They've made a Maz out of this situation, doling out inductions like Candy. Maybe they were overstuffed on Catfish Rizzuto.

It's a Travis-ty (Jackson).

It's enough to make a Feller Dizzy.

There Mel to be a Vernon against this type of Wally.

You just went from first among posters to last.

And who crowned you the Tris of the Frank?

Jennings got that Harry!

Pardon My Digression
 

Harold isn’t Harry for the Dick.

sure has boosted Baines Rookie card. lol

Compared to their peers
 

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?

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?

if you look at Baines stats, he should’ve retired after his first 10 seasons.

After his 10th season, Baines had seasons with an OPS+ 143, 137, 142, 132 and 136 and was above average every year but his last two in which he was a part time player. He was an All Star twice and even had a few top 10s. Baines was a very good player for most of his career. The problem was that he was never a truly great player, not that he hung on too long.

I always liked Bill Madlock, would take him on my team any day over Harold Baines. Now that Baines is in, I would put Madlock in the "snubbed" category. Heck, he actually won 4 batting titles - he did something. Don't think Baines even won one, or was even that close .

Can someone tell me how much distance exists between the supposedly "dominant" Lee Smith and the decidedly not "dominant" John Franco?

Distance Franco to Smith?
 

True Smith was more dominant. But in this card, they are only about an inch apart:

[I]1995 Topps #394

https://www.google.com/search?client...i7L9WBTg7T_PM:

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

11.9 percent for Baines.
52.6 percent for Smith.