Harold Baines a HOFer?

[edsachs1]

I think that Baines was the best DH of all time. I was just wondering what other people thought. Does he belong in the Hall or not? Will DH become similar to the relief pitcher in terms whether they belong in the Hall or not?

[micsmith]

Harold Baines was a really good player who definitely merits consideration for the Hall.
PROS: one of the best if not the best DH ever, even though he played about two-fifths of his games in the outfield. Edgar Martinez fans would probably put him ahead of Baines and I think it will be tough not to compare Baines and Martinez when the time comes for Baines’s eligibility. Baines also has 2866 hits, the most of any non-hall of famer (presumably Henderson, Boggs, Gwynn, Ripken and Palmeiro are in). And Baines was a 6-time all-star. He was an all-star at DH and outfield. 384 career home runs isn’t too bad either. 1628 RBI placed him in the top 20 at the time he retired. He’s pretty high on the all-time list of total bases and extra base hits
CONS: Not only did he never win any major awards, he never put together a season that was extraordinary. He never reached 200 hits or 30 homers. He never scored 100 runs and he never hit better than .313. His lifetime AVG, OBP and SLG are good but not outstanding. He never led his league once in any major statistical category except in 1984 when he led the AL in slugging. He bounced around among five different teams in his career. Many of his DH records have been eclipsed by Edgar Martinez who was a DH in fewer games. It took Baines 22 seasons to compile all those hits and RBI, and he only hit over 100 RBI three times. Baines best years are far worse than the best years of other players not yet in the hall like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson. More than anything else, you’d have to be a much better DH to get the votes to get in, designated hitters just aren’t viewed as highly as some people feel they should be.

Baines retired in 2001, so his first year of eligibility won’t see him in since he has to compete with Gwynn, McGwire and Ripken. Over the next few years, he’ll have to compete against the likes of Henderson, McGriff, Raines, Martinez, Belle, Canseco and the guys who are already on the list like Sandberg, Dawson and Rice. Was Baines really that much better than any of these guys that he could distinguish himself in the voters’ minds? His chances will decrease the longer he stays on the ballot, partially because we’ll see him have to compete for votes against Bonds, Palmeiro, Biggio, Alomar, and then Sosa, Griffey, Sheffield, Bagwell, Thomas, Gonzalez, Piazza and Walker and Baines won’t be able to compete with these guys.

[Brad Harris]

Edgar Martinez, not Harold Baines is the greatest DH ever.

Baines career totals are a product of longevity, not greatness. As micsmith pointed out, Baines totaled 100 RBI in a season only thrice in a 22-year career.

Good player for a long time. Not a Hall of Famer. Dale Murphy, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson (to name a few contemporaries) belong in before Baines. So does Edgar Martinez for that matter.

[bake mcbride]

I, too, have to say that Edgar Martinez is the best DH of all-time. Baines is second with Hal McRae taking third.

However, while Baines was a terrific hitter over the duration of his career, he did collect some of those numbers late in his career when he was no longer quite as effective as he had once been, although still a quality hitter, and while he has more career homers, RBI and hits than Edgar, he did play five more seasons, was an All-Star one fewer times, never won a batting title (Edgar won two) and has a career average below .300.

Don't get me wrong, I think Baines is definetly deserving of consideration, and should be looked upon as a great hitter that just isn't quite great enough for Cooperstown.

Bottom line: if Edgar doesn't get in, Baines doesn't get in.

[Cougar]

I'm very sympathetic to Baines. I think he was a wonderful all-around hitter and a fine outfielder while he could man the position (which many forget).

But I've got to agree that there are several people ahead of him in the HOF queue.

Never mind the DH (at least for the moment); consider him a RF -- is he really better than Andre Dawson or Dave Parker? Tony Oliva? Dwight Evans? He might be better than Rusty Staub, but he might not be. Same with Bobby Bonds -- depends on peak vs. career weighting.

And that's just eligibles -- you've got guys like Gwynn, Sosa, Canseco, Gonzalez, Ramirez, etc. (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone important).

Despite the nice career totals he compiled, Baines just gets left in the dust. Add the DH issue, and there's just no way. He probably will fall off the ballot in the first year. (Baines deserves a better fate than that, but not the Hall.)

[Brad Harris]

Originally Posted by Cougar

He probably will fall off the ballot in the first year.

One can only hope.

One of the most frustrating things about the BBWAA is their inability to elect someone of Gary Carter or Ryne Sandberg's quality relatively quickly while players with no real justification receive scant support from an entrenched minority. If it's obvious that Baines (for example) doesn't belong in the Hall, we should hope he leaves the ballot as expeditiously as possible so the voters can focus on the handful of candidates with more legitimate cases.

The fact that some people want to project Hall of Fame voting (for people who were never elected) as some kind of statement on the quality of their career is unecessary. The election is set up to say one thing "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer." There's no "ranking" of candidates from most worthy on down. (Although I'm inclined to think there ought to be.)

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by Chancellor

One of the most frustrating things about the BBWAA is their inability to elect someone of Gary Carter or Ryne Sandberg's quality relatively quickly while players with no real justification receive scant support from an entrenched minority.

I agree. Ballot clutter is making the BBWAA voting sclerotic. Having a guy like Sandberg suck up votes for 3-5 years when he should be in immediately is unjust not only to him but also to other players on the ballot who might receive more consideration otherwise.

However, I actually don't think the BBWAA has regularly given 5%+ to anyone who really doesn't have a case. In fact, they've dropped some excellent candidates. Lou Whitaker, Ron Guidry, Keith Hernandez, Joe Carter, Graig Nettles, Dwight & Darrell Evans all come to mind.

The problem is more at the top than the bottom.

Originally Posted by Chancellor

If it's obvious that Baines (for example) doesn't belong in the Hall, we should hope he leaves the ballot as expeditiously as possible so the voters can focus on the handful of candidates with more legitimate cases.

The fact that some people want to project Hall of Fame voting (for people who were never elected) as some kind of statement on the quality of their career is unecessary. The election is set up to say one thing "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer." There's no "ranking" of candidates from most worthy on down. (Although I'm inclined to think there ought to be.)

To speak directly to Baines -- I guess Chancellor's right that if he's not a HOF, he should just drop off right away. But, although I don't, reasonable people can support Baines's candidacy -- this isn't a Jim Deshaies or Juan Samuel situation here. Given that, I'm inclined to prefer having him eligible for a few extra years for consideration rather than dropping him after one cursory ballot. An analogy might be that Type II error (acquitting a guilty man, or keeping an unworthy on the ballot) is preferable to Type I error (convicting an innocent, or dropping a worthy HOF from the ballot).

My favored solution to the "clutter problem" is to drop the 10 vote limit. If you think there are more than 10 worthies on a ballot (a minority view, I think, but one I happen to hold for the last several ballots), then dammit, you should be able to answer your question -- "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer" -- affirmatively for all of them. The 10 vote limit in effect does create the ranking situation from "most worthy" on down that Chancellor claims doesn't exist.

[Brad Harris]

In pragmatical terms, I certainly endorse the idea that the 10-man limit should be removed. Either a player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't and the voters who feel there are 11-14 "Hall of Famers" on a ballot should certainly be given as much opportunity to express that opinion as those who feel there are only 3-4 already have by filling out a balloting with fewer names. I don't think that would get the top candidates inducted that much quicker, necessarily, but it would certainly help sort out how the voters feel about logjams at a particular position.

The Blyleven/Morris/John group would more accurately depict how voters felt. So would the Rice/Dawson group and, perhaps most assisted, the Gossage/Sutter/Smith group. Voters with a full ballot shouldn't have to "pick" between worthy candidates any more than voters shouldn't be required to put 10 names down.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've resurrected this in light of the referenced to Baines in the Dawson thread.

Bainsey gave it a good run in 1998-1999, but fell off the map in 2000 and had but a handful of ABs in 2001. The thing that hurts Baines is that he played over 1,600 games as a DH and under 1,100 in the OF. He was a good OF in his day, but there is little question but that he would not have amassed his career totals had it not been for the DH.

If Bainsey had been a career RF, he'd be a favorite for the Hall. He had 2,866 career hits, a .289 BA, with a good OBP and slugging pct. Baines didn't hit a single "milestone", but I cannot think of a single player so close to 3K hits and 400 HRs with a BA as high as Baines' that didn't make a strong candidate. He was well rounded on offense, and he'd have been a strong candidate if he played the field all the way.

In Baines' case, I would not give him any slack for being a DH. Unlike Edgar and Papi, who could have been trotted out to 1B if necessary, Baines' career was artificially extended by the DH, perhaps more than any other player in history. It's a tribute to his hitting that it was, but if he had to play the field, he may not have made it to 2,000 hits.

[Redondos]

Does Harold Baines belong in the hall?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Baines was a very good player for a long time. He was never in his day considered a superstar. Some may scoff at contemporary opinions, and there is legitimacy, but Baines was just a good DH. He did not post the numbers Edgar Martinez, Paul Molitor, Frank Thomas, or Dave Parker would post in a single season as a DH. A HOF'er should have something that stands out above his peers, anything. Baines did his job and did his job well. But he was not a HOF'er.

[milladrive]

I dunno, this is a good one. We could toss out some pretty impressive numbers for a guy who played 22 seasons with only a fraction of his playing time on defense. Over 2800 hits, BA near .290, OPS+ about 120, almost 400 homers, lots of successful postseasons, etc., yet still questionable.

I think Baines is a prime example of why it'd be difficult for a dedicated DH to make the Hall. In spite of this, and despite my general distate for the DH, I propose that his offensive production makes him worthy. I vote yes on Baines.

[Colorado Express]

I'm going to say no, but only because he was a steady solid performer, but lacks many dominant seasons.

[KCGHOST]

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

[Redondos]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

Myopic? Look at yourself in the mirror.

If Baines had 134 more hits, then he would be a lock-stock shoo-in for the hall, defensive value or no. As it stands, he is at the very least, a borderline candidate.

And I think Baines' defensive value is being underrated by some folks here. That, or they have forgotten that he was a very good defensive right fielder and was the Sox's regular there for the first 7 seasons of his career, playing only 6 games as a DH during that stretch. It was only after he seriously injured his knee and underwent a series of surgeries that the Sox made him a fulltime DH. So he became a DH, not because the Sox was trying to hide a bad glove, but because they didn't want him to aggravate the chronic condition of his knee.

[538280]

Baines was a solid hitter over his career but not a HOF one, especially for a corner OF/DH. His longevity is nice, but much of it comes from being a DH to begin with and even though he lasted really long, he never was a great guy for durability in season, many of his years he played 140 games or less. He was a good player for a long time but was never great and only barely got to even where I'd call him "very good" over his career.

[AlecBoy006]

Tony Perez (934) *
Al Kaline (877) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Rusty Staub (852)
Andre Dawson (851)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (825)
Fred McGriff (809)
Andres Galarraga (807)

Those are his most similar players, and one could argue that all of these men are consideration worthy. I think comparing Baines to Kaline is an insult, but that's just me.

[milladrive]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

My what? Well, just for that, innuendo.

Originally Posted by Redondos

If Baines had 134 more hits, then he would be a lock-stock shoo-in for the hall, defensive value or no. As it stands, he is at the very least, a borderline candidate.

And I think Baines' defensive value is being underrated by some folks here. That, or they have forgotten that he was a very good defensive right fielder and was the Sox's regular there for the first 7 seasons of his career, playing only 6 games as a DH during that stretch. It was only after he seriously injured his knee and underwent a series of surgeries that the Sox made him a fulltime DH. So he became a DH, not because the Sox was trying to hide a bad glove, but because they didn't want him to aggravate the chronic condition of his knee.

Great post.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I remember noting that Bainsey was giving the HOF a run for its money in the last years of the decade. After the 1999 season, Bainsey was probably at 50-50 in his chances for 3,000 hits. Those 3,000 hits would have come with 400 HRs, and a decent BA. Bainsey slipped in 2000, and was done in 2001.

Baines' raw numbers are borderline HOF for a career corner outfielder, and, particularly, a career right fielder. Baines' long career is a sign of greatness; he retained most of his hitting ability through age 40; he dropped off at 41 and played poorly at age 42, but was still on an MLB roster. These are the kinds of things that HOFers do.

This has to be balanced off by two factors:

(A) Baines played 1,041 games in the OF, but he DH'd for 1,644 games. That's an extremely LOW percentage of games in the field for a prospective HOFer. Viewed as a career DH, his numbers lose some luster.

(B) The reason Baines DH"d so much was his health. His knees were bad enough to make him a full-time DH at age 28. Baines isn't like Big Papi, who DH's because he's a poor fielder, but would be at 1B if the DH went away; he DH'd because he would have been out of baseball for health reasons if there were no DH.

Without the DH, Baines would have been done in his early 30s. His knees would not have stood up to everyday play; he'd have to have been platooned, given lots of rest, settle into a 4th outfielder role. He MIGHT have been able to play full-time for a few more years, but it is reasonable to suppose that if Baines had done so, he would not have approached 2,500 hits, or 350 HRs. Baines is not even in the HOF discussion without his approaching the 3K milestone; if he was at 2,500 hits, even, we wouldn't be bringing him up here.

He could have been great. He was underrated in his best years. He played in some tough parks. He held his ability to hit a long time. But had there been no DH, Harold Baines would have been done as a regular by 33, and out of the majors soon afterward. He was a memorable player, and a valuable one, but he's not a HOFer.

[mtortolero]

It´s amazing the things you can discover at baseball-reference with their new splits option:
I was asking myself why Baines, after he was 30 years old and only playing as DH never took more than 500 AB in any othe following 12 seasons.
Well, the answer says a lot about why Baines was so good hitter. Take a look at his splits against RHP/LHP:

--------PA----AB--AVG-- OBP--SLG--OPS
Vs RHP 8473 7490 .296 .369 .483 .852
Vs LHP 2619 2418 .267 .313 .409 .722
carrer 11092 9908 .289 .356 .465 .821

Baines was not only a DH by a great part of his carrer; not, he was a specialist LHB playing practically only as a platton hitter against RHP.
85% of his carrer´s AB were against RHP, having 130 OPS carrer points of diference when he was at bat against LHP. i suppose that DH is the best position in baseball where this option is valid.
No way I can give to Baines the same consideration as any other hitter playing his carrer only as DH and only batting against RHP.

[MadHatter]

Looking at Harold Baines' career, his numbers are good.

Baseball Reference stacks him up against:
Tony Perez (935) *
Al Kaline (878) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Andre Dawson (852)
Rusty Staub (852)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (826)
Fred McGriff (808)
Andres Galarraga (807)

* indicates a HOF member

interesting list of some fringe players. IMO Perez shouldn't be in the Hall... should Baines?

[Griffey24-30]

Originally Posted by MadHatter

Looking at Harold Baines' career, his numbers are good.

Baseball Reference stacks him up against:
Tony Perez (935) *
Al Kaline (878) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Andre Dawson (852)
Rusty Staub (852)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (826)
Fred McGriff (808)
Andres Galarraga (807)

* indicates a HOF member

interesting list of some fringe players. IMO Perez shouldn't be in the Hall... should Baines?

I think he should be. Why? I dunno. I just do. I've always liked him.

[KCGHOST]

Good hitter, but not a great. Most BBFers like Baines, but don't see him as an HoFer. Fits nicely in the Hall of the Very Good. If you could only pick one retired DH, who would it be?? Baines or Edgar Martinez??

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...ghlight=baines

[MadHatter]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

Good hitter, but not a great. Most BBFers like Baines, but don't see him as an HoFer. Fits nicely in the Hall of the Very Good. If you could only pick one retired DH, who would it be?? Baines or Edgar Martinez??

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...ghlight=baines

Personally, I'd go with Edgar.

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by MadHatter

Looking at Harold Baines' career, his numbers are good.

Baseball Reference stacks him up against:
Tony Perez (935) *
Al Kaline (878) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Andre Dawson (852)
Rusty Staub (852)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (826)
Fred McGriff (808)
Andres Galarraga (807)

* indicates a HOF member

interesting list of some fringe players. IMO Perez shouldn't be in the Hall... should Baines?

These comps are based on statistical comparisons. Baines fares well here because he accumulated a lot counting stats over a long, productive career. I'm a Baines fan...he wouldn't tarnish the Hall by any stretch.

But...

Deconstruct the comps a little further: The only player he's "truly" comparable to (using James's lexicon, if I recall it correctly...a score more than 900) is Tony Perez.

Perez's career was nearly a full generation before Baines', mostly during the offense-starved '60s and '70s. He played two-thirds of his career at 1b, one-third at 3b, and DHed only briefly for Boston as he transitioned into a part-time role. He was a key player in a legendary dynasty.

Baines was a primary DH for 61% of his games; a catastrophic knee injury necessitated the transition from RF (where he had been a good fielder) after his 7th season; he had spot duty in the OF for several seasons after that, but in his final 9 seasons he only played two half-innings in the OF. He benefited from the high-offense 90's, and outside of a secondary role on the A's Bash Brothers squads, never really played for a great team, although he made it to the playoffs a few times -- where he played well.

My point -- Perez and Baines are comparable, but Perez is clearly better when you put them both under a microscope.

The rest:
Kaline > Baines (Much better...this comp is an artifact of the 60's.)
Dave Parker > HB
Billy Williams > HB
Dawson > HB

Staub -- I can see an argument for Baines here...I'll take Rusty.

Dewey Evans, Crime Dog, Big Cat...I'll take them all over Baines. Baines is better than Chili Davis.

It's not just the fielding of the other guys...though that matters -- most of them, especially towards the top of the list, put together MVP-level peaks where they were considered one of the very best players in the league. Baines never really approached that level...he might have, if not for the knee injuries, but he didn't.

Baines might end up, in a few generations, being the best player NOT in the HOF. That strikes me as perhaps about right.