Poll: do Baines and/or Smith belong in the Hall?
 

Choose one of the 4 options below.

Not only do they not belong in, even if you could some how combine them into one person that guy STILL wouldn't belong in.

I said yes to Smith, no for Baines. I think Hershiser or Clark would have been better options than Baines. But I don't get why so many think closers don't belong. Smith was one of the all time greatest closers.

I voted "no" to both. But I did buy four autographed Smith & Baines Topps cards on eBay last night for my HOF autograph collection. HOF is a thing. :)

Over 200 in the HOF, Lee Smith 3rd All-Time in Saves. Baines 34th in RBI's, 46th in hits, 43rd in Total Bases and 60th in Extra Base Hits. So both are not that bad. Can't all be as good as Ruth, Cobb, etc.

Just realized nobody mentioned Dewey yet as a MUCH more deserving player than Baines

Dominant
 

I always like to see some form of dominance in a Hall member. I voted yes for Smith because when he retired he was #1 in career saves.

Baines just chugged along for 22 years. Six All-Star games. Never once in the top 5 in the MVP vote. I gave him a "no".

Same here, as above.

Keep in mind that you need to compare them with their peers. Clear yes for Big Lee! Bains was a good player but not HOF calibur.

No and no
 

Bob Feller wouldn’t have shown up if he were inducted with either of thrn.

I think it was Lee Smith who said to a reporter after blowing a crucial save “I’m suck”. Well he didn’t suck, but he belongs with Harold in the Hall of Very Good HOVG.

+1.

I didn't read all the replies, but these are pretty much my thoughts too.

Karl or Groucho?
 

“From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs”
A hall of fame for all, diverse and inclusive

Or

“I wouldn’t want to be a member of a hall of fame that would have me as a member”

Vote now

Marx, Marx, Both Marx or No Marx

I'm in agreement, voted the same way. I think closers will always face an uphill fight (outside of Rivera, for several reasons). It took 13 years for Bruce Sutter to gain election. I realize this is anecdotal but I watched many of his games. During those years when Bruce Sutter was at the top of his game, when his splitter was working, he seemed truly unhittable.

I voted yes on both. I don’t like the argument that this guy is better so this guy shouldn’t get in. There’s no cap on total number of players allowed in the hall of fame so there is room for both. It’s not a mutually exclusive type conversation.

I have no problem with relievers or dh's getting in the hall...they're both positions and should be represented. As for these two, I thought Smith should have already been in, but Baines is not sitting well after thinking about it over the last couple days. If you're a "duration" kind of player, you have to have hit some of the major milestones, added some value with your glove, or been a monster DH. I don't see Baines checking off any of those boxes. Next year is for the Modern Baseball Committee (1970-1987) to vote. That should be interesting.

Agree 100%. If Smith doesn't belong, then you need to kick out a bunch of relievers. If Baines doesn't belong, then there are a lot of other Veterans Committee picks that need to go too. These 2 guys clearly fit in the Hof's pattern of electing members.

Some may want the HOF to be exclusive. However, the HOF wants guys elected, that is how they stay profitable. Between 2001 and 2018, only 3 players were elected by the VC, a number of managers and executives made it. With 2 last year and 2 this year, don't be surprised to see more VC HOF picks.

That's a capital post.

Confused
 

How is it that the 16 person panel comprised Harold's former manager, former GM, and former owner? Only seven year ago, over 95% of baseball writers felt Baines did not belong in the Hall. If you're going to change that, could you at least pick a panel with a little more impartiality?

I voted no to both. Baines is not even close. This was a gift to the White Sox. He is not even in the hunt. While I understand some of the sentiment for Smith, this is an after thought. An attempt to elevate the role -- not a vote for him per se. Very few. Very few closers should be considered, and Smith is not among them.

I would add to that, I don't think players who played with him are the right voters either. Too much opportunity for cronyism, friendships, etc. For better or worse people not part of organized baseball should be voting IMO.

When I first saw the news of their induction, I thought I was reading The Onion. For reasons that other posters have already covered, I voted no on both.

I am solidly behind Smith. His induction bid with the writers was hurt by several things: Utterly forgettable name, poor relationship with the press, largely playing for bad teams. Still, when you retire #1 in the metric that is used to judge your position, a Hall of Fame nod is a reasonable expectation.

Interesting I Googled Lee Smith THIS MORNING and got several results back for the Oakland Raiders Tight End.

Off the top of my head, there are a dozen position players I would have taken over Baines, though I consider myself a fan. Definitely a low-end HOFer.

I reject Baines because my spellchecker changes his name to Gaines.:eek:

Smith is okay.:)

I had lunch with 4 non-baseball, but avid sports fans (football and basketball fans mostly). Ages 40-50.

None of the 4 had even HEARD the name of Baines or Smith!

They could name other baseball players, football players, soccer players, race car drivers, horses that won the triple crown ... heck one guy could even name a professional darts player.

But they never even HEARD of Baines or Smith (even after I prompted them by mentioning the teams they played for and positions they played).

If sports fans don't know your name ... you don't belong in the Hall of "Fame".

It's really that simple.

I suddenly realized I didn't have a single Baines or Smith card...

...so, just as I did went they let Mazeroski in, I went out and bought a 'representational group' of 15 cards of Baines & 10 of Smith...

heck, I had to add some Josh Donaldson cards anyway since he signed with the Braves.

I'll be darned if I'm going to try to get all the 1980s cards of each of them, though...that's ridiculous.


I hate seeing these two being called 'Chicago Legends' when Minnie Minoso is still on the outside!


Some day all those cards are going to be worth something....NOT!

It's just an addiction, plain and simple.

Earlier this year, I bulked up on players I think are likely future candidates...in a vain effort to not be so surprised.

I guess I need to pick up some Bobby Grich cards, huh?

Agree, and I'd add Billy Pierce as well.

These non-voted HOF appointments are always grossly biased and political. Many, many way better players than these two have been relegated to the dustbin forever. Thank the always political Tony La Russa!

300 votes as I post. 32 for Baines, 148 for Smith.

Minnie was used to being screwed. From his first season in the bigs when he got screwed out of the ROY award...

Ironically right about where the BBWAA had them.

Or not so ironic. The guys here are a pretty good representation, I would think, of people knowledgeable about the game and appreciative of the Hall.

Al Oliver was as good or better than Baines, and most fans barely remember who he was. He hit over .300 eleven times, including nine seasons in a row. 2743 career hits, 529 doubles, over 200 HR's, 1189 runs scored, 1326 RBI's, and he's fallen off the face of the earth.

Maybe Baines stats were somewhat better but he had nearly 1000 more at bats. I'm just a fan of Oliver who thinks the game has forgotten him.

Harpo and Groucho YES.

Chico, Zeppo, Gummo, and Karl NO.

Harpo is my favorite Marx Brother.

Real fans of the game know who Al Oliver was. Collusion cost him a shot at 3000 hits. He had an OPS+ 121 just like Baines.

Kaline/Baines
 

Baines compared to Kaline ( stats look about the same- that was a surprize to me ):
G Hits HR RBI Bave SLG
Kaline 2834 3007 399 1583 297 480
Baines 2830 2866 384 1628 289 465

If you are long time player and played with 12 of the people on the Veteran committee that vote than you are in

He did an autograph signing for me at a show I ran. What an absolute pleasure to be around. Not just a nice guy, he did everything he could to help out, as autographs didn't sell like we had hoped, traded trivia questions with me all day. Was really one of my hobby memory highlights. We discussed if he had remained with the Pirates his whole career would that have made a difference in HOF balloting. I think it would've had a massive impact. He has higher highs than Baines for sure.

As compared to Baines and Oliver, Dave Parker won an MVP, was 2nd once and 3rd twice I believe. Plus 2 batting titles.

Chico was pretty good on the piano.

to my knowledge, brothers Zeppo and Gummo were never part of the 'act'.

Harpo was my favorite too...classic mirror bit he did with Lucy!


=

Kaline and Baines
 

There are two huge differences between the two.

First, Kaline was an awesome right fielder, whereas Baines was a DH. In Kaline's best defensive season he saved 29 runs more than an average right fielder, whereas Brooks Robinson, possibly the greatest defensive player of all time, had only two seasons in which he saved more runs than that above an average third baseman. (Brooks pulls far ahead over the course of his career, but at his best Kaline was comparable to Brooks at his best.) Baines' best season was 8 runs above average, he was often below average in the field, and his spent most of his career as a DH.

The other big difference is that Kaline played through the mini-deadball era in the 1960s, whereas Baines mostly played in a much higher-scoring environment. So although their raw offensive numbers are pretty similar, once you adjust for the difficulty in putting up those numbers, Kaline comes out much better. (Maybe you have to do some complementary adjusting to their respective defensive numbers, but the defensive gap between the two is so huge that it's not going to make that much of a difference.)

Al Kaline was a 15 time all star and first ballot HOFer. There can be no serious equivalence here.

Zeppo was the straight man and heart throb in some of their early movies. Not sure about Gummo

Just a basic fact, Kaline had a battery named after him. Baines did not.

True, but Kaline was not the middle name of any president.

Zeppo was on Broadway with his brothers and appeared in The Cocoanuts, Animal Crackers, Monkey Business, Horsefeathers, and Duck Soup before leaving show business. He was best friends with Jack Benny and introduced Benny to his future wife Mary at a Passover seder.

NO to both, please......

Is someone actually comparing Baines to Al Kaline???:eek:

Kaline was my childhood hero. I have one of the top Kaline Master Collections on PSA. I was just showing how stats between Kaline and Baines, even though very close, there is no comparison between the two. It's amazing though how just looking at the offensive stats that they are that close ( between a first ballot HOF'er and someone very few of us consider a HOF'er).

I'm upset they picked Baines over Dave Parker. Parker was the more complete player and more dangerous hitter.

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.