Harold Baines and Lee Smith are now in the Hall of Fame

@LarkinCollector said:

@TNP777 said:

@ElvisP said:
Sadly, the HOF has become the hall of pretty good.

I would maybe change it to the Hall of He Played A Long Time.

So you're saying Chris Speier has a chance?

@saucywombat said:
Mark Grace led the majors in base hits during the 90's and was a A+ character guy, so...

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

@lawyer05 said:
if Baines was a Yankee with 2866 hits , we would not be having this conversation.

If Baines had played for the Yankees instead of the White Sox, he'd have been elected on the first ballot!

Steve

@LarkinCollector said:

@saucywombat said:
Mark Grace led the majors in base hits during the 90's and was a A+ character guy, so...

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

Wasn't aware of that. I'm sure the writers, owners ans teammates would vouch for him though.

@saucywombat said:

@LarkinCollector said:

@saucywombat said:
Mark Grace led the majors in base hits during the 90's and was a A+ character guy, so...

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

Wasn't aware of that. I'm sure the writers, owners ans teammates would vouch for him though.

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.

I mean, because why not?

• Boog Powell (Boog is the coolest baseball name ever!)

• 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?)

• Brett Butler (who actually was pretty damn good, but I’m biased)
• Bobby Grich (was good and had a GREAT ‘stache)
• Bucky Effing Dent (because, eff the Red Sox) (signed, still bitter Dodgers fan)
• Harold Reynolds (since the Harold cherry has been broken)
• Mario Mendoza (dammit, if Tommy John gets in for having a crappy arm, then Mario gets in for being a crappy... well... everything)

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

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?

@lahmejoon said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Tony Oliva over Baines as well!!!!

He, and Al Oliver also came to mind to me.

Oliva and Oliver are underrated.

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.

@TNP777 said:
I mean, because why not?

• Harold Reynolds (since the Harold cherry has been broken)

Baines isn't the first Harold in the HOF. Hal Newhouser's, Pee Wee Reese' and Pie Traynor's first name was Harold.

Steve

How did Harold Baines get his number retired so quickly? He still had several playing years left!

And somewhere Larry Walker weeps

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?

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%.

@craig44 said:
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%.

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.

@craig44 said:

@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.

Steve

This has to be Mike "Moose" Mussina's year finally!

Harold Baines & Lee Smith......hmm...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

@daltex said:

@lawyer05 said:
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few

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 ?

@lawyer05 said:
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few

Rbi are a terrible metric with which to compare players. Accumulated hits are pretty bad as well.