Baines and Smith elected to the HOF

[Mex17]

Actual news!!

Harold Baines and Lee Smith to Cooperstown.

[MFS62]

Mex17 wrote: Actual news!! Harold Baines and Lee Smith to Cooperstown.

When Bill Veeck signed Harold Baines, he gave him the nickname "Hall of Fame Baines".
Looks like he was right.
And I always thought Lee Smith belonged since some of the other relievers of his era got in.

Later

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's all about longevity and clubbiness.

I mean, with all due respect to Harold Baines, was he EVER the best DH-- never mind hitter-- in the league in any given year? Albert Belle got 1/3 of the votes Baines did, and was a better player.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, I don't love either one of those selections.

[Frayed Knot]

The good news, at least, is that Steinbrenner didn't come close to induction, receiving "less than five" votes from the 16 member "Today's Game" panel assigned to review the cases of recent
potential members (1988 thru current). At least 12 'Yes' votes are needed for enshrinement (Lou Piniella was apparently left one vote short).
This was despite such Steiny-rrific plants on the committee* as Joe Torre and Jerry Reinsdorf. Not quite as stacked as the one that weaseled Phil Rizzutto into the Hall, but close enough.
And the committee apparently didn't read Kevin Kernan's piece today where he laid out the case for GMSIII by asking the opinions of a whole bunch of Yanquis!!!!. Gee, Reggie Jackson
approves ... what more proof do you need? It sounds a lot like my plan to gauge the interest in canonizing Ronald Reagan by polling the senior members of the national Republican Party.




* Full committee: Torre, Reinsdorf, Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Pat Gillick, Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Joe Morgan, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith; Tigers general manager Al Avila; Phillies president Andy MacPhail; Blue Jays exec Paul Beeson,
historian Steve Hirdt; and media members Tim Kurkjian and Claire Smith.

[Frayed Knot]

Percentage of votes received by Harold Baines by the regular BBWAA votes:
Year 1 (2007) - 5.3%
2 -- 5.2%
3 -- 5.9%
4 -- 6.1%
5 -- 4.8% and out

You wonder how his sudden inclusion plays in the minds of those who received considerably more support than him in one or more BBWAA votes but remain on the outside looking in:
Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Edgar Martinez, Joe Carter, Larry Walker, Fred McGriff, Dave Parker, etc.

[seawolf17]

Splitting this out into its own discussion.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I guess I'm cool with Smith, Harold not so much so.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

It's just stupid. New low bar for admission

[Guest 41Forever]

My buddy is a baseball historian and author, and we like debating Hall of Fame selections. I asked him about these choices.


Me: We all love Harold. But has there ever been a player make so little progress in the writers ballots and still make it in? Certainly opens the door for the Mattinglys and Dave Parkers, I’d think.

Will: Actually, the Hall is filled with undeserving players who did next to nothing on the writers ballot. One of my all-time favorite lines from Bill James is about Lloyd Waner making it in via the vets many years ago and how there was a story that the vets actually got Paul Waner’s stats and confused the two. James wrote: “I don’t believe it, because that would mean that the veterans committee actually considered statistical evidence."


This Sports Illustrated column is a little rough: https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/12/09/harold-baines-mlb-hall-fame-election?utm_source=twitter.com&xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sinow

[seawolf17]

There are probably dozens of similar batters I'd put in before Baines -- Parker, Murphy, Edgar, Manny, Dick Allen, Keith, Larry Walker, Dwight Evans -- and dozens of guys I *wouldn't* put in before Baines but would still be ahead of him, like Rusty or Kenny Lofton or Freddie Lynn or George Foster.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: You wonder how his sudden inclusion plays in the minds of those who received considerably more support than him in one or more BBWAA votes but remain on the outside looking in: Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Edgar Martinez, Joe Carter, Larry Walker, Fred McGriff, Dave Parker, etc.

Gil F. Hodges ...

[batmagadanleadoff]

What an embarrassment for baseball. That guys like Baines and Joe Carter were even on that ballot is a disgrace.

[Guest 41Forever]

Chicago Tribune today:

Upon hearing Sunday night that longtime White Sox DH Harold Baines was selected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by a veterans committee, my first reaction was one of elation. “Good for Harold.” But that was quickly followed by my second reaction: “Poor Harold.” One of the least controversial players I’d ever covered was about to become one of the most controversial Hall of Fame picks in recent memory. Knowing Baines, I’m sure it won’t bother him. Nothing does, which is one reason he was one of my favorite players to cover. But almost immediately after the results were announced on MLB Network, criticism of the selection spread over the Twittersphere. Baines was not deemed by a Hall of Fame player by any analytic criteria, and the fact he was a DH only added to the pile-on.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: The good news, at least, is that Steinbrenner didn't come close to induction, receiving "less than five" votes from the 16 member "Today's Game" panel assigned to review the cases of recent potential members (1988 thru current). At least 12 'Yes' votes are needed for enshrinement (Lou Piniella was apparently left one vote short). This was despite such Steiny-rrific plants on the committee* as Joe Torre and Jerry Reinsdorf.

Maybe Reinsdorf was already fully in the bag for Baines.

[Benjamin Grimm]

41Forever wrote: Will: Actually, the Hall is filled with undeserving players who did next to nothing on the writers ballot.

This is one of the main reasons why I have so little interest in the Hall of Fame anymore. The list of who's in and who's not in is such a hot mess that I just can't really care like I used to. Sure, I was happy for Mike Piazza when he got in, and of course I'll be delighted when or if True Met Robinson Cano makes it, but Harold Baines is in, but Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are not? (And for the record, I don't disagree with their exclusion.) It's just a big fat mess, for a variety of reasons.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Will: Actually, the Hall is filled with undeserving players who did next to nothing on the writers ballot. This is one of the main reasons why I have so little interest in the Hall of Fame anymore. The list of who's in and who's not in is such a hot mess that I just can't really care like I used to. Sure, I was happy for Mike Piazza when he got in, and of course I'll be delighted when or if True Met Robinson Cano makes it, but Harold Baines is in, but Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are not? (And for the record, I don't disagree with their exclusion.) It's just a big fat mess, for a variety of reasons.

I agree it's a mess. And like the baseball record books, I don't see a good fix for that mess.

For me, my moment of realization came in 2009, the year Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were voted in. Rickey received just under 95% of the votes. Meaning that 5% of the voters didn't believe Rickey Henderson was a hall of famer. This boggled my mind. Most of the writers never justified their omission, while others used "he's not a first ballot guy" or "I figured Rickey would get in anyway, so I used my votes for others" argument. And then it struck me, that these guys are too dumb to vote within the rules. Or just too dumb to understand baseball. So if they are too dumb to realize Rickey is a hall of famer, why should I waste my time on other opinions they might have?

Life has been more pleasant since.

[Frayed Knot]

That Baines or Joe Carter are on the ballot isn't a disgrace. But Baines getting in, after never coming anywhere near close during the regular vote, makes it seem like one half of the sport has no idea
what the other half is doing. A candidate is overwhelmingly rejected every year he's eligible until he finally get so few that he's no longer even eligible, and then a different group, obviously operating
under a completely different set of guidelines, quickly puts him in and does so ahead of a number of other better borderline guys. A bunch of somebodies need to be embarrassed by that.


The lack of unanimity doesn't bother me much. Yeah, the whole 'No First Ballot ever' guys are stupid but there used to be a lot more of them while these days I don't think you'd even need a second
hand to tally them all up. Griff Jr fell just three votes short for instance and at least one or two rationalized it with the votes needed elsewhere logic.
Plus they still get a helluva lot more right than wrong. The biggest problem seems to be that every time they 'fix' the vets vote process it seems to remain at least as broken as it always was and it
certainly makes the case for sticking with the larger sampling size over the smaller.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Veterans Committee made sense when it was about 19th Century players, Negro League players, etc. But if that pool is pretty much exhausted, then they should stop considering players. It shouldn't be a mulligan for players who failed the BBWAA voting. Rename it the "Non-Players Committee" and restrict it to managers, executives, umpires, etc.

[Edgy MD]

The other thing a Veterans' Committee can do that's a lot less authoritarian is, if they like a guy that's been overlooked by the BBWAA, then their vote can return a player to the general ballot, along with their endorsement.

Frayed Knot wrote: That Baines or Joe Carter are on the ballot isn't a disgrace. But Baines getting in, after never coming anywhere near close during the regular vote, makes it seem like one half of the sport has no idea what the other half is doing. A candidate is overwhelmingly rejected every year he's eligible until he finally get so few that he's no longer even eligible, and then a different group, obviously operating under a completely different set of guidelines, quickly puts him in and does so ahead of a number of other better borderline guys. A bunch of somebodies need to be embarrassed by that.

On the other hand, Lou Whitaker fared even worse with the BBWAA, being a one-and-done candidate, and I'd vote for him if I was on the Vets Committee. He was possibly twice the player that Baines was.

[Guest 41Forever]

Edgy MD wrote: The other thing a Veterans' Committee can do that's a lot less authoritarian is, if they like a guy that's been overlooked by the BBWAA, then their vote can return a player to the general ballot, along with their endorsement. Frayed Knot wrote: That Baines or Joe Carter are on the ballot isn't a disgrace. But Baines getting in, after never coming anywhere near close during the regular vote, makes it seem like one half of the sport has no idea what the other half is doing. A candidate is overwhelmingly rejected every year he's eligible until he finally get so few that he's no longer even eligible, and then a different group, obviously operating under a completely different set of guidelines, quickly puts him in and does so ahead of a number of other better borderline guys. A bunch of somebodies need to be embarrassed by that. On the other hand, Lou Whitaker fared even worse with the BBWAA, being a one-and-done candidate, and I'd vote for him if I was on the Vets Committee. He was possibly twice the player that Baines was.

Players like Whitaker are why you need the checks and balances of another voice in addition to the BBWAA.

Joe Carter is one of my favorite players. We had a great experience with him once. Not a Hall of Famer, but I like that he was on the ballot because it gives everyone another opportunity to look at his fine career and respect him who he is as a person and was as a player.

[Guest d'Kong76]

A lot has been made in recent years how MLB clubs now employ 5-
10-15 individuals solely for analytical duties. In my perfect world, they
should be the ones getting HOF votes instead of the press or moth ball
smellin' committee folk.

[Valadius]

I'm a "big Hall" guy. Harold Baines is a stretch. In my estimation, he falls short. How do you leave Fred McGriff out now?

[Edgy MD]

Fred McNuthin. How do you leave Keef Hernandez out?

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: Fred McNuthin. How do you leave Keef Hernandez out?

Valadius wrote: I'm a "big Hall" guy. Harold Baines is a stretch. In my estimation, he falls short. How do you leave Fred McGriff out now?

If we're going to play that game, then AHEM

[Benjamin Grimm]

A "big Hall" is a devalued Hall, which is what we have.

[Vic Sage]

Some modest proposals for revising process:

1 - Every player who has ever stepped onto a major league field during a game is eligible 5 years after their last appearance (whether in jail or suspended or suspected or dead);
2 - Expand the criteria for BBWAA membership to include more online journalists and purge the roster of BBWAA voting members of anyone who hasn't covered baseball professionally (in print or online) for at least 5 of the past 10 years;
3- The HOF must issue directives to more specifically define what factors may and may not be considered by the writers in their votes (any voter who violates the guidelines can be suspended or removed), but voters can vote for as many or as few players as they choose;
4 - All ballots are made public;
5 - Change the Veterans Committee into the HOF Review Board, to assess players who have fallen off the ballot, or were previously ineligible for some reason, and to consider executives, managers, umps, writers, others, for enshrinement. The Board should consist of 20 members, on a rotating basis, comprised of [5] execs from the HOF office, including its prez (it's their museum), [5] from the MLB office, including commissioner (it's their sport), [5] HOFers (it was their job), and [5] Historians/statisticians (it's their expertise), with no "media" (they had their vote) and no owners (they have direct financial interest in vote). The Board can only consider candidates nominated by the 4 voting blocs. The Board's 75% vote threshold increases to 80% to elect a player who has had at least 10 years on the BBWAA ballot, and is reduced to 60% to restore a player to the BBWAA ballot;
6 - Players go on the ballot for 10 years; they fall off if less than 5% vote in a given year, but can be reinstated by HOF Review Board for up to 5 additional years (15 year total maximum);
7 - The HOF can create tiers or wings within its museum, including the HOF plaque room, for historical purposes (deadball era, WWII, post-expansion, steroids era, etc.) or to identify suspended players, or players voted in by Vet Committee, etc.,

[Frayed Knot]

#2 was essentially done a few years back. There were 472 ballots submitted this for the most recent vote while 2014's vote saw 571
So between 15 and 20% of the eligible were culled, even more really because some "non-traditional" journalists were added at that same time.

But it seems to me that the majority of complaints, both now and over recent years, have been vet's committee choices so I think that's where the fixin' needs to be done.
Problem is that it has stayed broken each time they go and fix it.