[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

A 132 ERA+, 2.93 FIP, 7.9 H/9, 0.6 HR/9 (which suggests that your memory of him as a guy that gave up lots of homers is more subjective, and not borne out by the actual numbers), 3.4 BB/9, 8.7 K/9 (in an era when strikeouts were nowhere near as common as they are today) across almost 1300 IP suggest that they probably got it right.

Smith's ERA+ number is probably his least impressive stat, as relievers should have a significantly lower ERA than the league average. As for his HR/9 stat, that's about average for that time period. Obviously, for a pitcher who is coming into the game in the late innings in a save situation, you'd want him to give up a lot fewer HRs than the average guy.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

If I had to, I would put him somewhere between #6 and #10 all-time among relievers. I don't count guys like Dennis Eckersley and Tom Gordon and others who pitched more innings as SP than as RP, when I'm trying to sort out who's an SP and who's an RP. I think he was every bit as good, if not better than Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, and Dan Quisenberry.

As I said, Smith was above-average for a long time. But he was rarely the best reliever in baseball at any one time. In the early '80s, Quisenberry and Sutter were much better. In the late '80s Eckersley was putting up better numbers, as was Rod Beck in the early '90s. Smith was consistently good, but he was seldom superior. If consistently good is the criterion for getting into the Hall, then Jamie Moyer gets in next.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I don't think Cy Youngs and MVPs should be given to a reliever except in exceptional circumstances, particularly the MVP, so I look past that.

Not sure why, given that the voters for those awards don't look past that. They're the ones who, at least theoretically, are scrutinizing a player's performance in real time. That gives us a sense of what people thought of a player's value while the player was still playing. That, I think, should count for something.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

He won 3 Rolaids Relief Awards, and was a 7-time All-Star, so he was very highly thought of.

I could be wrong, but I think the Rolaids award winner was determined by a mathematical formula, not by a vote. It was something like (saves x 2) + (relief wins x 1) - (relief losses x 1) (that was before the invention of the "blown save" stat). So the fact that Smith led the league in saves four times but only won the award three times means that his relief losses knocked him out of first place in at least one year (and that year was 1983).

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I think the best thing about the Hall of Fame is the debates that take place over those that get in and those that don't. I don't know about the other sports, but it seems like the baseball Hall of Fame is the one that attracts by far the most passion. That's a good thing.

I agree. I've been to Cooperstown twice and thoroughly enjoyed myself both times. My enjoyment and appreciation of the place isn't diminished by the inclusion of Lee Smith, just as it isn't diminished by the inclusion of Candy Cummings or Dennis Eckersley or all of Frankie Frisch's buddies. At the end of the day, it's just a game.