Decision to Elect Harold Baines to HOF Getting Blasted

[Phalanx]

I really liked Harold Baines as a player - he just quietly did his job very well and was a pleasure to watch play for the White Sox when I was growing up. He wasn't dominant in the way that someone like Albert Belle or Kevin Mitchell was, but he was very good for a long time, unlike those guys. It's a shame to see him getting criticized all over the media. I agree that his stats were not as good as other players in the Hall, but I did think it was funny that everyone assumes Adrian Beltre will be a shoe-in. Their stats are not that different, Beltre just has a little over 1000 more plate appearances. I agree that Beltre deserves to get in over Baines, I'm just saying that the gap is not very wide between them. Baines has a slightly higher batting average, a significantly higher OBP because he was a more disciplined hitter, and their slugging percentage is fairly close.

Anyway, I'm curious what others who follow baseball think.

[droop10]

I really liked Harold Baines as a player - he just quietly did his job very well and was a pleasure to watch play for the White Sox when I was growing up. He wasn't dominant in the way that someone like Albert Belle or Kevin Mitchell was, but he was very good for a long time, unlike those guys. It's a shame to see him getting criticized all over the media. I agree that his stats were not as good as other players in the Hall, but I did think it was funny that everyone assumes Adrian Beltre will be a shoe-in. Their stats are not that different, Beltre just has a little over 1000 more plate appearances. I agree that Beltre deserves to get in over Baines, I'm just saying that the gap is not very wide between them. Baines has a slightly higher batting average, a significantly higher OBP because he was a more disciplined hitter, and their slugging percentage is fairly close.

Anyway, I'm curious what others who follow baseball think.

Beltre was also an outstanding defensive 3rd baseman his entire career. I think the main reason Baines is getting blasted is that he was a DH basically his entire career. I think to get in as primarily a DH, you have to be outstanding, rather than just solid since it's just bringing one skillset to the table. I think many are also debating that Edgar Martinez should be in ahead of Baines if a DH is going to be taken, though I'll be honest, I haven't looked into the difference in which players are eligible to be elected by the veterans committee as opposed to the BBWAA voting.

Lee Smith was also questionable in the sense that he was a solid closer, but nothing spectacular. He just accumulated a lot of saves due to being one of the first primary closers and being around for so long. The main debate is how prestigious you think someone's career should be in the Hall of Fame. Are we talking Hall of Good or Hall of Fame?

To answer your question, I'm somewhere in between. I'm not going to be in an uproar about who gets in, as it doesn't really affect me. However, I feel like some recent selections have watered the Hall of Fame down a bit, as it's not just a collection of iconic players.

[oregontrack]

i've noticed that baines getting in reinforces my own hypocritical takes on the hall of fame.

1. baines was never, ever one of the best players of his era. i think he finished 9th in mvp voting, once. he was an above average player who was blessed with a long career, but he also never had 200 hits in a season and somehow he played 22 years and failed to get to the 3000 hit benchmark. he belongs with a score of other player in the Hall of Very Good.

2. let me contradict myself entirely by rejoicing that harold baines is now a hall of famer, as this means edgar martinez should be a slam dunk. i'm aware of this double standard but i don't care, because 'gar is my guy.

[Merganzer]

The Hall Of Fame has turned in to the Heisman Trophy in that it has lost almost all of its luster. The mystique of there not being a unanimous selectee is just stupid. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth; everybody voting didn't all think those guys were worthy? For a long time, Tom Seaver was the closest to 100%, until Jr. got even closer, but still not 100%.
Part of the problem could be corrected by not having a vote every year. It already doesn't make any sense that a player isn't worthy one year, but later on he is. A true HOF won't be available every year. Not to knock, Phalanx, or Baines in particular, but ""he was very good for a long time" doesn't qualify a player for the Hall Of Fame.

[greenyellow]

i've noticed that baines getting in reinforces my own hypocritical takes on the hall of fame.

1. baines was never, ever one of the best players of his era. i think he finished 9th in mvp voting, once. he was an above average player who was blessed with a long career, but he also never had 200 hits in a season and somehow he played 22 years and failed to get to the 3000 hit benchmark. he belongs with a score of other player in the Hall of Very Good.

2. let me contradict myself entirely by rejoicing that harold baines is now a hall of famer, as this means edgar martinez should be a slam dunk. i'm aware of this double standard but i don't care, because 'gar is my guy.

That's my hope with Baines getting in. Edgar Martinez has very comparable stats to him. He's got a higher overall batting average, won 2 AL batting titles and 5 Silver Slugger Awards, was named to 7 All-Star games, led the AL in RBIs one season. Seems the only real reason Baines has more overall HRs, hits, RBIs than Martinez is that he played 3 more seasons than him.

[Phalanx]

Just for clarification, I'm not saying Baines belongs in the Hall. I'm just saying he was a really good player and doesn't deserve to get trashed in the media. Also, he wasn't a DH his whole career, but I'm sure everyone knew that. He played full time in Right his first seven seasons.

[oregontrack]

i've noticed that baines getting in reinforces my own hypocritical takes on the hall of fame.

1. baines was never, ever one of the best players of his era. i think he finished 9th in mvp voting, once. he was an above average player who was blessed with a long career, but he also never had 200 hits in a season and somehow he played 22 years and failed to get to the 3000 hit benchmark. he belongs with a score of other player in the Hall of Very Good.

2. let me contradict myself entirely by rejoicing that harold baines is now a hall of famer, as this means edgar martinez should be a slam dunk. i'm aware of this double standard but i don't care, because 'gar is my guy.

That's my hope with Baines getting in. Edgar Martinez has very comparable stats to him. He's got a higher overall batting average, won 2 AL batting titles and 5 Silver Slugger Awards, was named to 7 All-Star games, led the AL in RBIs one season. Seems the only real reason Baines has more overall HRs, hits, RBIs than Martinez is that he played 3 more seasons than him.

indeed -- baines had nearly 2500 more plate appearances than edgar.

since HoF voting can often be a very personal/emotional process, i've been hoping that edgar's own peer reviews will be the topper. so many of the great pitchers of the era -- pedro martinez, randy johnson, mariano rivera -- all hail him as the best hitter of their time.

[Phalanx]

Edgar was a great hitter, but he just didn't compile the numbers over a long enough period to be a legit HOFer. His problem was that he didn't start producing full time until he was 26 or 27. Three more good years of full time production would have changed the conversation for him.