Reggie Smith

[538280]

I had always liked Reggie Smith and thought of him as an underrated player, but I had never really thought of him as a HOFer until I recently looked at his career a bit more. I thought about CFers outside the HOF with an OPS+ comparable to Jim Edmonds' current mark (138). I found Reggie Smith, who was basically a CFer for half of his career. This guy was a very impressive hitter-137 OPS+ speaks for itself, especially in the eras in which he played. He had a good length career, was a CFer for half of it and won a Gold Glove there, a great hitter, decent at all phases of the game. He also had a remarkable record of success of his teams. It seemed everywhere Smith went his teams won, in that way he is similar to another contemporary player sharing his first name. Let's look at the teams that he joined:

-First full season was with the Boston Red Sox in 1967. The Red Sox that season surprised everyone by winning the AL pennant after they had been a not so great team for years before.

-Smith was with the Red Sox until 1973, when they traded him to the Cardinals for Rick Wise and Bernie Carbo. This is the only team Smith ever moved to where there wasn't a huge improvement. There was a slight one though, as the Cardinals went 86-75 after a losing season and a .500 one.

-Smith was acquired for the stretch run in 1976 by the Dodgers. He did not lift them over the Big Red Machine that season, but was a huge lift for their team the next two years, when a Reggie Smith led offense (he led the league in OPS+ in 1977 and was 2nd in 1978) took the Dodgers to the World Series both years. They also won with Smith on the team in 1981.

-Smith joined the Giants in 1983. Along with Joe Morgan, he helped to power the low on talent Giants to almost win an NL West title. They finished just two games out, but it was still a remarkable improvement.

That is a record of team success that rivals just about anyone. That's just some interesting stuff about Reggie Smith though, it does not relate as much to his HOF case. I'm not completely sure that he belongs, but I think if there's any player that makes the HOF case for Reggie Smith, it's Harry Heilmann. Heilmann is considered by many here to be a slam dunk type HOFer, so if Reggie is comparable to him then that would probably make him at least pretty close. I feel that he is, and arguably even better than Heilmann.

-Well, we can start with their OPS+, while Heilmann is ahead 148 to 137. This is an edge for Heilmann, but then to me taking into account the qualify of leagues they played in it's far from a blowout. Perhaps a slight Heilmann edge, but it is pretty close to me. Raw offensive numbers are of course a huge Heilmann blowout, but it's wrong to look a those. Smith played in an extreme pitcher's era while Heilmann played in an extreme hitter's era.

-In other areas of the game, Heilmann of course was close to useless. He was very slow, could not run the bases well at all, and covered extremely little ground in the outfield. Smith was a decent, nothing special baserunner, but still was better than Heilmann there, and his fielding edge is rather large. With these things, I can see how you could easily think Smith was the better player.

Based on that I think he at least has a case, though I've never really heard any HOF case made for him. What do you guys think?

[SABR Matt]

I have Reggie Smith as more of a RF than a CF, but that makes him a solid 14th amongst right fielders by the GI method...80th overall. I would call him a more-than-worthy HOF candidate.

[538280]

I have Reggie Smith as more of a RF than a CF, but that makes him a solid 14th amongst right fielders by the GI method...80th overall. I would call him a more-than-worthy HOF candidate.

Yeah, he is more of an RF but he certainly played almost as much CF, so that should have impact on the way you rate him. Do you have him ahead or below of Heilmann BTW? The more I look at that, the more I think Smith is probably better.

[baseballPAP]

Nice catch Chris...he's a guy I used to support for the various "he should be in" arguments. However, he seems to also be a guy that slips my mind a lot.....

Very solid lower tier HOFer in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've gone back and forth on Reggie Smith. He played more games in RF and at 1B than in CF; I would be more enthusiastic if he were a career CF.

Smith was moved from CF because the Cardinals had Bake McBride and the Dodgers had Rick Monday. He probably could have still held down CF, but he didn't. Plus, he was never a regular after 1978; injuries began to get the best of him then.

Smith was a broad-based player, so he tends to be underrated, as were Larry Doby and Minnie Minoso. Doby's in, of course, but Doby was a career CF, so he has an edge, plus, Doby integrated the AL. That makes Doby an historical figure, and that counts for something. Minoso should be in, and should go in ahead of Smith; he was, IMO, the best of the three.

While Smith was underrated, and while Smith has had a career in comparable quality to a number of HOF outfielders, there are a lot of guys outside the HOF that seem to rank ahead of him. Minoso certainly ranks ahead of Smith. Then, there's Tony Oliva, who was Smith's contemporary, and was a far greater player at his peak than Smith ever was. There's Dewey Evans and Jim Rice. There's Mattingly and Clark. There's Santo and Joe Torre. In short, there's a whole slew of players I can think of, right off the bat, that are ahead of Smith in the Cooperstown line.

[JimAbbott]

Sorry pal, but we can't start putting the Reggie smith's of the world in the hall cause the floodgates would open and we'd need a bigger hall

[leecemark]

--I agree that Reggie Smith is not going to be a Hall of famer. Too many more deserving contemporaries of his are still excluded. He is significantly better than several Hall of Fame outfielders though and comparable to several more. That is the problem with the mistake selections of the Frisch era VC. It created a situation where there is no clear standard and a reasonable case can be made for a second tier star like Reggie Smith.

[64Cards]

He was a good player who may have had HOF type ability. He never lead his league in anything, only finished in the top ten MVP voting twice, and didn't put together the type of career numbers to make it in. He had a couple of good seasons here in STL, but then the Cards traded him even up for Joe Ferguson, for some reason. I suspect Reggie may have had an attitude problem and that was the best they could get for him, although why on earth they would trade him for a catcher when they had Simmons at his career peak is beyond me.

In Bill Lee's book, he told a story above Reggie. The Sox outfielders were arguing about who had the best arm, so they set up a competition. They could run up to the !B line and see how high they could throw it up the Green Monster in LF. The Sox had some pretty good arms on the team like Yaz and Evans and they took their shots. Lee said Reggie took 1 step out of the 1st base dugout and threw it over the LF wall. I'm a bit skeptical of just about anything Lee says, but Reggie did have one hell of an arm.

Looking at his career numbers one thing surprised me, I would have thought that he struck out much more than he did.

[Gee Walker]

Although I think it's a big stretch to compare Reggie Smith to Harry Heilmann, mostly because Heilmann was a 1B/RF combination who had no speed, but terrific ability to make contact and hit line drives. Think of Heilmann as a better version of Al Oliver or Edgar Martinez, and that's a better comparison.

The HOF player that seems more like Reggie Smith is Earl Averill, who played CF with high error and assist totals, like Reggie - the sign of a guy with a good arm who sometimes gets burned when the infielder can't come up with the catch when the baserunner is barrelling in on him. When the runner advances, the outfielder always gets the blame. Like Reggie, Averill was good at everything - power, OBP, doubles and triples. His BA is better than Reggie's, but that's more the context of the 30's with their little infielder's gloves and insistence on the pitcher throwing a complete game. Averill is never considered to be one of the bad choices of the HOF, despite his counting numbers being low. He didn't get a game in the majors until he was almost 27 years old. Reggie Smith lost games near the end of his career- basically they had careers of similar length, with Reggie playing about 300 more games.

[SABR Matt]

Yeah, he is more of an RF but he certainly played almost as much CF, so that should have impact on the way you rate him. Do you have him ahead or below of Heilmann BTW? The more I look at that, the more I think Smith is probably better.

Heilmann is 68th to Smith's 80th all time by PCA...pretty close though...he leads 422 to 408 in GI points and is 11th to Smith's 14th in RF.

[SABR Matt]

--I agree that Reggie Smith is not going to be a Hall of famer. Too many more deserving contemporaries of his are still excluded. He is significantly better than several Hall of Fame outfielders though and comparable to several more. That is the problem with the mistake selections of the Frisch era VC. It created a situation where there is no clear standard and a reasonable case can be made for a second tier star like Reggie Smith.

Surely you're not suggesting Frisch doens't belong in the HOF??

Frankie Frisch is a CLEAR hall of famer...a slam dunk in my book.

[538280]

Surely you're not suggesting Frisch doens't belong in the HOF??

Frankie Frisch is a CLEAR hall of famer...a slam dunk in my book.

He means the selections Frisch made when he was the head of the VC, not Frisch himself. He let in many of his old friends and teammates from the 20s Giants and 30s Cardinals, of whom many were just clearly and unquestionably NOT HOFers.

[538280]

Although I think it's a big stretch to compare Reggie Smith to Harry Heilmann, mostly because Heilmann was a 1B/RF combination who had no speed, but terrific ability to make contact and hit line drives. Think of Heilmann as a better version of Al Oliver or Edgar Martinez, and that's a better comparison.

Thinking of him as a better Al Oliver is a pretty good comparison, but I'd say Edgar was just about the same as Heilmann, and probably even was better, if you don't really hate the DH. Their OPS+ is the exact same, after all, and Edgar played when the game was stronger. I'd call that one close to a tie, with Edgar's league advantages going against Heilmann's advantage of actually playing the field.

How is it exactly such a huge stretch to compare Smith to Heilmann though? It surprised me when I looked at their numbers, but if you believe in league quality adjustments, and I think it's foolish not to, then they look to me very close. Smith had huge advantages in baserunning/fielding, and hitting wasn't really that much different, when you adjust for context.

The HOF player that seems more like Reggie Smith is Earl Averill, who played CF with high error and assist totals, like Reggie - the sign of a guy with a good arm who sometimes gets burned when the infielder can't come up with the catch when the baserunner is barrelling in on him. When the runner advances, the outfielder always gets the blame. Like Reggie, Averill was good at everything - power, OBP, doubles and triples. His BA is better than Reggie's, but that's more the context of the 30's with their little infielder's gloves and insistence on the pitcher throwing a complete game. Averill is never considered to be one of the bad choices of the HOF, despite his counting numbers being low. He didn't get a game in the majors until he was almost 27 years old. Reggie Smith lost games near the end of his career- basically they had careers of similar length, with Reggie playing about 300 more games.

I wouldn't consider Averill a deserving HOFer myself. Very short career, decent but not all time great hitter from CF. Not an all time great fielder out there. A player who got in IMO because of inflated offensive levels of his era.

[538280]

Sorry pal, but we can't start putting the Reggie smith's of the world in the hall cause the floodgates would open and we'd need a bigger hall

How exactly would Reggie Smith degenerate the standards of the HOF? I see comments like this all the time when someone brings up a HOF candidate, it shows nothing but ignorance on the part of the writer. A very solid case could be made for Reggie Smith as a HOFer, and he certainly would be FAR from the the worst in.

Jim Rice is another former Red Sox outfielder, who gets a ton of HOF support. Why exactly is he better than Smith? Is there any case outside of just his raw numbers, and the only reason those are better is because of the era he played in?

[mtortolero]

Smith does not show in his records the type of marks for a guy with 17 seasons in his pocket who had his first full season with 22 years old , and for example Indian Bob Johnson has the same PA (8050 vs 8047) with four complete seasons less than Smith and starting his carrer with 27 years old.
If Johnson deserves a plaque then he must be go in hand by hand with Indian Bob.

[baseballPAP]

Bob Johnson is my personal "let me in" candidate. He is a contemporary of DiMaggio, who most consider an absolute first ballot slam dunk guy. Johnson wasn't on Joe's level, but he was on the top rung of the ladder, right behind the Clipper.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How exactly would Reggie Smith degenerate the standards of the HOF? I see comments like this all the time when someone brings up a HOF candidate, it shows nothing but ignorance on the part of the writer. A very solid case could be made for Reggie Smith as a HOFer, and he certainly would be FAR from the the worst in.

Jim Rice is another former Red Sox outfielder, who gets a ton of HOF support. Why exactly is he better than Smith? Is there any case outside of just his raw numbers, and the only reason those are better is because of the era he played in?

I don't believe that selecting Reggie Smith would lower the standards of the HOF, and, subjectively, I rate him ahead of Rice.

It's just that Smith had kind of a short career; short in that key years were hollowed out due to injuries. He had under 2,100 hits; that's not many for a guy getting in on broad-based skills. I agree that he was a "winner" who helped his teams win, but I also believe that there are a lot of guys ahead of him in the HOF line that deserve consideration first. And I mean 20-25, probably. Smith is nowhere near the head of the line.

[Brad Harris]

Strong candidate at his position for either of the following:

-Worst Player Deserving of Induction

-Best Player Who Belongs Outside the Hall

[Brooklyn]

This is one time I think the similarity scores hit the nail on the head. His most similar player is listed as Fred Lynn, who I think is a great comparison. Both solid players, both outside the Hall, IMO.

[KCGHOST]

Reggie has a modest case for the HoF, but not a compelling one. If you look at RSAA, Reggie 58th all-time.. That is quite good, but not something that should jump start a HoF campaign. Heilmann just kills him in this stat 663-381.

None of his Top Ten comps are HoFers and he doesn't have a single average score on the Black/Grey Inks tests nor the HoF Monitor/Standards. He also doesn't fare terribly well on the Keltner Test.

He wouldn't be the worst HoFer in place, but I'd prefer he not be invited.

[64Cards]

How exactly would Reggie Smith degenerate the standards of the HOF? I see comments like this all the time when someone brings up a HOF candidate, it shows nothing but ignorance on the part of the writer. A very solid case could be made for Reggie Smith as a HOFer, and he certainly would be FAR from the the worst in.

Jim Rice is another former Red Sox outfielder, who gets a ton of HOF support. Why exactly is he better than Smith? Is there any case outside of just his raw numbers, and the only reason those are better is because of the era he played in?
Well, it's because he was a better hitter than Reggie and obviously had more of an impact, finishing in the top 5 MVP voting 4 times in his first 5 years. Their careers do overlap, Reggie was in his 8th season,at his peak, when Rice broke in, in 75 and Rice was a spectacular hitter for his first 5 seasons. Not much difference in the eras, Smith played 7 seasons in Fenway, had some good years, but not the single seasons numbers that some of the other guys of the Sox did at the same time, like Yaz, Petrocelli, Hawk Harrelson, and even Tony Conigliaro [1970] Just a season after Reggie left Boston, along came Lynn with a couple of great seasons in his first 5. Dwight Evans played rf in Boston a long time, with similar numbers to Reggie. Reggie was a good defensive outfielder, I'll give him a significant edge over Rice there. Out of the whole group, Yaz is the only one I'd support as HOF, but Rice would come the closest out of the rest. Being a DH for about 25% of his career knocks him down a peg in my book.

[538280]

Well, it's because he was a better hitter than Reggie and obviously had more of an impact, finishing in the top 5 MVP voting 4 times in his first 5 years. Their careers do overlap, Reggie was in his 8th season,at his peak, when Rice broke in, in 75 and Rice was a spectacular hitter for his first 5 seasons. Not much difference in the eras, Smith played 7 seasons in Fenway, had some good years, but not the single seasons numbers that some of the other guys of the Sox did at the same time, like Yaz, Petrocelli, Hawk Harrelson, and even Tony Conigliaro [1970] Just a season after Reggie left Boston, along came Lynn with a couple of great seasons in his first 5. Dwight Evans played rf in Boston a long time, with similar numbers to Reggie. Reggie was a good defensive outfielder, I'll give him a significant edge over Rice there. Out of the whole group, Yaz is the only one I'd support as HOF, but Rice would come the closest out of the rest. Being a DH for about 25% of his career knocks him down a peg in my book.

Percetion and reality are two completely different things. I don't know about you, but when determining a player HOF worthiness I try to look at the reality as much as I can. Even if the perception when they were active was that Rice was better than Smith, it was almost certainly not correct.

There was not a ton of difference in their timframes, but a rather large difference in their offensive context. The league started scoring a lot more runs in the late 70s, and this went into the 80s. Reggie's prime was more in the early to mid 70s, and a little in the late 70s, but by then he was also in Dodger Stadium. Comparing their rate statistics to league, it is just impossible to see how Rice was the more productive hitter. Smith's OPS+ is a significant 9 points higher. That is even not taking into account other important offensive elements, namely grouding into DPs. Despite having careers of about the same length, Rice grounded into about twice as many DPs. Rice also stole less than half as many bases, and walked considerably less. As a total offensive player, there is little reason to think Rice is better-outside of statistics like RBI, which it is really wrong to be paying much attention to anyway.

Then there's the difference in defensive value between them, which is not pronounced but is certainly there. Reggie Smith was a better player than Jim Rice.

[538280]

Reggie has a modest case for the HoF, but not a compelling one. If you look at RSAA, Reggie 58th all-time.. That is quite good, but not something that should jump start a HoF campaign. Heilmann just kills him in this stat 663-381.

None of his Top Ten comps are HoFers and he doesn't have a single average score on the Black/Grey Inks tests nor the HoF Monitor/Standards. He also doesn't fare terribly well on the Keltner Test.

He wouldn't be the worst HoFer in place, but I'd prefer he not be invited.

RSAA is a good measure of a player's offensive productivity. The other measures you bring up are horribly summaries of his value, and IMO bad ways to judge a player's HOF worthiness (outside of the Keltner List-which is of course very subjective). Black and Grey Ink have little to no indication of a player's value on the field. Not only do they naturally discrimiate against modern players, because of expansion, but the weightings of various categories are done in complete sabermetric ignorance. A player like Jim Rice, who concentrated his skills very well into the triple crown statistics (these players are also generally very overrated), will come out looking much better than he is. A well rounded offensive player who contributes in many areas, which describes Smith rather well, will be horribly underrated. Use actual context adjustments and a formal value methology, not those statistics. They are horrible measures of just about anything. I would never use them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sorry pal, but we can't start putting the Reggie smith's of the world in the hall cause the floodgates would open and we'd need a bigger hall

Dude, we've been putting the Reggie Smiths of the world in the HOF since the 1940s. Not all of them, mind you; not even most of them, but some of them.

The HOF has not been for "only the greatest" since the 1940s. That's the way it is. If you think that's what the HOF is, or has been until recently, you really need to consider just who's been being elected to the HOF all along.

[538280]

Smith does not show in his records the type of marks for a guy with 17 seasons in his pocket who had his first full season with 22 years old , and for example Indian Bob Johnson has the same PA (8050 vs 8047) with four complete seasons less than Smith and starting his carrer with 27 years old.
If Johnson deserves a plaque then he must be go in hand by hand with Indian Bob.

Johnson was a very similar player to Smith, and is certainly a legit HOF candidate. The things that separate Smith from him for me are my belief Smith played against much better competition and how he played half of his career in CF.

[AstrosFan]

Hall of Fame monitors and standards, black ink, grey ink, etc., are all for measuring the likelihood of being elected. We've been over this a million times. It has nothing to do with how deserving a player is.

Similarity scores are worthless, because they don't adjust for context, and the numbers aren't good measures of value.

I think it would be interesting to compare how many players in the Hall Reggie Smith is better than to how many outside he is worse than. It's a subjective measure, but it might give an idea of how worthy he is.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hall of Fame monitors and standards, black ink, grey ink, etc., are all for measuring the likelihood of being elected. We've been over this a million times. It has nothing to do with how deserving a player is.

Similarity scores are worthless, because they don't adjust for context, and the numbers aren't good measures of value.

I think it would be interesting to compare how many players in the Hall Reggie Smith is better than to how many outside he is worse than. It's a subjective measure, but it might give an idea of how worthy he is.

Black ink and gray ink are measures of quality. If a player has a large amount of black ink, that is evidence that the player was a dominant player, regardless of what the face of his stats were. If a player wins 12 batting titles in a league that hits .230 (like the 1968 AL) with some of those titles won with BAs of, say .290 and .295, why is that player less dominant than Ty Cobb, who hit under far different conditions than the AL of 1968?

[AstrosFan]

I agree on the point that if a player scores high on the black ink, that means he is probably a quality player. But the points awarded have no meaning. Leading in slugging is worth less than leading in batting, and on-base has no place in the method. And the further you go down the list, the worse the rankings get. Chuck Klein ahead of Jimmie Foxx? Gavy Cravath ahead of Rod Carew? George Sisler ahead of Duke Snider? Black ink and gray ink should never be used to assess how deserving a player is of the Hall of Fame. Reggie Smith doesn't even make the cut in the black ink leaders, but I'd put him in the Hall over a lot of those that did.

[digglahhh]

I basically agree with you AstrosFan. The ink scores assign value to things that have impressed the writers in the past, and not necessarily to those that are the most accurate reflections of greatness. When you look at the best of the best, the ink scores appear to be pretty valid, just about any method can identify the very best, but their accuracy clearly falters as you approach the borderline. The ink scores are kind of like an attempt to take the (flawed) approach of many of the voters into account.

[digglahhh]

As far as Smith, I don't support him and I'm not really close to supporting him either. I would say he's probably about at the borderline of those who are borderline.

One thing that substantially hurts his candidacy, IMO, is his durability. The guy missed tons of games in the middle of his career, that's not good. Consistent injuries really hurt grey area guys. I have held this against better players than Smith, in fact it is probably the main reason I don't support Larkin. Larkin was probably a HOF caliber SS, but 100 games of Larkin and 60 games of the replacement level MI that comes of the bench to fill in, may or may not even net you All Star production from that position pro-rated seasonally.

[AstrosFan]

Reggie Smith compiled 325 Win Shares in his career. Larkin had 320 through 2001. Larkin's career total is excellent for a shortstop, in fact, he probably compiled enough WS over the next three seasons to pass Ernie Banks for fifth on the all-time list. Even if you just look at career performance, Larkin is hands down a Hall of Famer.
As for Smith, 325 shows him to be a good candidate. I have no idea where he would place career-wise among corner outfielders, but 300 Win Shares means a player should be taken seriously as a candidate for the Hall.

[JimAbbott]

Reggie Smith? Come on, not even close to hall worthiness. This reminds me of the Dick Allen and Ron Cey threads. These guys were all decent journeymen ballplayers and miles from serious hall consideration.

[digglahhh]

Dick Allen was a "decent journeyman ballplayer" like Da Vinci was a "bright guy"...

[jalbright]

Even if we find certain posters annoying, as a moderator, I must remind everyone that while disagreements and debate over posts are part and parcel of what we do here, posts which are directed personally are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. This has been a public service announcement, and we now return you to our previously scheduled debate over Reggie Smith.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

As a gesture of good will, I removed it, Jim.

[jalbright]

Thank you. I don't want to be heavy handed about this unless necessary. On the other hand, while I happen to share your frustration about this thread, I think it far better if we let our posts and logic speak for themselves, and let the posts and logic of those we disagree with for speak for themselves. I think we serve our own interests better that way, and who knows, maybe we'll even make a convert or two.

The main problem with getting personal, IMO is that there's a tremendous tendency for things to enter a downward spiral once that threshhold has been crossed. As bad as it may get with some individuals' honest posts, I've never seen things sink to unacceptable depths so long as the personal stuff is avoided.

Jim Albright

[AstrosFan]

Reggie Smith? Come on, not even close to hall worthiness. This reminds me of the Dick Allen and Ron Cey threads. These guys were all decent journeymen ballplayers and miles from serious hall consideration.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think should be in the Hall?

[KCGHOST]

Black and Grey Ink have little to no indication of a player's value on the field. Not only do they naturally discrimiate against modern players, because of expansion, but the weightings of various categories are done in complete sabermetric ignorance. I would never use them.


You are welcome to do as you please, put those four measures, while not sabermetrically valid, do compare a player to his peers and the HoF members. If a guy does well on them he certainly is more HoF viable than a guy who doesn't.

[DoubleX]

Johnson was a very similar player to Smith, and is certainly a legit HOF candidate. The things that separate Smith from him for me are my belief Smith played against much better competition and how he played half of his career in CF.

I like Smith, but I'd put Johnson in before him. For me, the fact that Johnson accomplished what he did despite not breaking in until he was 27, says a lot to me. If Johnson got his chance a few years earlier, I don't think there would be much question about him being a Hall of Famer.

[538280]

I think it would be interesting to compare how many players in the Hall Reggie Smith is better than to how many outside he is worse than. It's a subjective measure, but it might give an idea of how worthy he is.

Here are RFers in the HOF:

Hank Aaron-Smith is clearly not better.

Roberto Clemente-Clearly not better, though it's not the total blowout most would probably assume.

Sam Crawford-Same as above
Kiki Cuyler-I don't see much of a case for Cuyler ahead of Smith. Like Smith, Cuyler spent a good part of his career in CF, and though he was a better baserunner than Smith, he just clearly was not the same hitter in context of when he was playing (137 OPS+ to 125). The big thing here is just to put numbers in context. Smith is the man.

Elmer Flick-I would certainly put Smith ahead of him as well. Flick's career was a good amount shorter, and while Flick's career rates are better the lack of longevity is almost surely the reason why, and he played against MUCH inferior competition.

Harry Heilmann-I've already mentioned this comparison. I think it's pretty close, though I don't think many would agree.

Harry Hooper-Hooper was a great defensive OFer, but his hitting was just not in Smith's class. Easy Smith win.

Reggie Jackson-Smith's clearly not better.

Al Kaline-Smith's clearly not better.

Willie Keeler-Keeler was the posterchild for an empty BA, though his BA was high enough that he still was a productive hitter. Not as productive as Smith though, and he doesn't really have any other advantages.

King Kelly-Tough choice depending on how you view the 19th century guys. Personally, when I see they have just about the same OPS+ despite the eras they played in, I take Smith.

Chuck Klein-Similar to the Flick comparison except his career OPS+ is actually the same as Smith's. Smith easily.

Tommy McCarthy-Clearly Smith is better and I don't see any good arguments otherwise.

Mel Ott-Smith's clearly not as good.

Sam Rice-I don't see any good arguments here either unless you're just a huge BA freak, and Rice's relative BA is only 113 compared to Smith's 109 anyway.

Frank Robinson-Smith's clearly not better.

Babe Ruth-No way.

Enos Slaughter-I'm torn on this one. I'm certain Smith was a bigger impact player while he was playing and he was better at his best, but Slaughter has a lot of longevity, and he's also missing war years. Really close comparison.

Sam Thompson-Depends on how you view 19th century guys. I tend to be skeptical in general, so I'd take Smith, but I could see another argument.

Paul Waner-Like Crawford and Clemente

Dave Winfield-Smith's clearly not better

Ross Youngs-Smith's certainly better. Short career, better while he played, don't see much of an arugment for Youngs unless you like the symapathetic vote, which is wrong IMO anyway.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would put Dwight Evans in the HOF before I would put in Reggie Smith.

[iPod]

Reggie Smith is an extremely interesting player in baseball history. Howard Bryant wrote in his awesome book Shut Out that, "Outside of Bill Russell, no black player would endure a more pronounced conflict with Boston than Reggie Smith." He came up in 1967, the most fruitful piece of new GM Dick O'Connell's attempt to racially integrate the Red Sox, and the first legitimate star to be both black and a Red Sock. His rise to the majors is basically in between the Pinky Higgins regime which kept the Red Sox segregated until 1959 and the Boston race riots of the late 1960s and 1970s. Being a tough-nosed black celebrity in Boston during the late 1960s must have been almost impossibly difficult, and I greatly respect Smith for being able to rise above the hate mail, objects thrown at his head while playing outfield, and general racial horror on and off the diamond and have the great career he did.

But strictly from an objective analysis of baseball value, I think there are several tangible and intangible biases working against Smith. Many of his great seasons were in the late 1960s, which makes him look superficially less impressive than he was. He, like many players 538280 loves to talk about, was a balanced player whose talent cannot be expressed in any one number. Willie Mays had by the late 1960s (quite unfairly) solidified the standard by which fast, powerful black outfielders would be judged, and Reggie Smith didn't measure up, making him seem unimpressive. He played the game hard and didn't take any crap from anyone, which would have been admired and loved in a white player but was seen as dangerous and discomforting in a black player. He was the target of constant attacks on his race especially from fans, and wasn't ever fully embraced by the Boston fans. I think that after his rude awakening in Boston he probably had a great deal of difficultly warming up to any fanbase, making him seem in the minds of the fans he played for in his career merely a second tier star on all the great teams on which he was a member, rather than a legitimate first tier star which he often was. In addition, the teams he played for already had big stars which were hits with the media and fans. Boston had Yaz, who held in the fan's mind a monopoly on all the things both were good at; outfield play, hitting for power, clutch hitting, etc. The fact that Yaz won the triple crown in Reggie's rookie year doesn't help either. Smith's departure from the Red Sox meshed seamlessly with the arrival of two whiter, friendlier outfielders with similar skills, Lynn and Evans. The Cardinals still had Lou Brock and Bob Gibson when they brought Reggie Smith in, and Lou Brock broke Wills' record for steals that year. The Dodgers had that great infield and although Smith was arguably LA's best player in 1977, baseball was back in love with another Reggie and his unification with Steinbrenner, Martin, and the Bronx Zoo. Smith slugged .727 in that Fall Classic, but nobody knows or cares, because Reggie Jackson was putting on an even more impressive show for the other team.

In that context, I can easily see how Reggie Smith, an excellent player, could have slid through the cracks. Nevertheless, he was a great player, and a borderline Hall of Famer.