HAROLD AND THE HALL ... Put em in

[StatManDu]

If I had a Hall of Fame ballot, I would proudly vote for White Sox legend Harold Baines.

 

The members of the Baseball Writers Association of America have their ballots and the results of the Hall of Fame election will be released Jan. 12.

 

Baines is on the ballot for the third time. He was listed on only 5.3 percent of the ballots in 2007. Inexplicably, last year, Baines lost a vote and was named only 5.2 percent of the ballots.

 

Candidates earning 75 percent of the vote earn induction into the Hall of Fame.

 

It’s hard to believe Baines doesn’t get more support for the Hall the way Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven do considering …

 

… he finished his career with 2,866 hits. Among the Hall of Famers he’s ahead of on that list are Ernie Banks, Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Gary Carter, Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Frankie Frisch, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Willie McCovey, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Kirby Puckett, Brooks Robinson, Ryne Sandberg, Mike Schmidt, Duke Snider, Willie Stargell and Billy Williams.

 

… he finished his career 384 homers. Among the Hall of Famers. Among the Hall of Famers he’s ahead of on that list are Yogi Berra, Gary Carter, Orlando Cepeda, Joe DiMaggio, Carlton Fisk, Hank Greenberg, Ralph Kiner, Johnny Mize, Tony Perez, Kirby Puckett, Brooks Robinson, Ryne Sandber, Al Simmons and Hack Wilson.

 

… much like many others in the Hall of Fame, he was the dominant player at his position during his era. Baines is the all-time leader in games played by a DH, was named designated hitter on The Sporting News A.L. All-Star Team in 1988 and 1989 and was named DH on The Sporting News’ Silver Slugger team in 1989.

 

… he hit over .300 eight times, hit over .290 six times and reached double figures in homers 20 times.

 

…he was a six-time All-Star (and hit .375 in those games).

 

…he appeared in eight post-season series and hit .348 in the Division Series and .333 in the League Championship Series.

 

Baines’ Hall of Fame candidacy is paying the price for baseball’s labor strife of the 1980s and 1990s. The 1981 strike cost an ascending Baines approximately 50 games. The 1994 work stoppage and late start to the 1995 season cost Baines, in the midst of a late career resurgence, approximately 60 games.

With those games, Baines would have easily surpassed the 3,000-hit mark and would have made a run at 500 home runs – both locks to get a player (not embroiled in a steroid controversy) into the Hall.

 

What really stands out in contrast to Baines, though, are some of the players that are already in the Hall.

 

If the likes of Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda and Billy Williams are Hall of Famers – not to mention Tinker, Evers, Chance and Bill Mazeroski – Baines should be voted in – with ease!

Edited January 5, 2009 by StatManDu

[Brian]

Eh. He never had that defining moment that makes him a Hall of Famer. Similar to Santo. Lot more guys deserving.

[StatManDu]

Eh. He never had that defining moment that makes him a Hall of Famer. Similar to Santo. Lot more guys deserving.

Orlando Cepeda? Bill Mazeroski? Joe Tinker? Johnny Evers? Frank Chance?

 

[Hatchetman]

if he weren't a dh for most of his career, I think he would be worthy. but he was.

[santo=dorf]

Guys shouldn't use other borderline players just to get in.

 

You say he was the "dominant" player at his position, DH, but Harold never led the league in anything except for slugging % in 1984.

 

You say he missed some time due to the strikes which cost him some milestones, but he hung around for 22 years anyways. By the end he was so protective in matchups his last season with 500 at-bats was 1989. In 1997 he did have 510 plate appearances however but did not finally retire until 2002.

 

Here are the HOF measures from Baseball reference.com:

 

Black Ink: Batting - 3 (507) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)

Gray Ink: Batting - 40 (602) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

HOF Standards: Batting - 44.3 (105) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)

HOF Monitor: Batting - 66.0 (279) (Likely HOFer > 100)

 

Not even close. Sorry Harold.

 

[Maury]

Guys shouldn't use other borderline players just to get in.

 

You say he was the "dominant" player at his position, DH, but Harold never led the league in anything except for slugging % in 1984.

 

You say he missed some time due to the strikes which cost him some milestones, but he hung around for 22 years anyways. By the end he was so protective in matchups his last season with 500 at-bats was 1989. In 1997 he did have 510 plate appearances however but did not finally retire until 2002.

 

Here are the HOF measures from Baseball reference.com:

 

Black Ink: Batting - 3 (507) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)

Gray Ink: Batting - 40 (602) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

HOF Standards: Batting - 44.3 (105) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)

HOF Monitor: Batting - 66.0 (279) (Likely HOFer > 100)

 

Not even close. Sorry Harold.

 

 

I love Harold and he was good, but not a Hall of Famer.

[StatManDu]

I love Harold and he was good, but not a Hall of Famer.

Those two strikes cost him huge in terms of hits. Instead of battling to get 3,000 hits at the end of his career, he would have been hanging around to get 500 home runs.

 

It's just disappointing that a player who was so consistent and such a professional hitter would be so easily dismissed as a Hall of Famer.

 

Off the top of my head, I know Harold is more of a Hall of Famer than Mazeroski, Tinker, Evers and Chance. I know there are others. Isn't he basically the same player as Orlando Cepeda and Billy Williams?

 

Also, there is a tremendous sentiment that the best players at their position (Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, Joe Morgan, Ryne Sandberg) or the most dominant players at their position of their era (Whitey Ford, Sandy Koufax) gain induction into the Hall, there should be some credence given to DHs and relief pitchers along this line.

[southsider2k5]

I love Harold and he was good, but not a Hall of Famer.

 

There are a couple of pet peeves I have about how people qualify others for the Hall of Fame. The biggest one is by taking the numbers of a player, and comparing them to a player from another era. Comparing Harold's numbers to a guy who played 100 years ago tells you nothing about how good he was during his own era of play. Baseball really has very distinctive eras, where one group dominaties over another group. Looking at the 60's and 70's pitchers were in charge. Looking at the 90's and 21st century, its the offenses. 384 homers during Harold's era, is not the same as 384 homers when Ron Santo or Johnny Evers was playing. While the same statistic, it doesn't mean the samething. A pitcher with Greg Maddux's 3.16 career era during the 1960's or pre-1930 would have probably been the last man in the rotation, if not in the pen.

 

When I look at Hall of Famers, I look at the very best players within a era. I want to see someone who either defined, or redefined something about the game of baseball. Realistically, what did Harold Baines really stand out from the pack for? Baines is one of my all-time favorites, but I can rattle off a bunch of guys who are more dominate in this era. Harold Baines, while being a very good hitter, for a considerable period of time, it not one of the all-time greats who deserve immortality in Cooperstown.

[SoxFan562004]

There are a couple of pet peeves I have about how people qualify others for the Hall of Fame. The biggest one is by taking the numbers of a player, and comparing them to a player from another era. Comparing Harold's numbers to a guy who played 100 years ago tells you nothing about how good he was during his own era of play. Baseball really has very distinctive eras, where one group dominaties over another group. Looking at the 60's and 70's pitchers were in charge. Looking at the 90's and 21st century, its the offenses. 384 homers during Harold's era, is not the same as 384 homers when Ron Santo or Johnny Evers was playing. While the same statistic, it doesn't mean the samething. A pitcher with Greg Maddux's 3.16 career era during the 1960's or pre-1930 would have probably been the last man in the rotation, if not in the pen.

 

When I look at Hall of Famers, I look at the very best players within a era. I want to see someone who either defined, or redefined something about the game of baseball. Realistically, what did Harold Baines really stand out from the pack for? Baines is one of my all-time favorites, but I can rattle off a bunch of guys who are more dominate in this era. Harold Baines, while being a very good hitter, for a considerable period of time, it not one of the all-time greats who deserve immortality in Cooperstown.

It's not perfect, so may not be the best for HOF, but fun to look at, but OPS+ is ball park and league adjusted meaning it's done by year, so it can show how dominant a player was in his specific year as opposed to comparing it to other years. IE, a guy with a high OPS+ in a dead ball era would have lower raw stats than a guy with a lower OPS+ in the juiced era

[StatManDu]

It's not perfect, so may not be the best for HOF, but fun to look at, but OPS+ is ball park and league adjusted meaning it's done by year, so it can show how dominant a player was in his specific year as opposed to comparing it to other years. IE, a guy with a high OPS+ in a dead ball era would have lower raw stats than a guy with a lower OPS+ in the juiced era

There are some numbers that are firm in any era. You look at the numbers from Tinker, Evers and Chance, and tell me what makes them Hall worthy? Or Bill Mazeroski?

 

Also, while this doesn't exactly apply in Harold's case, there are some things numbers can't measure. The most obvious case here is, of course, Jackie Robinson.

 

Minnie Minoso has garnered little support from Hall voters over the years. Yet, some consider a huge pioneer and trailblazer for the Latin player. That is in addition to his standout talent.

 

Anyway, I guess a large part of my point is that players shouldn't be dismissed automatically as Hall of Famers because they didn't reach certain numbers, benchmarks, etc

Edited January 5, 2009 by StatManDu

[Dick Allen]

There are some numbers that are firm in any era. You look at the numbers from Tinker, Evers and Chance, and tell me what makes them Hall worthy? Or Bill Mazeroski?

 

Also, while this doesn't exactly apply in Harold's case, there are some things numbers can't measure. The most obvious case here is, of course, Jackie Robinson.

 

Minnie Minoso has garnered little support from Hall voters over the years. Yet, some consider a huge pioneer and trailblazer for the Latin player. That is in addition to his standout talent.

 

Anyway, I guess a large part of my point is that players shouldn't be dismissed automatically as Hall of Famers because they didn't reach certain numbers, benchmarks, etc

If Harold played the White Sox portion of his career for any other team, I bet there would be 2 people at most on this entire board who would think he is HOF-worthy. A nice player for sure, but not a HOFer.

[RockRaines]

Rock is a much better candidate than Harold.

[southsider2k5]

Rock is a much better candidate than Harold.

 

I agree with this 100%. He ranks next to Rickey Henderson when it comes to base stealers in the last 30 years or so.

[Dick Allen]

Rock is a much better candidate than Harold.

I agree, and even he is borderline. 2 or 3 Montreal-like seasons with the White Sox and he would be a lock.

[Texsox]

Stuff that people do not think are important, but define Harold.

 

Character. Fans talk about it, but it never comes into this discussion. Not important in judging someone's greatness. Sad. All Baines had to do was take some steroids and he'd be in. But he didn't. I guess he didn't want it enough

 

Longevity. As if everyone can have 22 seasons in the big leagues. Somehow the work it takes to be playing well into his 40s, isn't important. No credit given for keeping his injured body in the game as long as he did.

[BainesHOF]

Not sure why there's so much negativity toward the thought of Baines as a Hall of Famer. While a decent debate could be made for either case, I'm wondering if some of you saw Baines play much.

 

For starters, Baines was not your typical good-hit, no-field DH. He was an excellent right fielder before knee injuries and surgeries related him to the DH role. His head was always in the game and he got great jumps on the ball, often tracking down balls in the gap or down the line that you would have thought a faster player would be needed to get to. He had a great arm. While a few players had stronger arms, Baines was particularly accurate with his. Teams seldom ran on him, yet he still finished with double digit assists in a few years early in his career. Did you know that he also played some center field early in his major-league career? Now how many DHs can say that?

 

Baines' offensive stats can be looked up, but anyone who saw him play will tell you they only tell part of the story. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. Hawks puts Baines in the top three of the best clutch hitters he ever saw with Yaz and Brett. He was that good.

 

I'm not saying Baines belongs in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams. But I believe he was better than some others already in the Hall of Fame. He was one of the best clutch hitters ever to play the game. That combined with his impressive career totals make him a Hall of Famer in my book. If you need a tiebreaker in a close call, Baines has always been a class act.

Edited January 11, 2009 by BainesHOF

[santo=dorf]

If we were to post the "clutch" stats I'm sure those would just be dismissed as well, so I'll just ask the pro-Baines crowd, does Jim Rice deserve to be in the HOF?

[Kyyle23]

Not sure why there's so much negativity toward the thought of Baines as a Hall of Famer. While a decent debate could be made for either case, I'm wondering if some of you saw Baines play much.

 

For starters, Baines was not your typical good-hit, no-field DH. He was an excellent right fielder before knee injuries and surgeries related him to the DH role. His head was always in the game and he got great jumps on the ball, often tracking down balls in the gap or down the line that you would have thought a faster player would be needed to get to. He had a great arm. While a few players had stronger arms, Baines was particularly accurate with his. Teams seldom ran on him, yet he still finished with double digit assists in a few years early in his career. Did you know that he also played some center field early in his major-league career? Now how many DHs can say that?

 

Baines' offensive stats can be looked up, but anyone who saw him play will tell you they only tell part of the story. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. Hawks puts Baines in the top three of the best clutch hitters he ever saw with Yaz and Brett. He was that good.

 

I'm not saying Baines belongs in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams. But I believe he was better than some others already in the Hall of Fame. He was one of the best clutch hitters ever to play the game. That combined with his impressive career totals make him a Hall of Famers in my book. If you need a tiebreaker in a close call, Baines has always been a class act.

 

 

Unfortunately you cannot use the "If only you would have seen him play up close" line of reasoning to get into the hall.

[Dick Allen]

Not sure why there's so much negativity toward the thought of Baines as a Hall of Famer. While a decent debate could be made for either case, I'm wondering if some of you saw Baines play much.

 

For starters, Baines was not your typical good-hit, no-field DH. He was an excellent right fielder before knee injuries and surgeries related him to the DH role. His head was always in the game and he got great jumps on the ball, often tracking down balls in the gap or down the line that you would have thought a faster player would be needed to get to. He had a great arm. While a few players had stronger arms, Baines was particularly accurate with his. Teams seldom ran on him, yet he still finished with double digit assists in a few years early in his career. Did you know that he also played some center field early in his major-league career? Now how many DHs can say that?

 

Baines' offensive stats can be looked up, but anyone who saw him play will tell you they only tell part of the story. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. Hawks puts Baines in the top three of the best clutch hitters he ever saw with Yaz and Brett. He was that good.

 

I'm not saying Baines belongs in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams. But I believe he was better than some others already in the Hall of Fame. He was one of the best clutch hitters ever to play the game. That combined with his impressive career totals make him a Hall of Famers in my book. If you need a tiebreaker in a close call, Baines has always been a class act.

 

While he was a good OF when he played, he won 0 Gold Gloves and the fact is even if it is because of injuries, he spent the majority of his time not playing the field. People want to compare him to others of a different era. Eras that don't include the DH. If he played before the mid 70's his career would have been half as long. He would have been either a pinch hitter or selling insurance.

[Hatchetman]

this debate would be a lot more interesting if he had gotten 135 more hits in his career.

[Texsox]

He also managed to play well during the post season.

[southsider2k5]

Not sure why there's so much negativity toward the thought of Baines as a Hall of Famer. While a decent debate could be made for either case, I'm wondering if some of you saw Baines play much.

 

For starters, Baines was not your typical good-hit, no-field DH. He was an excellent right fielder before knee injuries and surgeries related him to the DH role. His head was always in the game and he got great jumps on the ball, often tracking down balls in the gap or down the line that you would have thought a faster player would be needed to get to. He had a great arm. While a few players had stronger arms, Baines was particularly accurate with his. Teams seldom ran on him, yet he still finished with double digit assists in a few years early in his career. Did you know that he also played some center field early in his major-league career? Now how many DHs can say that?

 

Baines' offensive stats can be looked up, but anyone who saw him play will tell you they only tell part of the story. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. Hawks puts Baines in the top three of the best clutch hitters he ever saw with Yaz and Brett. He was that good.

 

I'm not saying Baines belongs in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams. But I believe he was better than some others already in the Hall of Fame. He was one of the best clutch hitters ever to play the game. That combined with his impressive career totals make him a Hall of Famers in my book. If you need a tiebreaker in a close call, Baines has always been a class act.

 

I saw his entire career, thanks for asking.

[Dick Allen]

Harold was a good hitter, but how do you put someone in the HOF who just hit for the majority of his career and has a lower OPS than Mark Grace? I doubt there is anyone here who considers Grace a HOFer.

[3E8]

Guys shouldn't use other borderline players just to get in.

 

You say he was the "dominant" player at his position, DH, but Harold never led the league in anything except for slugging % in 1984.

 

You say he missed some time due to the strikes which cost him some milestones, but he hung around for 22 years anyways. By the end he was so protective in matchups his last season with 500 at-bats was 1989. In 1997 he did have 510 plate appearances however but did not finally retire until 2002.

 

Here are the HOF measures from Baseball reference.com:

 

Black Ink: Batting - 3 (507) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)

Gray Ink: Batting - 40 (602) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

HOF Standards: Batting - 44.3 (105) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)

HOF Monitor: Batting - 66.0 (279) (Likely HOFer > 100)

 

Not even close. Sorry Harold.

I think Statman has a valid point with the missed time. With 16 more HRs you add 7 points to his HOF Monitor (400 HR) and with 134 more hits you add 25 points to his HOF Monitor (3,000 hits) bringing the total to at the very least, 98. With those extra games, 400 HR is a good possibility and 3,000 hits would be close.

[Rex Hudler]

There are a couple of pet peeves I have about how people qualify others for the Hall of Fame. The biggest one is by taking the numbers of a player, and comparing them to a player from another era. Comparing Harold's numbers to a guy who played 100 years ago tells you nothing about how good he was during his own era of play. Baseball really has very distinctive eras, where one group dominaties over another group. Looking at the 60's and 70's pitchers were in charge. Looking at the 90's and 21st century, its the offenses. 384 homers during Harold's era, is not the same as 384 homers when Ron Santo or Johnny Evers was playing. While the same statistic, it doesn't mean the samething. A pitcher with Greg Maddux's 3.16 career era during the 1960's or pre-1930 would have probably been the last man in the rotation, if not in the pen.

 

When I look at Hall of Famers, I look at the very best players within a era. I want to see someone who either defined, or redefined something about the game of baseball. Realistically, what did Harold Baines really stand out from the pack for? Baines is one of my all-time favorites, but I can rattle off a bunch of guys who are more dominate in this era. Harold Baines, while being a very good hitter, for a considerable period of time, it not one of the all-time greats who deserve immortality in Cooperstown.

 

 

I completely agree with that. I'd consider a player who was great for 10 years more than I would a player that was good for 20. Longevity tells us a player was very good or else he wouldn't have been able to stick around long. But it doesn't equate in itself of a HOF career. That said, I don't see any way that Harold is a Hall of Famer.

 

Personally, I have always been an advocate of a tiered HOF. I still think it could be done and think of what attention it would bring the game of baseball as each player in the Hall would have to be rated and classified. It would create so much debate and draw so much attention to the history of the game, that I think baseball would win in a huge manner.

 

In a nutshell, there would be a determined number of levels, with the top level being for the ultra elite and would include very few players. Each successive level down the pyramid would include more players, but each level would place the players in a class of achievement. In theory, the Hall is supposed to do that know by putting all the players into one elite level, but no one here would state that all of those players were equal, so why not divide them up within the Hall? The base level would be for those still very deserving, but at a minimum level of achievement. Separating the players would be completely subjective and even controversial, which would make the process even more fun. This could also allow for some distinction between a player who makes it in due to amassing numbers due to longevity and a player who is dominant for a shorter amount of time. I don't think you can compare two such players now.

 

Just my 2 cents

Edited January 10, 2009 by Rex Hudler