Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

[bbcard1]

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

[sycks22]

I know it more current, but ESPN just did a write up about determining the top players in every 5 year period starting in the '70's. It's crazy how many times Boggs is in there.

To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players? When I think of the hall I think Cobb / Wagner / Mays and when guys like Sutter and Rice make it the HOF loses its luster.

[glynparson]

I feel the hall of fame is there to tell the story of the sport and therefore believe in inducting more players, and for reasons other than just stats, but also in what they added to the story of the game.

[Chris-Counts]

"To the guy who wrote about wanting to see more players instead of less in the hall, doesn't that water down the HOF? Shouldn't only the top players make it instead of just average players?"

Pete, As far as I can tell, there are no "average" players in the Hall of Fame, unless they got there for something else. There are a couple dozen players, though, who were essentially excellent players, but not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. Most of these guys played in the 1920s and 1930s, and many were friends or teammates of Frankie Frisch, who played a key role in their election. So adding post-WWII players who were as good or better than these borderline inductees does nothing to dilute the existing standards of the Hall of Fame.

More importantly, in my mind, is the need for baseball to engage future generations of fans. A huge part of baseball's charm and popularity is its rich and colorful history. Baseball fans love to compare their heroes with those of earlier eras.

How do you explain to the casual fan — who's already saturated with news of steroid scandals, ownership scandals and a bumbling troll of a commissioner — that his heroes or his dad's heroes, guys like Tony Oliva, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, Luis Tiant, Alan Trammell, are not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but Ross Youngs, Highpockets Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines are good enough? To the casual fan who looks at the numbers, it just looks like incompetence or cronyism (which it basically is). Hardly the stuff that makes new fans want to learn more about the game's history — or care about its future ...

Now how is it that Jim Rice isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame? His stats look a heck of lot more impressive when you take away the steroid-induced stats that followed his career. I watched a lot of baseball in the 1970s and I'm not convinced there was a hitter in that decade that pitchers feared more. His OPS, by the way, is slightly higher than Reggie Jackson's. Nobody questions Reggie's merits. Just the same way nobody would ever question Roberto Clemente's merits, even though Minoso — who people will argue against all day long — has a higher OPS AND was likely as good a fielder ...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I think, here's the scary part...without looking it up...I would put Harold Baines in far before Edgar Martinez. There was a time Baines was the most feared hitter in the game...I don't think Edgar ever achieved that.

There was never a time when Baines was the "most feared hitter in the game". Never. His best years - 1982 to 1985 - were FAR surpassed by Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. And Wade Boggs. After that, you've got Canseco and McGwire. And then Frank Thomas.

My problem with Baines is that he was a DH who really never put up great numbers. Lots of very good numbers but nothing GREAT. I suppose you could make a case for his .304/29/94 in 1984 or his .309/22/113 in 1985. But does that in any way compare to Edgar Martinez winning 2 batting titles (hitting .327 or higher 5 times), 145 RBI in 2000 (6 seasons over 100 RBI), and career OPS+ of 147 (vs 120 for Baines)? I don't think so.

Baines wins in longevity but, in every other way, Edgar was the superior player.

Tabe

[Orioles1954]

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

What is wrong with having very good numbers over a very long period of time? In baseball history, how many players have played at least 20 years like Baines? Look at his comps on baseball reference. There are 5 Hall of Famers including Perez, Kaline and others. With Martinez....there are none.

Nothing wrong with it. But I think the HOF should be for great players. And if you're a DH, simply putting up "good" numbers year after year doesn't make you great.

Looking at comps on baseball reference just shows you career totals. Does anybody really think Al Kaline and Harold Baines were similar players? I think not. One was an all-time great RF widely considered a top player for nearly his entire career. The other was so poor defensively that he was already DH'ing by age 26 despite having injuries and was never considered an elite player.

The original comment was that Baines was "the most feared hitter in baseball". I was showing that that statement is false. And that Edgar was better - which he was.

Tabe

[rdixon1208]

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should not be in or didn't deserve to get in.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rdixon1208

If a guy's HOF status is widely debated, he probably should be in or didn't deserve to get in.

Yep, I pretty much agree. There's probably been a couple guys that were severely under or overrated, whose status was never questioned, but your rule is a good one. If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in.

Tabe

[Chris-Counts]

"If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in ..."

It would be a very small Hall of Fame under those circumstances. I was just reading how Harry Heilmann was his era's Ron Santo. There were actually voters who insisted he wasn't worthy even though he hit .342 lifetime (#12 on the all-time list) and won four batting titles, never hitting under .393. Like Santo, everybody felt guilty for ignoring him and he was elected the year after he died ...

I hear many fans and voters talk about how so and so isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but they rarely point to statistical evidence backing up their opinions. It's my belief that the debate has to start with a meaningful comparison of the numbers. I don't think the problem is too much debate, it's that too many debaters — including many voters — simply haven't done their research ...