Baines was my favorite player growing up, and I'm happy to see the guy get attention, but he does not belong in the hall.

Yes to Lee Smith but don't know enough about Herold Baines. I believe if the top "10" of every position get in then why not the top 10 of closers and DHers? JMHO

Hey, he also got a statue...Tom Seaver doesn't have one!

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.

Don't forget Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly or etc. etc.

Why is the prevailing view that Smith was a dominant closer? Dominant in what way? He gave up almost a hit per inning over his entire career. Is there really all that much that separates him from John Franco?

It's not just about stats
 

I would pick Baines over Garvey, but then I have followed him since he played High School ball in St. Michaels, MD in the 1970's

Baines Hits - 2866 - Home Runs - 384 RBI's - 1628
Garvey Hits - 2599 - Home Runs - 272 RBI's - 1308
--
Baines ranks: 4th 3 Home Run games (3)
7th Grand Slams (13)
7th Walk Off Home Runs (10)
7th Games Played
10th RBI's

For me, it's not just about the stats a player puts up. It's what he gives to
the game of baseball and how he lives his life. Harold Baines gave MLB over 30 years as a player and coach, and his personal life had no issues.
I do agree that Steve Garvey also belongs. He did have those issues in his personal life that he termed his "midlife disaster".

Garvey had ten AS appearances to six for Baines despite six less seasons and 1100 less ABs.

Also Garvey had six top 10 MVP seasons (including five in the top six in the MVP vote) with one win; Baines had just two top 10 MVP years and never came close to winning one (highest vote total was ninth). Garvey was the much better player year in and year out and had a bigger impact on the league.

Garvey also won four Gold Gloves and Baines won none. All Baines has over Garvey is longevity, although Garvey retired with the most consecutive games played streak in NL history, including the fourth most all-time.

Lastly, and most galling, Garvey received 42% of votes to make the HOF in his best year; Baines? Highest percentage of votes was 6.1%. It's not even close.

Agreed. Garvey was considered by most people to be one of the top superstars in the game when he played, even if the advanced metrics indicate he was somewhat overrated. Not so with Baines.

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

Agree with Jeff....Steve Garvey should be in, and Dale Murphy should be as well IMO....I dont get Baines or Smith being in the Hall.....Dale Murphy was back to back MVP's for a Braves team that was absolutely horrific...

Murphy had 2000 less ABs than Baines -- and a lifetime WAR 8 points higher.

This is what I really don't understand. Baines' HOF voting totals before getting in:

2007 BBWAA ( 5.3%)
2008 BBWAA ( 5.2%)
2009 BBWAA ( 5.9%)
2010 BBWAA ( 6.1%)
2011 BBWAA ( 4.8%)

Then in 2019 he gets in????? After never getting more than 6.1 % of the vote????

Garvey's HOF voting totals:

1993 BBWAA (41.6%)
1994 BBWAA (36.4%)
1995 BBWAA (42.6%)
1996 BBWAA (37.2%)
1997 BBWAA (35.3%)
1998 BBWAA (41.2%)
1999 BBWAA (30.2%)
2000 BBWAA (32.1%)
2001 BBWAA (34.2%)
2002 BBWAA (28.4%)
2003 BBWAA (27.8%)
2004 BBWAA (24.3%)
2005 BBWAA (20.5%)
2006 BBWAA (26.0%)
2007 BBWAA (21.1%)

And not a whiff from the Veterans' Committee.

Baines had two guys lobbying very hard for him.
They must have been owed a few favors.

Baines getting in is a joke IMO....I dont get it. He had a batting average of .280 with the White sox for 14 years.....Big Deal! Lifetime average .289??? What am I missing??

I believe Garvey also had 6 or even more 200 hit seasons. There is no question that for a decade, he was an elite player. He was unpopular with the writers which surely hurt him in the voting.

Lee Smith...71-92 W-L record, 3.05 ERA.....What am I missing with this guy? Is there any other pitcher in the Hall with a losing record?? Just saying....

Saves.

I get that Peter, but it can even more amplify his ERA with the situations he inherits....

This has been going on since at least 1946. I'm neither surprised nor concerned. It really all depends upon your viewpoint about what the HOF is or should be. I'm not a small hall guy, so I am sure I am less unhappy than small hall folks are. But I would suggest that even small hall folks would have to acknowledge (grudgingly) that Baines isn't even close to the worst of some of the other folks who have been elected. I understand that I would also get the explanations about why that doesn't or shouldn't matter and how that "waters down" the HOF. But, irrespective of all that, the fact is that the HOF was "watered down" 72 years ago, and, depending on how you view Sisler, maybe 7 years earlier. It happened. Smith and Baines are both members. I'm pretty sure the world isn't going to end because of this vote.

LOL that's a pretty low standard Kenny. I doubt the world is going to end because of anything we discuss here.

Nor will the HOF cease to exist as we know it.

My wife thinks men are effing this (among most other things) up and women should take over the voting. It's getting harder to disagree with her.

I don't get it either. 1.256 WHIP. That's not even remotely dominant for a reliever.

No one thought they were watching a HOFer when Smith was pitching.

Nothing is the end of the world- well maybe the apocalypse and Armageddon are, but that's it- but it's clear from the numbers above, showing that Baines never received more than 6% of the vote, that his election was a product of HOF politics and knowing the right people.

If ever a fraud was committed on the HOF this is it. A guy who gets a few votes over a few years is suddenly elevated and inducted over players who came close to getting in with votes over a 15 year period? It makes no sense and devalues the HOF. At least Lee Smith once got 50% of the vote. Baines got less than 10% of what Gil Hodges received -- and he's in and Hodges isn't.

I purchase the Hall Of Fame Plaque postcards directly from Cooperstown. I update my set every 4-5 years to bring it up to date. With the induction of Baines I am giving serious thought to discontinuing this endeavor. If Cooperstown doesn’t comp me the Baines PC, I’m outta there.

I’ll keep my fifty cents. Take that Cooperstown.:mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::eek:

If I have offended any forum members with my “tough” talk, I apologize and beg for your forgiveness.:D

Don't Tinker with a long-standing practice, he isn't the worst HOFer Evers. I do agree though the voters should be Slaughtered.

Slaughter actually doesn't bother me. I don't mind taking into account time lost fighting for our country and Slaughter lost possibly his three best years (age 27-29) Even if you only credit him with an average of the season before and the season after his service x 3 he gets super close to 3000 hits, over 70 WAR, 1500 runs, 1600 RBI, 500 doubles, 180 triples If you credit him for his best season x 3, which is more likely, it's even more impressive.

Add on 5 top 10 MVP seasons including 2nd the year before he left for the war and 3rd the year he came back, again likely he gets 3 more top 5 finishes, possibly a win.

Mickey Vernon was a slightly inferior version of Slaughter and he only lost 2 years, but he played for shit teams unlike Slaughter, and I often wish he'd get some veteran's consideration.

Now if you thought the voters should be Kelled, I might be on board!

The voters are continually pushing the wrong Sutton.

They've made a Maz out of this situation, doling out inductions like Candy. Maybe they were overstuffed on Catfish Rizzuto.

It's a Travis-ty (Jackson).

It's enough to make a Feller Dizzy.

There Mel to be a Vernon against this type of Wally.

You just went from first among posters to last.

And who crowned you the Tris of the Frank?

Jennings got that Harry!

Pardon My Digression
 

Harold isn’t Harry for the Dick.

sure has boosted Baines Rookie card. lol

Compared to their peers
 

yes to smith, no to baines.

smith was the dominant closer of his league for a number of years, the best man any manager could want coming out of the pen. he was the all time leader in saves when he retired.

baines only ranked in the top three of ANY of the more than one dozen offensive categories ONE TIME over 22 seasons. that means he never came within the top three of anything such as hits, doubles, triples, homers, batting average, RBI, walks, plate appearances, runs scored, etc., even though he had hundreds of chances. and he did almost nothing on defense, never came close to leading anything on that side of the diamond and actually only played the field a handful of years.

so what made him a HOFer? if not his bat, or his legs, or his glove, or his arm....what is left to evaluate? answer: political connections?

When exactly was Smith "the" dominant closer in his league for a number of years? In the NL through 1984 (at least), Sutter was better. That leaves 85-87 in the NL. Smith wasn't "the" guy those three years either. Then he goes over to the AL where Eck was better. Then back to the NL where he's pretty clearly the best guy in 1991 & 92 but "dominant" is up for debate unless you only look at saves. After that, he bounces around but is clearly not dominant.

So maybe two years?

if you look at Baines stats, he should’ve retired after his first 10 seasons.

After his 10th season, Baines had seasons with an OPS+ 143, 137, 142, 132 and 136 and was above average every year but his last two in which he was a part time player. He was an All Star twice and even had a few top 10s. Baines was a very good player for most of his career. The problem was that he was never a truly great player, not that he hung on too long.

I always liked Bill Madlock, would take him on my team any day over Harold Baines. Now that Baines is in, I would put Madlock in the "snubbed" category. Heck, he actually won 4 batting titles - he did something. Don't think Baines even won one, or was even that close .

Can someone tell me how much distance exists between the supposedly "dominant" Lee Smith and the decidedly not "dominant" John Franco?

Distance Franco to Smith?
 

True Smith was more dominant. But in this card, they are only about an inch apart:

[I]1995 Topps #394

https://www.google.com/search?client...i7L9WBTg7T_PM:

I have Smith's rookie card, but don't need Baines, as simply stated, he doesn't make my personal HOF. That was one committee that didn't have a clue about doing their job.

Regards,

Larry

11.9 percent for Baines.
52.6 percent for Smith.