in line with their contemporaries...IMO.
I mean, because why not?
Sixto Lezcano (Boog use to be the coolest baseball name ever!)
*Bill Buckner (dude has suffered enough)
Darren Dreifort (chosen behind Alex Rodriguez, so he’s GOT to be good, right?)
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
*** start stocking up furiously on all RCs mentioned by Geordie ***
Bill Buckner meets the Fame criteria, just not for the reasons he hoped for.
ETA: Rollie Fingers is the obvious GOAT for the stache HOF.
Talk about deserving. Lou Whitaker.
Per MLB.com, you can look at it using advanced metrics like Wins Above Replacement (WAR) and Wins Above Average (WAA), which measure wins above an average player:
Whitaker: 74.9 WAR; 42.5 WAA
Biggio: 65.1 WAR; 28.7 WAA
Alomar: 66.8 WAR; 32.3 WAA
Sandberg: 67.5 WAR; 38.1 WAA
He, and Al Oliver also came to mind to me.
The fact that Satchel Paige and Harold Baines are in the same sentence as elected by the veterans committee is ridiculous and I can’t put into words...
so now that Baines is in, is Garvey next?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
if garvey has 2866 hits ... yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Oliva and Oliver are underrated.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Madlock is only player with 4 batting titles not in the hall.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
It begs the question - if Baines had stayed around one more year and got to 3000 hits, would he have gotten into the HOF? The Johnny Damon of his day.
The main reason that Baines is in.....Jerry Reinsdorf. Just my humble opinion.
Baines isn't the first Harold in the HOF. Hal Newhouser's, Pee Wee Reese' and Pie Traynor's first name was Harold.
Steve
I guess Mo Vaughn and Kent Hrbek are getting their suits to the dry cleaners?
How did Harold Baines get his number retired so quickly? He still had several playing years left!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Will the MLB HOF be moving from New York to Wyoming to continue the lessening of its relevance?
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Are people high on glue or drunk on 2 gallons of Mad Dog 20/20 when they Ebay list something like the Baines lot above? I remember chasing Baines and Lee Smith in packs as a kid but had basically completely forgot about them until this thread was started about the HOF. Shouldn't the HOF be a little more sacred.....
If memory serves there is an error version of the ‘82 Fleer Smith with the Cubs logo reversed on the back of the card. No idea if the error or corrected version is less common.
And somewhere Larry Walker weeps
Currently Collecting:
Flickr: https://flickr.com/gp/184724292@N07/686763
If Baines played at Coors, he might have eclipsed 10% of the BBWAA vote
rbsalezman,
Thanks for chiming in and stating what I tried to convey even better. I understand where people are coming from thinking Baines was a very good player, just not a HOFer. However, one has to put him in the context of baseball history. He paved the way for DH as a legitimate position on a team. Its not just about his numbers, there was something more to him, and that is why he was voted in. It takes many years to realize a player's historical value. Now that we have a few great DHs come through baseball, we can look back and really see where this all started. Edgar Martinez might have never been if Baines did not revolutionize baseball first.
On similar note, both Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly were very good players (maybe even great), but they were hands down untouchable defensive first baseman. This was a position where one placed a good hitter that did not know how to field, but both Mattingly and Hernandez defined the first baseman role differently. The likes of Wally Joyner, Mark McGwire, John Olerud, etc. were very good (maybe great) players who could actually field and were not a defensive liabilities, rather, great athletes all around who played their position very well. History will be the judge if first base is still a hiding place for poor fielders.
I just thought I throw all that out there. A lot of different variables and criteria exist that one can use to consider HOF candidacy. While I like ERA+ and OPS+ as those are excellent stats for pitchers and hitters, respectively, judging a career for peek value or longevity are also legitimate arguments as well as historical significance to the game. I was not so bothered by Baines getting elected to the HOF as I understand his place in baseball history and I hear he is quite a nice guy on top of that. How can you not share this with your children?
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I just read an article complaining about Harold Baines' election to the Hall of Fame. I found it interesting, that apparently "An 11-member group of BBWAA veterans" is who nominates the people who are to be considered by the voting committee. This is confirmed on the Hall of Fame's website:
"Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot."
So it seems to me that the writers themselves are responsible for Harold Baines being considered in the first place. If there are better players who should be considered, why did the writers not nominate them? The writers must have thought Baines was one of the best candidates. Also, who is better to judge a person's accomplishments, than his own peers (who comprised the majority of the voting committee)?
This year's committee considered players whose greatest contributions to the game were realized after 1987, and who have been retired at least 15 years.
Steve
so now that Baines is in, is Garvey next? > @DeutscherGeist said:
I would disagree that Baines was a trail blazer or historically significant. the true trail blazer was Ron Blomberg as he happened to be the first. I actually think if you want to have a part of the hall for historically significant players/events etc. that it should be Don Baylor as first full time DH. he started DHing full time in 1981, six full years before Baines. I really dont think Baines paved the way for anyone, other players actually paved the way for him. now if you want a display, or a portion of the Hall set aside for historically significant events or players, that is fine, but to induct someone because they were the first to do something, or were well known for it seems a bit much if there contribution to their team falls below the top 1.3 % or so of the greatest players of all time. that seems to be the benchmark so far for players elected. Harold may crack the top 10%.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The standard should be simple. If you ever pulled a card from a pack and said “Yuck”, he shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.
You could/should say the same for Tony Oliva as a pioneering DH.
Several players mentioned "deserve" HOF WAY before Baines; Oliva, Walker, Madlock, Mattingly, Hodges and some of the others mentioned.
I did find Baines' numbers against my Twins, he was most certainly a HOFer when he played us!
Congratulations to Harold Baines.
First off, the BBWAA are not necessarily the best group to be voting for the HOF. the only reason that group was chosen initially is because of the times. In the 1930's radio was rare and television nonexistent for most households, so the only way to see the players was to go to the park and watch live. It was also very difficult to get simple statistics, much less more advanced ones. the only group who was able to see significant portions of the season were the writers. so, they were tasked with voting for the HOF.
well, times have changed and information is so widely available, and has been for many years. It seems the BBWAA is no longer in the elite/singular position they were in 60 or 70 years ago. some writers have not covered a team for years, and some try to play politics by leaving ballots blank. while some do take voting seriously, many do not. there also is personal bias at times with the writers that can effect votes.
Personal peers should not be part of the process. this leads to the obvious result of cronyism. look at the frisch elections in the 70's. it could be going on right now. there is no transparency at all. we will not know who did and did not vote for Baines. the system as it stands now is flawed. there should be a large panel of historians, executives, statisticians, researchers and yes, some writers involved in the process.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I actually agree with you.
I've always wondered why guys like Pedro Gomez are allowed to vote for the HOF, while others like Vin Scully, Jack Buck and Ernie Harwell are not, simply because they aren't members of the "writers' association". Vin Scully has 1,000 times more baseball knowledge in his pinkie finger, than Pedro Gomez ever will in his entire pea-brain!
I also feel that while actual HOFers should be part of the voting committee, I agree that they should be impartial, i.e., that teammates/managers/etc should be excluded.
Steve
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
This has to be Mike "Moose" Mussina's year finally!
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Harold Baines & Lee Smith......hmm...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This is, IMO, the worst kind of argument for the HoF. For example, Sam Horn should be in the HoF. He has more home runs than Nolan Ryan.
What's wrong with u ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Also Killebrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Rbi are a terrible metric with which to compare players. Accumulated hits are pretty bad as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
100