Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog
If it's a player whose career I watched, I consider whether he was dominant during his era. Then I look at stats to see if it backs up my gut feeling. Lee Smith was pretty much a dominant closer in his time in my mind, or at least close to it. Baines was a top player but never really dominant. I think the stats bear that out. And lastly: how can anyone argue that Baines belongs in the HOF but Steve Garvey doesn't? Garvey was clearly a more dominant player during his career. Dave Parker probably too. I don't get it.
|
I agree completely on Lee Smith--a dominant closer for a long time. Baines, who I saw a great deal of, however, was, IMHO, a good player who was never ever one of the ten best players in the AL at any time while he was active, let alone the entire major leagues. He was simply an accumulator--a compiler, whose career stats would have been much more impressive had he put them together over 15 years or less, rather than 22. There has been virtually nothing but criticism over Baines' selection on MLB Now by not only the hosts but every knowledgeable guest. This was a veteran's committee that didn't have a clue, despite its apparent experience (it's always possible to have a great deal of experience and learn virtually nothing from it!). Baines as one of the top 1.3% to ever play ball? Does a bear knock on your front door to ask to come in to use the indoor toilet facilities? Not a chance!!!
Highest regards,
Larry