There was never a time when Baines was the "most feared hitter in the game". Never. His best years - 1982 to 1985 - were FAR surpassed by Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. And Wade Boggs. After that, you've got Canseco and McGwire. And then Frank Thomas.

My problem with Baines is that he was a DH who really never put up great numbers. Lots of very good numbers but nothing GREAT. I suppose you could make a case for his .304/29/94 in 1984 or his .309/22/113 in 1985. But does that in any way compare to Edgar Martinez winning 2 batting titles (hitting .327 or higher 5 times), 145 RBI in 2000 (6 seasons over 100 RBI), and career OPS+ of 147 (vs 120 for Baines)? I don't think so.

Baines wins in longevity but, in every other way, Edgar was the superior player.

Tabe

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

Nothing wrong with it. But I think the HOF should be for great players. And if you're a DH, simply putting up "good" numbers year after year doesn't make you great.

Looking at comps on baseball reference just shows you career totals. Does anybody really think Al Kaline and Harold Baines were similar players? I think not. One was an all-time great RF widely considered a top player for nearly his entire career. The other was so poor defensively that he was already DH'ing by age 26 despite having injuries and was never considered an elite player.

The original comment was that Baines was "the most feared hitter in baseball". I was showing that that statement is false. And that Edgar was better - which he was.

Tabe

My Take
 

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should not be in or didn't deserve to get in.

Yep, I pretty much agree. There's probably been a couple guys that were severely under or overrated, whose status was never questioned, but your rule is a good one. If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in.

Tabe

"If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in ..."

It would be a very small Hall of Fame under those circumstances. I was just reading how Harry Heilmann was his era's Ron Santo. There were actually voters who insisted he wasn't worthy even though he hit .342 lifetime (#12 on the all-time list) and won four batting titles, never hitting under .393. Like Santo, everybody felt guilty for ignoring him and he was elected the year after he died ...

I hear many fans and voters talk about how so and so isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but they rarely point to statistical evidence backing up their opinions. It's my belief that the debate has to start with a meaningful comparison of the numbers. I don't think the problem is too much debate, it's that too many debaters — including many voters — simply haven't done their research ...

Edgar should definitely be in. It's not his fault that he lingered in AAA while the Mariners had Jim Pressley at 3B. And Edgar was NOT a DH because he was injury prone (whoever said that). He was a 3B with absolutely no range. He was one of THE dominant hitters in his day (to whoever foolishly threw that lame attack at him). I leave you with these quotes from Baseball Reference:

Mike Scioscia: "Edgar's a Hall of Fame-caliber hitter. He's the one guy you didn't want to see come up there with the game on the line."

Dusty Baker: "He's one of best right-handed hitters ever seen"

Mariano Rivera: "He's the toughest batter I ever faced"