Lee Smith & Harold Baines to the HOF

[BaseballMan]

I was surprised that Baines made it but after thinking about it, i'm not that upset with it. There are always going to better players that should get in.
I hear people saying you should lead the league, win a championship or some award. Others say championships dont matter.
Making it to the hall means he is one of the greats of the game. However it does not mean we have to consider him as great as Mays, Mantle or Williams.
I dont recall Baines getting in any trouble and he did his job well for 22 years maybe he does belong in the hall. If ishowed up to my job for over 20 years and was very productive i would hope i would be considered a hall of famer for the company.
He was very close to 3,000 hits. It can be said that he got them because he played so long. What player got that many hits without having a long career?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not better players that should get in. I just look at it like if i had to draft the player and if i could see his career stats would i take him? I think i probably would unless his career is compared to Aaron's.
Others may not like the choice but i choose to not get upset over it.
Instead i will just be happy for him. It does seem like he will represent the hall with class.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I was surprised that Baines made it but after thinking about it, i'm not that upset with it. There are always going to better players that should get in.
I hear people saying you should lead the league, win a championship or some award. Others say championships dont matter.
Making it to the hall means he is one of the greats of the game. However it does not mean we have to consider him as great as Mays, Mantle or Williams.
I dont recall Baines getting in any trouble and he did his job well for 22 years maybe he does belong in the hall. If ishowed up to my job for over 20 years and was very productive i would hope i would be considered a hall of famer for the company.
He was very close to 3,000 hits. It can be said that he got them because he played so long. What player got that many hits without having a long career?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not better players that should get in. I just look at it like if i had to draft the player and if i could see his career stats would i take him? I think i probably would unless his career is compared to Aaron's.
Others may not like the choice but i choose to not get upset over it.
Instead i will just be happy for him. It does seem like he will represent the hall with class.

That's how I feel. If you got in, great. If you didn't, wait until next year.

[AirmenSmith]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Instead i will just be happy for him. It does seem like he will represent the hall with class.

So true. I don't agree he should be in but I'm sure he will be the most humble person on the stage that day. His speech will be one of the best ones that day.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I was surprised that Baines made it but after thinking about it, i'm not that upset with it. There are always going to better players that should get in.
I hear people saying you should lead the league, win a championship or some award. Others say championships dont matter.
Making it to the hall means he is one of the greats of the game. However it does not mean we have to consider him as great as Mays, Mantle or Williams.
I dont recall Baines getting in any trouble and he did his job well for 22 years maybe he does belong in the hall. If ishowed up to my job for over 20 years and was very productive i would hope i would be considered a hall of famer for the company.
He was very close to 3,000 hits. It can be said that he got them because he played so long. What player got that many hits without having a long career?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not better players that should get in. I just look at it like if i had to draft the player and if i could see his career stats would i take him? I think i probably would unless his career is compared to Aaron's.
Others may not like the choice but i choose to not get upset over it.
Instead i will just be happy for him. It does seem like he will represent the hall with class.

I think there's room for being upset with/not liking the choice and being very happy for a man who appears (one can never fully know these things) to have carried himself with class, dignity, and humility across his 22 year career, and on through to today. I'm upset with the Veterans Committee for allowing people who support player X for the HoF to now say: "Well Harold Baines is in, so now my guy should be too because he was better than Baines" when player X probably doesn't belong either. It's a slippery slope.

I consider the HoF to be for the top 1% of all MLB players plus Negro Leaguers that are selected by the various committees. I do not consider Harold Baines to be among the top 1% of all MLB players that have ever played. I'm sorry, but it's not close for me. Probably everybody will have a different definition of what the top 1% means, and who should be in it.

Some like to look at players who have longevity on their side (Baines is one of these who is outside of the Hall for me), but not much of a peak like Omar Vizquel, Johnny Damon, Vada Pinson, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and Jamie Moyer. Some like to look at players who have peak on their side (a short peak during which the player was one of the top players in his league). Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Cliff Lee, Carlos Zambrano, and Johan Santana would fit into this category. Though the players I've listed were all very good players, I don't consider any of them to be HoFers, but I consider all of them to have had better careers than Baines.

[joefromchicago]

Am I the only one here who doesn't think Lee "Three-Run Homer" Smith should be in the Hall of Fame? Maybe that's because I saw him play. When his fastball was working, he was unhittable. When it wasn't (and that was a maddeningly frequent occurrence), it was "so long Mr. Spalding."

As for his numbers, I don't think they're all that special. I've long held that the save is the most overrated stat in sports, let alone baseball. But even in that stat he only led his league four times over his career. He never won the Cy Young or MVP awards, something that even Willie Hernandez was able to accomplish. He's third on the all-time list for saves, but there's a pretty significant gap - 123 saves - between him and the guy in second place (Trevor Hoffman). Craig Kimbrel, who has only pitched nine seasons, is about that far behind Smith right now.

He wasn't an innovator, like Hoyt Wilhelm or Bruce Sutter. He wasn't a dominant reliever for an extended period, like Mariano Rivera. He wasn't the answer to a trivia question, like Dennis Eckersley. He was just an above-average player for a long time, but then so were a lot of other people from that era, like Dave Parker and Bill Madlock, who aren't in the HofF.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Am I the only one here who doesn't think Lee "Three-Run Homer" Smith should be in the Hall of Fame? Maybe that's because I saw him play. When his fastball was working, he was unhittable. When it wasn't (and that was a maddeningly frequent occurrence), it was "so long Mr. Spalding."

As for his numbers, I don't think they're all that special. I've long held that the save is the most overrated stat in sports, let alone baseball. But even in that stat he only led his league four times over his career. He never won the Cy Young or MVP awards, something that even Willie Hernandez was able to accomplish. He's third on the all-time list for saves, but there's a pretty significant gap - 123 saves - between him and the guy in second place (Trevor Hoffman). Craig Kimbrel, who has only pitched nine seasons, is about that far behind Smith right now.

He wasn't an innovator, like Hoyt Wilhelm or Bruce Sutter. He wasn't a dominant reliever for an extended period, like Mariano Rivera. He wasn't the answer to a trivia question, like Dennis Eckersley. He was just an above-average player for a long time, but then so were a lot of other people from that era, like Dave Parker and Bill Madlock, who aren't in the HofF.

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. Relief pitcher is the toughest position to judge for the HoF. It's been a position in the game for the shortest amount of time of all the positions.

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. Candy Cummings is in the Hall for the curveball, which is a bit of a joke, and that's the same sort of thing that I think got Sutter into the Hall (split-finger). I didn't use to think that Smith belonged, but I've come around on him. I would say he's a borderline HoFer, but for me he's borderline-in.

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. He won 3 Rolaids Relief Awards, and was a 7-time All-Star, so he was very highly thought of. Usually the Rolaids Relief Awards were given out to the guy with the highest save total, so you have to take that into consideration as to how highly you value that award. Also All-Star games are a bit of a popularity contest, and once you get named to one or two, you tend to keep getting invited back. Nonetheless, he was definitely one of the best relief pitchers of his era, and I would argue that he was the best reliever in the game between 1982 and 1991, which is a ten year period.

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.

[David Watts]

I think Lee belongs simply because way back in the day when I was selling shoes in Shreveport La, Lee came with his Leesville entourage and tried to buy a pair of sandals from me. Still can't imagine facing that man on a dark cloudy lightless afternoon at Wrigley.

[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.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

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.


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.


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.


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).


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.

MLB (1980-1997): WHIP: 1.364, H/9: 8.95, HR/9: 0.86, BB/9: 3.32, K/9: 5.70, K/BB: 1.72, ERA: 4.01, ERA+: 100

Lee Smith (1980-1997): WHIP: 1.256, H/9: 7.91, HR/9: 0.62, BB/9: 3.39, K/9: 8.73, K/BB: 2.57, ERA: 3.03, ERA+: 132

WHIP: 8.6% better than average, H/9: 13.1% better than average, HR/9: 38.7% better than average, BB/9: 2.1% worse than average, K/9: 53.2% better than average, K/BB: 49.4% better than average, ERA: 32.3% better than average, ERA+: 32% better than average

He was absolutely significantly above average at keeping the ball in the yard, striking out hitters, managing his strikeout to walk ratio, and preventing runs for his time. He was reasonably above average at preventing hits (not all his doing, needs his defense to help out here, and BB-Ref says he pitched with slightly below average defenses behind him over the course of his career), league average to slightly above average in WHIP, and basically league average at not allowing walks.

I think in the overall that makes him a significantly above average pitcher over 18 seasons and 1289.1 IP. So he has the longevity down. He also had a great peak from 1982 through 1991, and I think it's quite arguable that if you look at those ten years in the aggregate, he was the best reliever in the game during that time. There may have been individual seasons during that time when he wasn't the best, but during that ten season run, he was the best in baseball. Ten years is quite significant.

Over that ten season period, he was first among relievers according to Baseball-Reference in WAR, WAA (Wins Above Average), WPA (Win Probability Added), REW (Win Expectancy), and FIP ([Fielding Independent Pitching] amongst relievers with 600 or more IP - reasonable to demand at least 60 IP per season as a cutoff point). Not everybody agrees that the so called "advanced metrics" should have any bearing on anything, but if he's number one in all five of these stats, it's reasonable to say that he was the best over this decade. These advanced metrics also correlate much better to the ranking of players and to how much a player helped his team to win, than traditional counting stats do. In other words, just because Joe Carter is 59th on the all-time HR list, it does not indicate that he is the 59th best hitter of all-time.

For the record, during that ten year peak, the numbers we looked at above were 1.229 WHIP, 7.76 H/9, 0.57 HR/9, 3.30 BB/9, 9.20 K/9, 2.79 K/BB, 2.79 ERA, 142 ERA+. This is an excellent peak for the era it was accomplished in. Then you've got his longevity on top of that.

I don't like saves as a stat either, but he was tied for number one with Jeff Reardon at 311 during this decade. I don't include Eckersley in the relievers because during this time (and during his career) he threw roughly three times as many innings as a starter. I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

Regarding ERA+, Smith put up a 132 career ERA+, Gossage put up a 126 career ERA+, and Fingers put up a career 120 ERA+. Not arguing that he's a ceiling HoFer (if we're looking at floor to ceiling HoFers) because that would be idiotic. But I do think an argument can be made for him to be a floor HoFer. Not arguing that he was better than Gossage either because that would be stupid. I would say the ceiling HoFers are Rivera...space...Wilhelm...space...Gossage...space ...the rest of the floor HoFers like Smith, Hoffman, Sutter, and Fingers.

Nice joke with the Jamie Moyer reference. I needed a chuckle. So you're saying an SP who's arguably in the top 120 of all-time amongst his peers is the equivalent of a top ten reliever of all-time? Got it. Also, when you add up Eckersley's SP innings and his RP innings, it's my opinion that he's well over any reasonable line for induction, so I have no problem with him being in there. Cheers. We disagree, but these debates are fun. For the record, I didn't always believe that Smith belonged, but I've definitely come around on him in the last little while.

[Jason Moyer]

Anything that makes Dave Parker and John Franco easier to justify is ok with me.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Anything that makes Dave Parker and John Franco easier to justify is ok with me.

Baines does, but Baines' entry takes it from a top 1% Hall to a top 4ish% Hall, so it affects far more players than Parker and Franco. Ugh. There are other guys in there less deserving than Baines, but not many. This post is not meant to diminish The Game's joy at his guy getting in. I'm happy for him as well as other Baines fans, as he will represent the Hall with class, dignity, and humility which is more than you can say for other guys in there. It's just my opinion that we've opened the floodgates, and made HoF inclusion even more confusing. Now everyone and their dog will be clamouring for their favourite player to get in because "He had a better career than Baines". Where does it end?

[Cobra Mgr]

I've never gotten the "so & so got in, so player x should get in". One bad decision doesn't mean another should follow it. They are lessons learned, not "how-to" films.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I've never gotten the "so & so got in, so player x should get in". One bad decision doesn't mean another should follow it. They are lessons learned, not "how-to" films.

Could I please give this one million thank yous? I've never gotten it either, but whoo boy is it ever happening since Baines got in. The floodgates might be about to open, and that's a shame.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Could I please give this one million thank yous? I've never gotten it either, but whoo boy is it ever happening since Baines got in. The floodgates might be about to open, and that's a shame.

I dont think it will open the floodgates. Keep in mind that Baines was elected
on the recently retired ballot.
The ERA committee elects about 2 players a year. The main one elects fewer a year than the number that the NFL does.
Not every great player will get elected on the main one and that will make it more difficult for players like Baines to get in.
I think its more of a case of all the planets lined up at the right time for Baines.