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

[kmac32]

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.

[jayandbutton]

Originally Posted by kmac32

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.

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?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jayandbutton

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.

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?