Harold Baines.....Lee Smith in Hall of Fame

[atomic]

I think people are looking at this all wrong.  How many players do you think should be elected in an average year? If you say 2 and we chop off 20 years as players who started today aren't ready to be elected into the hall of fame.  You would 244 players in the Hall of Fame. If you did by WAR that would be 54.5 WAR to get in.  If you said 3 players on average a year that would be 366 players that would mean it would be 46.3 WAR.

Now you have to take into account all the players the writers won't let in under any circumstance.  They think they might have used steroids, the bet on baseball, they were mean to reporters, they never won 20 games in a season, they hit under .270.  Whatever reason they have and you have the mess we have now.  

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, tntoriole said:

This article verifies the point that Halls of Fame are inherently arbitrary.  Period.  From the beginning.  Because it involves human beings.  With opinions.   Sports Halls of Fame cannot be anything else because the selection is completely and totally arbitrary, whether it is writers, fans, veterans committees or whomever...they vote for inductees like we vote for....well, you get the idea, lol.   It is an arbitrary process that arguing over will not make objective.   It will remain arbitrary.  Either enjoy it (like religions that have seemingly incomprehensible rules and criteria for admission/selection/validation) or argue, but either way, it will remain arbitrary.      This is my main reason why letting fans vote makes just as much sense if not more as anybody else doing it.  It will continue to be arbitrary, but at least the fans will have it their way.  

If the Hall had simply come up with some basic selection rules in 1936 and updated them as the pool of qualified voters expanded over time the place would be dramatically less arbitrary. It never was pre-ordained to be chaos. That was lack of planning.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, atomic said:

Staub had a lower average, much lower OPS, less hits ,significantly less home runs, and was terribly defensively.  

Looking at Baseball Reference 4 out of the 5 most similar batters to Baines are in the Hall of Fame.  The one missing Dave Parker.    

1. Tony Perez (943.9) *
2. Al Kaline (883.5) *
3. Dave Parker (871.6)
4. Billy Williams (864.8) *
5. Andre Dawson (856.5) *

 

Staub played in a much worse offensive context.  His OPS+ is higher than Baines', 124-121.  He might have been below average defensively, but Baines played two innings of defense the last nine years of his career.

bb-ref's comps aren't context adjusted.  Perez is a very marginal HOFer, and he played in the 60s and 70s when runs were far more scarce than in Baines' time.  The others were similar.  Dawson was a Gold Glove center fielder who hit as well as Baines and still took nine years to get in.

Baines played through the 90s when offenses exploded in ways we hadn't seen since the 1930s, while he was being rested against most lefties.  Those comps are fine until you realize they're all guys who played defense, and batted in pitcher-friendly eras.

[atomic]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Staub played in a much worse offensive context.  His OPS+ is higher than Baines', 124-121.  He might have been below average defensively, but Baines played two innings of defense the last nine years of his career.

bb-ref's comps aren't context adjusted.  Perez is a very marginal HOFer, and he played in the 60s and 70s when runs were far more scarce than in Baines' time.  The others were similar.  Dawson was a Gold Glove center fielder who hit as well as Baines and still took nine years to get in.

Baines played through the 90s when offenses exploded in ways we hadn't seen since the 1930s, while he was being rested against most lefties.  Those comps are fine until you realize they're all guys who played defense, and batted in pitcher-friendly eras.

Offenses exploded because of steroids in the 90's.   Baines deserves to get in if you have DH's.  There is a limit to the production of WAR a DH can get. If you don't want DH's in the Hall of Fame eliminate them from the game.   

I didn't hear you complain when Bud Selig was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  How much WAR did he have?

[Hallas]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Offenses exploded because of steroids in the 90's.   Baines deserves to get in if you have DH's.  There is a limit to the production of WAR a DH can get. If you don't want DH's in the Hall of Fame eliminate them from the game.   

I didn't hear you complain when Bud Selig was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  How much WAR did he have?

1: I wouldn't have voted in Bud Selig, 2: he's a friggin executive, you know that's not an equivalent example.

There isn't a (realistic) limit to the production of WAR a DH can get.  If Mike Trout were a DH he'd still be a HOFer.  Harold Baines is not (and never was) Mike Trout.

Lastly, Harold Baines isn't even the most productive DH in his own time period.  That award goes to Edgar Martinez by any measure, modern or otherwise.  You won't be able to convince me that Baines deserves to go in before Martinez.

[atomic]

7 minutes ago, Hallas said:

1: I wouldn't have voted in Bud Selig, 2: he's a friggin executive, you know that's not an equivalent example.

There isn't a (realistic) limit to the production of WAR a DH can get.  If Mike Trout were a DH he'd still be a HOFer.  Harold Baines is not (and never was) Mike Trout.

 Lastly, Harold Baines isn't even the most productive DH in his own time period.  That award goes to Edgar Martinez by any measure, modern or otherwise.  You won't be able to convince me that Baines deserves to go in before Martinez.

Because Martinez was better he will go in later.  As he will go in with the BBWA vote.  He probably will go in this year. 

[Hallas]

Just now, atomic said:

Because Martinez was better he will go in later.  As he will go in with the BBWA vote.  He probably will go in this year. 

It's still insulting to vote Baines in without knowing the HOF status of Martinez.  And I'll also reiterate my previous point that you can't just be an above-average hitter (which is what Baines was) if you're never playing the field.  You have to be one of the best hitters in the league.  Like Martinez was.  And like David Ortiz was.  Like Mike Trout would be if he DHed 100% of the time.

[tntoriole]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If the Hall had simply come up with some basic selection rules in 1936 and updated them as the pool of qualified voters expanded over time the place would be dramatically less arbitrary. It never was pre-ordained to be chaos. That was lack of planning.

Human beings tend to be that way....arbitrary, unplanned and chaotic.  Particularly if the institution spans generations.  I agree that if the criteria were established and the criteria alone then determined who entered then you would have much less chaos and controversy.  But if you have human beings voting?  All bets are off.    

[25 Nuggets]

3 hours ago, atomic said:

I didn't hear you complain when Bud Selig was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  How much WAR did he have?

Can't speak for him but I hated when Bud Selig was inducted - more so than any one player.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, atomic said:

Offenses exploded because of steroids in the 90's.   Baines deserves to get in if you have DH's.  There is a limit to the production of WAR a DH can get. If you don't want DH's in the Hall of Fame eliminate them from the game.   

I didn't hear you complain when Bud Selig was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  How much WAR did he have?

I don't think any of these arguments hold any water.  Offenses absolutely blew up in a couple years from 1993-94.  That was caused by immediate, widespread adoption of steroids?  And Baines didn't do it, but his numbers were still crazy good for a 35-40 year old?

Backup catchers are in baseball but not the Hall, should we eliminate them?

And I have no idea why you keep going back to the WAR well.  I've barely mentioned that in this thread at all.  You can write a thesis on why Baines isn't a deserving HOFer without using WAR.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, 25 Nuggets said:

Can't speak for him but I hated when Bud Selig was inducted - more so than any one player.

There's a long history of the owners and leaders of MLB inducting their own, even when the players and fans didn't like them.  Bowie Kuhn was as bad as Selig.

[JR Oriole]

What I appreciate the most about Baines (other than his extremely calm demeanor) is that he hit better for us than he did for anybody else.  His .301 average and .882 OPS with Baltimore was his best with any team.  And in the 1997 playoffs, when we absolutely should have gotten to and won the World Series, Baines hit .364....so he definitely did his part.  

I'm not saying that makes him a HOFer, but I always appreciate the guys who deliver for us.  And I will say that I am much happier for Baines for his honor than I am for Steve Pearce delivering an MVP performance and 4th title in 15 years for the damn Red Sox. 

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Hallas said:

It's still insulting to vote Baines in without knowing the HOF status of Martinez.  And I'll also reiterate my previous point that you can't just be an above-average hitter (which is what Baines was) if you're never playing the field.  You have to be one of the best hitters in the league.  Like Martinez was.  And like David Ortiz was.  Like Mike Trout would be if he DHed 100% of the time.

I guess that since there are no specific criteria for induction you could have the opinion that individual positions be graded on their own curves.  They're already doing that with relievers, who are mostly pitchers who weren't up to starting and pitched 1/3rd or 1/4th or less of the innings of a starter.  

But the result of that kind of thinking is that you'll induct DHs with no fielding contribution ahead of better hitters from other positions who did also contribute on defense.  That's what we're seeing with Baines.  Bobby Grich had a 125 OPS+ and was a legitimate Gold Glove second baseman.  Baines had a 121 OPS+ and played two innings in the field over his last nine years in the league.

[(B+ hitter) + (B+ glove at second)] < [(B hitter) + (basically no defensive value)]

[jamalshw]

14 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I guess that since there are no specific criteria for induction you could have the opinion that individual positions be graded on their own curves.  They're already doing that with relievers, who are mostly pitchers who weren't up to starting and pitched 1/3rd or 1/4th or less of the innings of a starter.  

But the result of that kind of thinking is that you'll induct DHs with no fielding contribution ahead of better hitters from other positions who did also contribute on defense.  That's what we're seeing with Baines.  Bobby Grich had a 125 OPS+ and was a legitimate Gold Glove second baseman.  Baines had a 121 OPS+ and played two innings in the field over his last nine years in the league.

[(B+ hitter) + (B+ glove at second)] < [(B hitter) + (basically no defensive value)]

To me, a DH should be graded similar to an average (to slightly below) defender at the lower end of the defensive spectrum. So, a guy like Baines should be matched up against the 1B and LF of the world and, in my opinion, graded out against them. Obviously elite defenders at those positions would be given more leeway in their offensive output compared to Baines, but the average defender would be graded out similarly.  To me, he's in a similar bucket to a guy like Luis Gonzalez and, in my opinion, neither qualify as a Hall of Famer.

 

[interloper]

Question: if he goes in as an Oriole, is his number going up in Camden Yards?