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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Choose one of the 4 options below.

[conor912]

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.

[pokerplyr80]

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.

[sreader3]

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.

[insidethewrapper]

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

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.

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.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by sreader3

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

11.9 percent for Baines.
52.6 percent for Smith.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

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.

+1.

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

[frankbmd]

“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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

“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

That's a capital post.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

“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

Harpo and Groucho YES.

Chico, Zeppo, Gummo, and Karl NO.

Harpo is my favorite Marx Brother.

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

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'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.

[glynparson]

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.

[mr2686]

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.

[bensie]

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.

[pitchernut]

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

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bensie

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.

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

[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.

[Orioles1954]

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.

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

[CTDean]

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".

[ls7plus]

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

[CMIZ5290]

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.

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...

[Bram99]

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.

[Baseball Bob]

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!

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Ironically right about where the BBWAA had them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.

[TMKenKen]

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.