PDA

View Full Version : Harold Baines Needs To Be In The HOF.


Thome25
01-13-2009, 11:21 AM
If Jim freaking Rice is a HOFer then a case needs to be made for our own Harold Baines. Haarrrooollldd is the best DH ever to play the game IMHO. His numbers are pretty comparable to Rice's

Jim Rice's Career #'s:

G 2089 AB 8225 R 1249 H 2452 2B 373 3B 79 HR 382 RBI 1451 SB 58 CS 34 BB 670 SO 1423 BA .298 OBP .352 SLG .502 TB 4129

Harold Baines' Career #'s:

G 2830 AB 9908 R 1299 H 2866 2B 488 3B 49 HR 384 RBI 1628 SB 34 CS 34 BB 1062 SO 1441 BA .289 OBP .356 SLG .465 TB 4604

Pretty close huh? So IMO either both deserve to go since Rice's numbers were good enough or neither do and Rice or Baines both shouldn't be there.

So does Baines deserve to go now? I sure think he does just based on the numbers. What do you think?

kittle42
01-13-2009, 11:25 AM
It's not that close. Baines played in 2800 more games. 800. That's a lot. Thus, his numbers should actually be higher than Rice's in several categories before really being considered "close."

hi im skot
01-13-2009, 11:26 AM
Didn't Rice spend his entire career in the outfield?

I didn't see Baines in his prime, but the numbers are obviously solid. However, it took Harold 800 more games to reach comparable numbers.

Obviously, the big knock against Harold is the fact that he spent so much of his career as a DH.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 11:29 AM
It's not that close. Baines played in 2800 more games. 800. That's a lot. Thus, his numbers should actually be higher than Rice's in several categories before really being considered "close."

Baines has 400+ more hits, 100+ more doubles, 200 more RBI, 400 more walks and 500 more TB. He did surpass Rice by A LOT in quite a few categories.

Baines played in 700 more games.....that's roughly 4 more seasons.....not as many as you would think.

PennStater98r
01-13-2009, 11:36 AM
I love Baines - but... Rice doesn't even deserve to be in.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 11:40 AM
I love Baines - but... Rice doesn't even deserve to be in.

You maybe right.....Rice probably doesn't deserve to go. Based on the numbers, maybe both shouldn't be there. But, we can't pull Rice out of the HOF now and if his #'s were good enough then Baines' definitely are good enough to be a HOFer too.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 11:41 AM
I hate the logic that X is in - so Y should be. Because it fails if X is in and doesn't deserve so.

In my eyes, Baines was very good. So was Rice. So was Santo. So was John. So was....

But I wouldn't put any of them in the HOF.

thomas35forever
01-13-2009, 11:44 AM
While it's nice to see him on the ballot year after year, I just don't think he has the credentials necessary to get in.

soxfan13
01-13-2009, 11:46 AM
Baines has 400+ more hits, 100+ more doubles, 200 more RBI, 400 more walks and 500 more TB. He did surpass Rice by ALOT in quite a few categories.

Baines played in 700 more games.....that's roughly 4 more seasons.....not as many as you would think.

Add 4 more full seasons to the stats for Rice and you are looking at about 500 HRs, about 1800 or so ribbies, a lot more TB and walks etc, etc etc. So yes 4 seasons is a lot more then you think. Harold's numbers would really look so-so (in comparison to Rice) if Rice had the extra time.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 11:48 AM
While it's nice to see him on the ballot year after year, I just don't think he has the credentials necessary to get in.

My point is we all know the credentials necessary. 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 3,000 strikeouts etc.

But, if Rice's stats were good enough then the bar for those credentials just got lowered. Players on the borderline of good/greatness are now being voted into the hall. Is it right? Maybe......maybe not. But, as we sit today after the HOF voting this weekiend, Rice getting voted in opened the door for players like Baines IMHO.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 11:51 AM
My point is we all know the credentials necessary. 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 3,000 strikeouts etc.

But, if Rice's stats were good enough then the bar for those credentials just got lowered. Players on the borderline of good/greatness are now being voted into the hall. Is it right? Maybe......maybe not. But, as we sit today after the HOF voting this weekiend, Rice getting voted in opened the door for players like Baines IMHO.
I really hope not. One mistake should not justify future ones.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 11:55 AM
I really hope not. One mistake should not justify future ones.

The question we have to ask is if Rice got in because he played in Boston. Is it the Hall of Fame, and Really Good Yankees and Red Sox? Or is the Hall of Fame with a few mistakes.

If you go with the logic that Rice gets in, so Baines should, then Santo deserves in - and quickly. I hope this isn't where the HOF is heading.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 12:01 PM
The question we have to ask is if Rice got in because he played in Boston. Is it the Hall of Fame, and Really Good Yankees and Red Sox? Or is the Hall of Fame with a few mistakes.

If you go with the logic that Rice gets in, so Baines should, then Santo deserves in - and quickly. I hope this isn't where the HOF is heading.

This isn't where the HOF is heading.....the HOF is already there. I believe players are being voted in because of what teams they played for and there may be some who's credentials are questionable (Rice and Bill Mazeroski come to mind.)

But, WTS the HOF has been going in this direction for quite some time. I'd hate to say it but, it probably already is at the destination that you are dreading so much.

IMO if these guys deserve to go and the HOF bar is being lowered from a numbers standpoint, then my guy Harold Baines deserves to be there too.

When I found out yesterday that Jim Rice got voted in, I looked at my TV and said "WHAT?!" outloud to myself in disbelief. Then I said, "if Rice deserves to go then so does Baines."

LITTLE NELL
01-13-2009, 12:14 PM
How the hell Rice got in baffles me, but no doubt about it, if he's in so should Baines.

pythons007
01-13-2009, 12:14 PM
Question: Now that Rice has been selected to the HOF, are we now going to be hearing more Santo bitching and having this point added to his argument?

I know he is going to be out soon bitching about this!

Woofer
01-13-2009, 12:17 PM
I think this is one of the big differences between us Sox fans and the Cub fans. Cub fans see someone who has had a great career, such as Dawson, Lee Smith, or Santo, and never stop praising their glory and complaining that they belong in the HOF. (Regardless of their lack of HOF numbers)

Us Sox fans are always too fact oriented and we let the numbers tell the story for us. We know we had some great players that have been snubbed by the HOF voters. I feel that Baines, Dick Allen, Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso should get at least some mention for HOF. We are not crying and screaming about this, and neither are these players. Compare this to the whining of Lee Smith and Santo. You hear who gets all the media attention. It's always the loud person who gets heard. We should start getting louder.

kaufsox
01-13-2009, 12:22 PM
If you think Harlold is close, compare Dale Murphy's stats to Rice, even more similar and yet people dismiss him almost out of hand. Perhaps if we started refering to all on the fence players as "most feared" then Harlod and Dale would get a fair hearing.

wilburaga
01-13-2009, 12:23 PM
One discriminatring question you can ask about Rice and Baines is was either one ever the most feared hitter in the game. The answer, IMHO, is yes and no respectively.

W

Thome25
01-13-2009, 12:24 PM
I think this is one of the big differences between us Sox fans and the Cub fans. Cub fans see someone who has had a great career, such as Dawson, Lee Smith, or Santo, and never stop praising their glory and complaining that they belong in the HOF. (Regardless of their lack of HOF numbers)

Us Sox fans are always too fact oriented and we let the numbers tell the story for us. We know we had some great players that have been snubbed by the HOF voters. I feel that Baines, Dick Allen, Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso should get at least some mention for HOF. We are not crying and screaming about this, and neither are these players. Compare this to the whining of Lee Smith and Santo. You hear who gets all the media attention. It's always the loud person who gets heard. We should start getting louder.

I agree....if Rice and the Red Sawx fanbase can trumpet his way into the hall then we should get behind our guys who we think should be there. Especially Baines, Allen, Billy Pierce, and Minnie Minoso.

If some of these other guys deserve to go then OUR guys deserve our help to get in. Especially the ones who deserved to go before Rice was elected. I'm looking at you Billy Pierce.

PaleHoser
01-13-2009, 12:34 PM
I'd love to see Harold get inducted, if only to see the shortest induction speech of all-time.

Jim Rice is not deserving. While I'm at it, add Dave Winfield to that list. How Winfield got in after leading the league in an triple crown category exactly once (118 RBI in 1979) in a 22 year career is beyond me. The only way they should be in the HoF is if they pay admission like the rest of us.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 12:45 PM
The Jim Rice issue is really a problem, as it opens up many doors for guys like Santo, Dawson, and Baines to get in. How do you deny them when the likes of Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, and now Rice get elected?

Knocking Baines because he was a DH for many years is a bit unfair, considering that Rice was a DH playing LF for ALL of his career.

Knocking Santo because he was a prick is a weak argument now because Cepeda and Rice were pricks to everyone too.

Previously I thought Andre Dawson fell a bit short, but I thought he was ahead of Rice as far as consideration. Now that Rice is in, Dawson should go in too. He was a better fielder by far, could really run in his prime, and was never the jerk that Rice, Santo, and Cepeda are/were.

Baines may have been quiet and low on the fanfare, but I never saw him turn down an autograph, rip anyone in the press, and even more so, haggle on his contracts. He was the ultimate team guy. I wish we had 25 Baines-types on the 2009 White Sox.

And speaking of Tony Perez, how do you keep Baines out and have Perez in? They both played about the same amount of years, but Perez only had six, maybe seven season that could be considered stellar. Baines had more HR's (despite never being considered a HR hitter), a higher SLG percentage, much higher career BA, more walks, way fewer K's.

Before 1987 Baines was a pretty good RF, with an arm that rivaled Andre Dawson's at the time. Perez was a very fair 1B and a below-average 3B, defensively.

At one time I felt Harold fell just short, but now, I have changed my thinking. Since the writers have decided to 'Socialize' the HOF, then I think Baines belongs, and electing Rice should only strengthen the cause.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 12:49 PM
Just my opinion, but I've always thought Rice and Dawson belong in, and Baines doesn't.

Rice dominated the AL for 12 years. He could have stuck around for 5-6 more years and compiled another 100 homers, but he decided to retire at 36. If you want to keep him out for not playing until he was 42, I guess that's your right. But he was an awesome player in the AL for 12 years--that's a long time. Rookie of the Year on a pennant winning team, won the 1978 MVP, with five more top-5 MVP seasons.

I think of Dawson more of an Expos player than a Cub. Over 400 homers. Over 300 stolen bases. Rookie of the Year. He won an MVP, with two 2nd place MVPs. 8 All Star teams. 8 Gold Gloves. That's a Hall of Fame career.

Baines never had a top 5 MVP year. Never had a 30-homer season. No batting titles--and was only in the top ten in BA 3 times. Only three 100 RBI seasons. Good career, but he falls short on many levels.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Just my opinion, but I've always thought Rice and Dawson belong in, and Baines doesn't.

Rice dominated the AL for 12 years. He could have stuck around for 5-6 more years and compiled another 100 homers, but he decided to retire at 36. If you want to keep him out for not playing until he was 42, I guess that's your right. But he was an awesome player in the AL for 12 years--that's a long time. Rookie of the Year on a pennant winning team, won the 1978 MVP, with five more top-5 MVP seasons.

I think of Dawson more of an Expos player than a Cub. Over 400 homers. Over 300 stolen bases. Rookie of the Year. He won an MVP, with two 2nd place MVPs. 8 All Star teams. 8 Gold Gloves. That's a Hall of Fame career.

Baines never had a top 5 MVP year. Never had a 30-homer season. No batting titles--and was only in the top ten in BA 3 times. Only three 100 RBI seasons. Good career, but he falls short on many levels.

On BOS 1986 AL Pennant team, Rice had a solid season, but the power numbers were already starting to slip.

If you saw Jim Rice play in 1987-89, it was obvious that his power and bat speed were gone. No way he would have hit another 100 HR's if he even tried to play. He lost it quick.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 12:55 PM
On BOS 1986 AL Pennant team, Rice had a solid season, but the power numbers were already starting to slip.

If you saw Jim Rice play in 1987-89, it was obvious that his power and bat speed were gone. No way he would have hit another 100 HR's if he even tried to play. He lost it quick.

That may be true--I'll give you that. Still doesn't take away from what he did for over a decade.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 12:55 PM
Bottom line is if guys like Cepeda, Perez, Winfield, and now Rice are elected in then, guys like Baines and Dawson definitely deserve to go in too.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 01:01 PM
Bottom line is if guys like Cepeda, Perez, Winfield, and now Rice are elected in then, guys like Baines and Dawson definitely deserve to go in too.

I won't argue that Cepeda, Perez, and Rice are borderline, but Winfield? Come on. 3110 hits. 465 homers. He's a no-brainer HOF player.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 01:10 PM
Bottom line is if guys like Cepeda, Perez, Winfield, and now Rice are elected in then, guys like Baines and Dawson definitely deserve to go in too.

Winfield definitely deserved it. He went right from the amateur ranks to the Major Leagues, and he produced great numbers well into his 40's. All the more deserving considering he missed an entire season recouperating from a back operation.

But regarding the others? I agree 100%.

Woofer
01-13-2009, 01:28 PM
I did a quick comparision of Baines and J Rices career numbers and where they are at in the standings of MLB history. I don't have time to go through them all, but here are some:
HR Baines is 53rd all time
Rice is 55th

RBI Baines is 28th
Rice is 56th

Hits Baines is 40th
Rice is 100th

2b Baines is 57th
Rice not in top 100

I think we need to get more vocal for quiet Harold!

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 01:33 PM
If Baines is elected, he will give the briefest, quickest, and lamest speech in HOF history!!!

He'd acknowledge Bill Veeck, Tony LaRussa, and Ozzie Guillen, and the fans. And that would be it.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 01:34 PM
I did a quick comparision of Baines and J Rices career numbers and where they are at in the standings of MLB history. I don't have time to go through them all, but here are some:
HR Baines is 53rd all time
Rice is 55th

RBI Baines is 28th
Rice is 56th

Hits Baines is 40th
Rice is 100th

2b Baines is 57th
Rice not in top 100

I think we need to get more vocal for quiet Harold!

When did Harold dominate a league for a 12-year period? When did Harold get a top-5 MVP, let alone win one? Have a 30 homer season? Knock in 120? Top five in the AL in batting average?

NLaloosh
01-13-2009, 01:40 PM
As someone that watched a lot of baseball in the 70's and 80's I would say that Rice was at a level above Baines as a hitter. You could say he was Manny Ramirez before Ramirez. He was that good and he is where he belongs in the HOF.

Baines was excellent but not an elite player.

Thome25
01-13-2009, 01:40 PM
When did Harold dominate a league for a 12-year period? When did Harold get a top-5 MVP, let alone win one? Have a 30 homer season? Knock in 120? Top five in the AL in batting average?


None of these things that you mentioned are clear-cut credentials to get someone elected into the HOF.....being ranked high on all time lists does.

Like I said before if Cepeda, Perez and Rice get elected to the HOF (I'll delete Winfield's name.) then Baines and Dawson definitely deserve to go just based on pure comparisons.

IMO because Baines played longer isn't an issue. That's like comparing Luke Appling to a HOF player with similar numbers and saying Appling doesn't deserve to be there because he played for 20 years when most other players didn't.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 01:43 PM
None of these things that you mentioned are clear-cut credentials to get someone elected into the HOF.....being ranked high on all time lists does.

Like I said before if Cepeda, Perez and Rice get elected to the HOF (I'll delete Winfield's name.) then Baines and Dawson definitely deserve to go just based on pure comparisons.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I won't be changing your mind, and you won't be changing mine.

Woofer
01-13-2009, 01:45 PM
When did Harold dominate a league for a 12-year period? When did Harold get a top-5 MVP, let alone win one? Have a 30 homer season? Knock in 120? Top five in the AL in batting average?

Harold was a dominate player for his whole career. He didn't put up league leader numbers, just solid numbers consistently. He was a year in and year out top 10 player.This is what HOF players do with their careers. Lots of players have great stretches. Harolds numbers speak for themselves.

soxfan13
01-13-2009, 01:49 PM
Harold was a dominate player for his whole career. He didn't put up league leader numbers, just solid numbers consistently. He was a year in and year out top 10 player.This is what HOF players do with their careers. Lots of players have great stretches. Harolds numbers speak for themselves.

Baines was a solid player for a long time. Rice was a dominate player for his whole career. There is a difference. You say Baines didnt put up league leader numbers but then turn around and say year in and year out he was a top 10 player. You are contradicting yourself. Baines numbers are a result of a longer career. Like you said he was a solid player.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 01:51 PM
Harold was a dominate player for his whole career. He didn't put up league leader numbers, just solid numbers consistently. He was a year in and year out top 10 player.This is what HOF players do with their careers. Lots of players have great stretches. Harolds numbers speak for themselves.

He had one 9th place MVP, and one 10th place MVP. Obviously, he was not a year in year out top 10 player. He had a few very nice seasons early in his career, and he was a very good hitter. He's not close to Rice's dominance, but again, if you believe that I'm not going to change your mind. :shrug:

NLaloosh
01-13-2009, 01:51 PM
Harold was a dominate player for his whole career. He didn't put up league leader numbers, just solid numbers consistently. He was a year in and year out top 10 player.This is what HOF players do with their careers. Lots of players have great stretches. Harolds numbers speak for themselves.

Baines finished 9th in MVP voting once. That was the only season in the top 10 in his whole career. He finished in the top 20 4 times. That's not an elite player. He was not "great" for a long stretcheof time. He was very good for a long stretch.

By the way, Tony Perez doesn't belong either.

NLaloosh
01-13-2009, 01:52 PM
He had one 9th place MVP, and one 10th place MVP. Obviously, he was not a year in year out top 10 player. He had a few very nice seasons early in his career, and he was a very good hitter. He's not close to Rice's dominance, but again, if you believe that I'm not going to change your mind. :shrug:

You just beat me to it. Echo.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 01:58 PM
Rice was a dominate player for his whole career.

This is on my top 5 list of grammar mistakes because of how frequently I see it.

I know this isn't a term paper, and I got your point - you don't need to remind me.


But to the post, Jim Rice was not dominant for his whole career. If he played in Pittsburgh, he'd get the same level of respect Dave Parker does.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 02:02 PM
He had one 9th place MVP, and one 10th place MVP. Obviously, he was not a year in year out top 10 player. He had a few very nice seasons early in his career, and he was a very good hitter. He's not close to Rice's dominance, but again, if you believe that I'm not going to change your mind. :shrug:

You also have to remember that Rice was always surrounded by some pretty good hitters. Baines played many a season in which he was pitched around so often he had to hit the ball the other way repeatedly.

Look at the lineups of the two teams.

Rice had the likes of Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, Fisk, George Scott, Tony Armas, etc. batting in front of behind him.

Baines had Vance Law, Scott Fletcher, Dave Gallagher, Dan Pasqua, Julio Cruz, Ron Kittle (post 1983), Jim Morrison, etc. and others protecting him in the line up.

I have no doubt Baines would have had another 50+ HR's if he thought of his stats instead of helping his team.

Baines also played a lot in Comiskey. Rice played in Fenway.

There are always a little more things than raw stats to consider...

soxfan13
01-13-2009, 02:05 PM
This is on my top 5 list of grammar mistakes because of how frequently I see it.

I know this isn't a term paper, and I got your point - you don't need to remind me.


But to the post, Jim Rice was not dominant for his whole career. If he played in Pittsburgh, he'd get the same level of respect Dave Parker does.

Sorryfornotcheckingmytypingidoknowthedifferenceand justspelleditwrong.Iknowyouarealwaysaroundtocatcht hat10thperson****ingupgrammar.youarerightthoughtak eawayhisfirstandlastyearawayandRicewasonlydominant for14outof16years.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 02:10 PM
Sorryfornotcheckingmytypingidoknowthedifferenceand justspelleditwrong.Iknowyouarealwaysaroundtocatcht hat10thperson****ingupgrammar.youarerightthoughtak eawayhisfirstandlastyearawayandRicewasonlydominant for14outof16years.

Are you a student from the Tony Phillips School of Conflict Resolution?:rolleyes:

soxfan13
01-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Are you a student from the Tony Phillips School of Conflict Resolution?:rolleyes:

Just gets old sometimes

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Just gets old sometimes

Touche'.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Neither Rice nor Baines deserves it. I'd love to see Baines have a plaque for selfish, fan-related reasons, but in my mind I'd know it was undeserved.

As for Rice? Just how many dominant years did he have?

According to Baseball-Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml), Rice had 14 years with at least 100 games played. Of those 14, he met the following thresholds:

.500 SLG: five times
140 OPS+: four times
.375 OBP: four times
top five MVP finish: six times

At most, I think you could say he had six "dominant" seasons. As for the "most feared" bull****, from 1975-1989, he was only twelfth in the AL (http://cybermetric.blogspot.com/2008/12/was-jim-rice-feared-hitter.html) in intentional walks. Kent Hrbek had just as many IBBs, and such legends as Ben Oglivie had more. Being twelfth shows he was feared, yes, but not "the most feared", which is the reason he has just been elected.

Britt Burns
01-13-2009, 02:49 PM
This stat explains why Rice is in and HB isn't:

Years in Boston or NY:
Rice - 12
Harold - 0

If Rice is in, HB should be too. Whether either deserve it is a different argument and moot now that Rice made it. Rice was a better hitter, but Harold did it longer and that should count.

Harold in 2010!

Nellie_Fox
01-13-2009, 02:52 PM
My point is we all know the credentials necessary. 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 3,000 strikeouts etc.

But, if Rice's stats were good enough then the bar for those credentials just got lowered.It's amazing how these things develop. These were never considered "necessary credentials" in the past. Then some media people noticed that having one or more of those things virtually guaranteed you entry, and pointed it out. Now it has evolved to where people think you MUST have one of them or you're not qualified. That's just crazy.

Getting one of these so-called "necessary credentials" in a twenty-five year career doesn't make you any more of a Hall of Famer than getting close to them in a fifteen-year career does.

You should have been a major impact player compared to others of your generation, during a fairly long "peak" period. Hanging on to get some number doesn't change what you were in your prime.

kittle42
01-13-2009, 02:52 PM
If Baines wasn't a White Sox, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Regardless of whether Rice should be in or not, Harold should not.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 02:56 PM
If Baines wasn't a White Sox, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Regardless of whether Rice should be in or not, Harold should not.

Agreed. Harold had his number retired and a statue built for him. That's his Hall of Fame.

Paulwny
01-13-2009, 03:00 PM
It's amazing how these things develop. These were never considered "necessary credentials" in the past. Then some media people noticed that having one or more of those things virtually guaranteed you entry, and pointed it out. Now it has evolved to where people think you MUST have one of them or you're not qualified. That's just crazy.

Getting one of these so-called "necessary credentials" in a twenty-five year career doesn't make you any more of a Hall of Famer than getting close to them in a fifteen-year career does.

You should have been a major impact player compared to others of your generation, during a fairly long "peak" period. Hanging on to get some number doesn't change what you were in your prime.

Absolutely correct, impact to the game/on the game is the biggest factor.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 03:06 PM
If Baines wasn't a White Sox, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Regardless of whether Rice should be in or not, Harold should not.
Truer words have not been spoken in this thread.

Hypothetically, let's say I told you I had an OF/DH who had this average line:
.313/.403/.541, 29 HR, 113 RBI, 89 R.

You would consider him for the Hall of Fame, right? He wouldn't be a slam dunk, but he'd be acceptable.

Those are Baines's career highs.

His actual averages are .289/.356/.465, 22 HR, 93 RBI, 74 R. Those would be poor for a Hall of Fame OF in any era, let alone the 80s and then 90s, when offense was up.

1917
01-13-2009, 03:14 PM
If the Baseball HOF was as loose as the Football, yes he would be in, but the standards that the baseball HOF holds, no way. He was a great player, a solid player, but not a Baseball HOF player....Dawson was a 2 time MVP, he is out....one of my favorite childhood players, Dale Murphy, 2 time NL MVP, who played on the Braves when they were God awful, he isn't even close!! I mean Roger Maris isn't in (I know Maris career #'s were not eye popping but he was a 2 time MVP who was the only Legit guy to break Ruths record, he deserves to be in).

Woofer
01-13-2009, 03:15 PM
If Baines wasn't a White Sox, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Regardless of whether Rice should be in or not, Harold should not.

If Harold had played much of his career with the Cubs, would the Cub fans be saying he deserved to be in the HOF? I say yes.

hi im skot
01-13-2009, 03:22 PM
If Harold had played much of his career with the Cubs, would the Cub fans be saying he deserved to be in the HOF? I say yes.

What do the Cubs have to do with this?

Woofer
01-13-2009, 03:31 PM
What do the Cubs have to do with this?

Are you saying that you've never heard a fan whine about a good player with "close but no cigar" numbers not being in the HOF? That's what this whole thread is about. As I pointed out earlier, if Harold was a Cub, (And yes I know there is no dh in the NL) you would be hearing some griping about how many HOF votes Harold got yesterday. Us Sox fans realize he probably will never make it in. We are more realistic, as a whole.

kittle42
01-13-2009, 03:38 PM
If Harold had played much of his career with the Cubs, would the Cub fans be saying he deserved to be in the HOF? I say yes.

Yes, and they'd also be wrong.

Zisk77
01-13-2009, 04:07 PM
Yes, and they'd also be wrong.

Yes, Thats what it means to be a cub fan, wrong. Its redundent.

TDog
01-13-2009, 04:10 PM
It's amazing how these things develop. These were never considered "necessary credentials" in the past. Then some media people noticed that having one or more of those things virtually guaranteed you entry, and pointed it out. Now it has evolved to where people think you MUST have one of them or you're not qualified. That's just crazy.

Getting one of these so-called "necessary credentials" in a twenty-five year career doesn't make you any more of a Hall of Famer than getting close to them in a fifteen-year career does.

You should have been a major impact player compared to others of your generation, during a fairly long "peak" period. Hanging on to get some number doesn't change what you were in your prime.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

If there were "necessary credentials," someof those deserving wouldn't be in and some of those in wouldn't be deserving.

Madscout
01-13-2009, 04:45 PM
If the Baseball HOF was as loose as the Football, yes he would be in, but the standards that the baseball HOF holds, no way. He was a great player, a solid player, but not a Baseball HOF player....Dawson was a 2 time MVP, he is out....one of my favorite childhood players, Dale Murphy, 2 time NL MVP, who played on the Braves when they were God awful, he isn't even close!! I mean Roger Maris isn't in (I know Maris career #'s were not eye popping but he was a 2 time MVP who was the only Legit guy to break Ruths record, he deserves to be in).
I would put Legit in quotes as well. That's a pretty short fence.

WhiteSox5187
01-13-2009, 05:56 PM
Baines has 2,800 hits for the love of God! If he had put up those numbers in Boston or New York, he'd be getting in the Hall. If Rice is in, Baines is in too. Like I said in another post, if you go to baseball-reference and look at the hitters he is compared to, there are about five HOFers there!

Johnny Mostil
01-13-2009, 06:08 PM
If Baines wasn't a White Sox, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Regardless of whether Rice should be in or not, Harold should not.

Yeah, it's amazing what folks will discuss at White Sox Interactive. :rolleyes:

For the record: neither Baines nor Rice in the HoF (even if one has been elected); both for the Hall of Very Good.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 06:15 PM
Baines has 2,800 hits for the love of God! If he had put up those numbers in Boston or New York, he'd be getting in the Hall. If Rice is in, Baines is in too. Like I said in another post, if you go to baseball-reference and look at the hitters he is compared to, there are about five HOFers there!

Yeah, that stellar career 0.29 MVP shares just screams Hall of Fame. :rolleyes:

Woofer
01-13-2009, 06:24 PM
Yeah, that stellar career 0.29 MVP shares just screams Hall of Fame. :rolleyes:

Is MVP the most unimportant stat ever? What is it based on besides the popularity of the person being voted for? Is the MVP almost always someone from either Boston or NY? Do they always deserve said award over someone from a smaller market team who doesn't get the same amount of press? These are questions that should be thought about. IMO, MVP doesn't mean squat.

Daver
01-13-2009, 06:41 PM
If Harold wants in buy a ticket.

The baseball HOF becomes more of joke with each passing year, within the next ten years it will have the same signifigance as the Bowling HOF in St. Louis, probably less actually, the Bowling HOF has actual standards.

Tragg
01-13-2009, 06:42 PM
If you go with the logic that Rice gets in, so Baines should, then Santo deserves in - and quickly.


Well, that ought to stop the clammor for Baines - if he gets in, then Santo gets in.

I agree with you - Rice, Baines, Santo aren't hall of famers.

sox1970
01-13-2009, 06:48 PM
Is MVP the most unimportant stat ever? What is it based on besides the popularity of the person being voted for? Is the MVP almost always someone from either Boston or NY? Do they always deserve said award over someone from a smaller market team who doesn't get the same amount of press? These are questions that should be thought about. IMO, MVP doesn't mean squat.

The MVP is voted by two beat writers from each AL city, so it's not a Boston/New York thing. Each voter picks the top 10 in the league, and Baines only had two top-10's. I only brought up the MVP shares because the poster brought up baseball-reference.com, but the 0.29 is telling when comparing Baines to his peers.

Woofer
01-13-2009, 07:14 PM
The MVP is voted by two beat writers from each AL city, so it's not a Boston/New York thing. Each voter picks the top 10 in the league, and Baines only had two top-10's. I only brought up the MVP shares because the poster brought up baseball-reference.com, but the 0.29 is telling when comparing Baines to his peers.

I'm just saying that the MVP award sometimes goes to a someone more popular, and less deserving.

kittle42
01-13-2009, 07:25 PM
Yeah, it's amazing what folks will discuss at White Sox Interactive. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. It's true. I'm not saying don't discuss it. I'm saying the Baines HOF-supporters here are obviously biased, and looking at it objectively (yes, that IS possible, even on White Sox Interactive), he should not get in.

BainesHOF
01-13-2009, 07:31 PM
Many of you are making arguments against Baines about a horse that has clearly left the Hall of Fame barn a long time ago. While a legitimate argument can be made on both sides of the Baines Hall of Fame argument, please acknowledge the reality of the situation. Of course Baines doesn't compare to the likes of Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Bench and Schmidt. But he does compare favorably to some other Hall of Famers.

Baines is way up on the career lists in RBI (28th with 1,628) and hits (40th with 2,866). Based on those numbers, you could say he easily ranks as one of the top 50 hitters in baseball history. That alone makes him deserving of much more serious Hall of Fame consideration, if not outright enshrinement. And Baines was a better clutch hitter than many Hall of Famers.

I think many on this site are writing off Baines too easily. The guy didn't rack up his career totals by accident. His contemporaries sure respected him on the field like few others. Baines' 187 intentional walks rank 19th in baseball history.

tstrike2000
01-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Baines obviously has good numbers and people debate whether or not he should be in the Hall. I personally think Baines isn't quite HOF worthy, but IMO I don't think Rice is either.

itsnotrequired
01-13-2009, 07:59 PM
If Jim freaking Rice is a HOFer then a case needs to be made for our own Harold Baines. Haarrrooollldd is the best DH ever to play the game IMHO. His numbers are pretty comparable to Rice's

Jim Rice's Career #'s:

G 2089 AB 8225 R 1249 H 2452 2B 373 3B 79 HR 382 RBI 1451 SB 58 CS 34 BB 670 SO 1423 BA .298 OBP .352 SLG .502 TB 4129

Harold Baines' Career #'s:

G 2830 AB 9908 R 1299 H 2866 2B 488 3B 49 HR 384 RBI 1628 SB 34 CS 34 BB 1062 SO 1441 BA .289 OBP .356 SLG .465 TB 4604

Pretty close huh? So IMO either both deserve to go since Rice's numbers were good enough or neither do and Rice or Baines both shouldn't be there.

So does Baines deserve to go now? I sure think he does just based on the numbers. What do you think?

look at the 162 game averages:

Jim Rice:

AB 638 R 97 H 190 2B 29 3B 6 HR 60 RBI 113 SB 4 CS 3 BB 52 SO 110 BA .298 OBP .352 SLG .502 TB 4129

Harold Baines:

AB 567 R 74 H 164 2B 28 3B 3 HR 22 RBI 93 SB 2 CS 2 BB 61 SO 82 BA .289 OBP .356 SLG .465 TB 320

Aside from the BB/K numbers, Rice comes way out on top.

Rice was an MVP (and in the top five in four other seasons), second in ROY voting, seven-time all star, two-time silver slugger, led the league in total bases four times, home runs three times, slugging twice, RBIs twice, hits once, extra base hits once and OPS once. Dozens of other top five offensive categories in the seasons he played.

Baines never got higher than ninth in MVP voting, six-time all star, one silver slugger. He led the league in slugging once. Aside from finishing second in triples, third in singles and fifth in hits all in different seasons, he never finished in the top five in the league in any other major offensive category.

Comparing these two players is a waste. Rice really shouldn't be in there but Baines definitely shouldn't be in there.

tstrike2000
01-13-2009, 08:00 PM
I agree with you - Rice, Baines, Santo aren't hall of famers.

They were saying on the news yesterday that it took Rice so long because he had trouble getting along with his teammates and coaches over the course of his career. How about he didn't get in all those years and shouldn't have gotten in this year because his career wasn't HOF worthy.

whitesox901
01-13-2009, 08:42 PM
I say he should

TornLabrum
01-13-2009, 08:43 PM
Neither Rice nor Baines belong in the HOF. Question for somebody who cares to look it up: How do Rice's offensive stats break down for home and road?

itsnotrequired
01-13-2009, 08:50 PM
Neither Rice nor Baines belong in the HOF. Question for somebody who cares to look it up: How do Rice's offensive stats break down for home and road?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=riceji01&year=00#locat-hmvis

for comparison, here is baines

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=baineha01&year=00#locat-hmvis

rice was very average on the road while baines was essentially the same, home or away.

HebrewHammer
01-13-2009, 10:08 PM
I'd love to see Harold get inducted, if only to see the shortest induction speech of all-time.

http://www.go4thestars.com/10083hb.JPG
"...Thank you..."

fozzy
01-13-2009, 10:44 PM
i love harold but as a ball player he is much closer to dave parker, dale murphy even dwight evans then he is to a hall of famer.

Save McCuddy's
01-14-2009, 09:23 AM
My point is we all know the credentials necessary. 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 3,000 strikeouts etc.

But, if Rice's stats were good enough then the bar for those credentials just got lowered. Players on the borderline of good/greatness are now being voted into the hall. Is it right? Maybe......maybe not. But, as we sit today after the HOF voting this weekiend, Rice getting voted in opened the door for players like Baines IMHO.


My only guess is that you're too young to remember watching both play while in their prime. There was no basis for comparing these two in the first 10 years of their careers. Rice took an MVP and placed in the top 5 of the balloting in 4 out of his first 5 years. He was perennially atop or near the top of the league in HR's, BA, SLG and RBI's. For the exception of Harold's fantastic year in '84, the same can't be said for Baines.

There is a faction of Hall of Fame voters and fans that think that the Hall should focus on players' peak value rather than startistical accumulation. That is: were you the dominant player in baseball at your position for a chunk of time? Typically, if you can answer yes to that and hang around a hal dozen or so years after your prime to hit various milestones you're in. In Rice's era one can argue that Winfield and Murray took that route to the hall. Rice's case does not include the postscript years to reach milestones as a vision problem cut his career short. However, it can be debated that his peak value was greater than either of those two.

Harold's case is more unique. He was a solid ball player and border-line star throughout his prime who became an outstanding role player late in his career. His ability to hang on and continue to make solid contact late in his career afforded him the opportunity to amass numbers just as the eras changed from pitching dominance to heavily favoring the hitters. As overall offensive statistics rose so did Harold's numbers. While a very reliable hitter, he was not the offensive player in the '90's that he was in first 10 years, but the stats seem to tell you otherwise. That's because the '90's was a decade of inflated offensive statistics. Take the exhibit of Harold's great 1984. It was the only year in the '80's that he slugged better than .500 leading the AL at .541. In the '90's, he slugged better than .500 4 times without ever cracking the top ten in that category.

Whether one agrees with Rice's induction or not, I don't see any reason to link his candidacy to Baines's. Nor do I see Baines as having a place with the all-time greats. He sure has a place among the Sox all-timers, but that team photo is another story altogether.

Save McCuddy's
01-14-2009, 09:27 AM
Is MVP the most unimportant stat ever? What is it based on besides the popularity of the person being voted for? Is the MVP almost always someone from either Boston or NY? Do they always deserve said award over someone from a smaller market team who doesn't get the same amount of press? These are questions that should be thought about. IMO, MVP doesn't mean squat.

What are you talking about? Take a look at the MVP's over time and tell me that they almost always someone from Boston or NY. Especially look at the '70's, '80's and 90's when Baines and Rice were playing -- prior to ESPN adopting the Red Sox as the only team in the AL.

Woofer
01-14-2009, 10:27 AM
What are you talking about? Take a look at the MVP's over time and tell me that they almost always someone from Boston or NY. Especially look at the '70's, '80's and 90's when Baines and Rice were playing -- prior to ESPN adopting the Red Sox as the only team in the AL.

All that I've said is that the MVP award sometimes goes to Mr. Popularity, not always Mr. Deserving. I can use Frank Thomas/Giambi in 2000 as an example.

I probably shouldn't have used Boston or New York as my examples, it seemed that Oakland has had more MVP's and Bonds and A.Rod get the Mr. Popularity vote. I do admit these guys are/were great players, even without the steroid rumors.

haganaga
01-14-2009, 10:53 AM
The question we have to ask is if Rice got in because he played in Boston. Is it the Hall of Fame, and Really Good Yankees and Red Sox? Or is the Hall of Fame with a few mistakes.

If you go with the logic that Rice gets in, so Baines should, then Santo deserves in - and quickly. I hope this isn't where the HOF is heading.
I'm fearful it may be heading in that direction. Think of the people who will be voting in the future. The same people who think every kid/team should get a trophy instead of teaching that sometimes you lose. I fear the "there are no losers" type mentality of people will put players in because "he was really good."

I hope I'm wrong, but it's a direction society seems to be going with other things, why not the HOF?

Eddo144
01-14-2009, 10:58 AM
All that I've said is that the MVP award sometimes goes to Mr. Popularity, not always Mr. Deserving. I can use Frank Thomas/Giambi in 2000 as an example.

I probably shouldn't have used Boston or New York as my examples, it seemed that Oakland has had more MVP's and Bonds and A.Rod get the Mr. Popularity vote. I do admit these guys are/were great players, even without the steroid rumors.
While I only partially agree with what you're saying (really, A-Rod or Pujols could win the MVP nearly every year and it would be fine with me), you are correct that you can't use MVP awards (and definitely not All-Star games) as a good Hall of Fame argument.

MVP awards are voted on by BBWAA members, so the same biases that exist in Hall of Fame voting will exist in MVP awards. Tim Raines was underappreciated when it came to MVP voting and, naturally, is underappreciated when it comes to Hall of Fame voting.

All-Star games are even worse! First of all, fans vote. Now, there are knowlegeable fans out there, but most are uninformed except for players on their own team and the biggest names in the league. That's why you see players like Cal Ripken Jr., Ken Griffey Jr., and Derek Jeter lead the voting at their positions despite being well past their primes or having a down year. Additionally, All-Star selection only reflects the first 80 or so games of the season. If a player starts slow, he won't make the All-Star game. Conversely, if a player starts out red-hot, he will make the All-Start game. Both those players could have opposite second halves, making them equals, but one would have the All-Star selection on his resume, the other won't.

Woofer
01-14-2009, 11:07 AM
While I only partially agree with what you're saying (really, A-Rod or Pujols could win the MVP nearly every year and it would be fine with me), you are correct that you can't use MVP awards (and definitely not All-Star games) as a good Hall of Fame argument.

MVP awards are voted on by BBWAA members, so the same biases that exist in Hall of Fame voting will exist in MVP awards. Tim Raines was underappreciated when it came to MVP voting and, naturally, is underappreciated when it comes to Hall of Fame voting.

All-Star games are even worse! First of all, fans vote. Now, there are knowlegeable fans out there, but most are uninformed except for players on their own team and the biggest names in the league. That's why you see players like Cal Ripken Jr., Ken Griffey Jr., and Derek Jeter lead the voting at their positions despite being well past their primes or having a down year. Additionally, All-Star selection only reflects the first 80 or so games of the season. If a player starts slow, he won't make the All-Star game. Conversely, if a player starts out red-hot, he will make the All-Start game. Both those players could have opposite second halves, making them equals, but one would have the All-Star selection on his resume, the other won't.

I agree with you regarding the All-Star vote. This is how Fukodome ended up a starter. He had a pretty good start, and then disappeared.

wilburaga
01-14-2009, 11:29 AM
I think it's actually harder to get into the HOF now than it used to be. The Veteran's Committee has essentially pulled up the ladder eliminating a common route of access in the past. Rice is the first controversial selection since Mazeroski, IMHO. Big-time baseball names such as Maris, Wills, Hodges, Kaat, Minoso, Pierce, Allen, Lee Smith, TJ, etc will probably never get in. I just don't buy the conventional wisdom that the standards are slackening when the evidence points to the contrary.

W

NLaloosh
01-14-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm not going to post a poll on this but I'm wondering if there's anybody in this discussion that is over 40 years old and thinks that Jim Rice shouldn't be in the HOF ?

Because I remember very well in 1975 when he and Fred Lynn came up and since that time until he retired he was either THE BEST hitter in baseball or in the top 10. The guy was simply a great great offensive player.

Daver
01-14-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm not going to post a poll on this but I'm wondering if there's anybody in this discussion that is over 40 years old and thinks that Jim Rice shouldn't be in the HOF ?


Present.

BainesHOF
01-14-2009, 12:45 PM
My only guess is that you're too young to remember watching both play while in their prime. There was no basis for comparing these two in the first 10 years of their careers. Rice took an MVP and placed in the top 5 of the balloting in 4 out of his first 5 years. He was perennially atop or near the top of the league in HR's, BA, SLG and RBI's. For the exception of Harold's fantastic year in '84, the same can't be said for Baines.

There is a faction of Hall of Fame voters and fans that think that the Hall should focus on players' peak value rather than startistical accumulation. That is: were you the dominant player in baseball at your position for a chunk of time? Typically, if you can answer yes to that and hang around a hal dozen or so years after your prime to hit various milestones you're in. In Rice's era one can argue that Winfield and Murray took that route to the hall. Rice's case does not include the postscript years to reach milestones as a vision problem cut his career short. However, it can be debated that his peak value was greater than either of those two.

Harold's case is more unique. He was a solid ball player and border-line star throughout his prime who became an outstanding role player late in his career. His ability to hang on and continue to make solid contact late in his career afforded him the opportunity to amass numbers just as the eras changed from pitching dominance to heavily favoring the hitters. As overall offensive statistics rose so did Harold's numbers. While a very reliable hitter, he was not the offensive player in the '90's that he was in first 10 years, but the stats seem to tell you otherwise. That's because the '90's was a decade of inflated offensive statistics. Take the exhibit of Harold's great 1984. It was the only year in the '80's that he slugged better than .500 leading the AL at .541. In the '90's, he slugged better than .500 4 times without ever cracking the top ten in that category.

Whether one agrees with Rice's induction or not, I don't see any reason to link his candidacy to Baines's. Nor do I see Baines as having a place with the all-time greats. He sure has a place among the Sox all-timers, but that team photo is another story altogether.

Your analysis is interesting. I think many Hall-of-Fame arguments regarding borderline players do come down to shorter dominance versus longer excellence. Each can be impressive.

I would ask this:

Why shouldn't Baines have a place with the all-time greats when he ranks 28th in RBI with 1,628, 40th in hits with 2,866 and 53rd in home runs with 384? To me, it's hard to argue with those numbers. They didn't happen my accident. If so many players are more deserving of the Hall of Fame, then why didn't some of them produce numbers at least the equal of Baines?

I think it also needs to be reiterated just how great Baines was as a clutch hitter. Hawk Harrelson has said for years that Baines is in his top three clutch hitters that he's ever seen, along with Yaz and Brett. I think it's notable that Baines ranks 28th in RBI on his 40th hit ranking. I also think it's telling that his 187 career intentional walks rank 19th in baseball history. What better proof of being a feared hitter is there?

Woofer
01-14-2009, 01:09 PM
I believe that before they eliminated the stat, Harold was the active leader in game winning Rbi's. He was a clutch hitter.

AZChiSoxFan
01-14-2009, 01:43 PM
This stat explains why Rice is in and HB isn't:

Years in Boston or NY:
Rice - 12
Harold - 0

If Rice is in, HB should be too. Whether either deserve it is a different argument and moot now that Rice made it. Rice was a better hitter, but Harold did it longer and that should count.

Harold in 2010!

When I heard yesterday that Rice made it, my first thought was: "I wonder if Rice had put up his same numbers, but played his entire career in KC, if he still would have made the HOF." I believe the answer is a resounding "NO."

AZChiSoxFan
01-14-2009, 01:51 PM
I believe that before they eliminated the stat, Harold was the active leader in game winning Rbi's. He was a clutch hitter.

Yes, but we all know that there is really no such thing as a clutch hit.

Sincerely,

Billy Beane and your friends at Baseball Prospectus.

Eddo144
01-14-2009, 03:23 PM
Yes, but we all know that there is really no such thing as a clutch hit.

Sincerely,

Billy Beane and your friends at Baseball Prospectus.
Wow, that is so misinformed it's not even funny.

Formerly, the thought was that while clutch hits happened, players did not have a clutch ability. Today, though, it's an ongoing debate. There are sabermetricians who do believe that players can be clutch and those that don't.

Don't make blanket insults when you don't actually know what people people.

Sincerely,

People Everywhere

AZChiSoxFan
01-14-2009, 04:33 PM
Wow, that is so misinformed it's not even funny.

Formerly, the thought was that while clutch hits happened, players did not have a clutch ability. Today, though, it's an ongoing debate. There are sabermetricians who do believe that players can be clutch and those that don't.

Don't make blanket insults when you don't actually know what people people.

Sincerely,

People Everywhere

Whatever. I never pass up a chance to make jokes at the expense of the morons over at BP.

Tell me, do the Sox still only have a 93.6988733% chance of winning the division in 2005?

Sincerely,

Fans everywhere who actually watch the games.

Save McCuddy's
01-14-2009, 04:46 PM
Your analysis is interesting. I think many Hall-of-Fame arguments regarding borderline players do come down to shorter dominance versus longer excellence. Each can be impressive.

I would ask this:

Why shouldn't Baines have a place with the all-time greats when he ranks 28th in RBI with 1,628, 40th in hits with 2,866 and 53rd in home runs with 384? To me, it's hard to argue with those numbers. They didn't happen my accident. If so many players are more deserving of the Hall of Fame, then why didn't some of them produce numbers at least the equal of Baines?

I think it also needs to be reiterated just how great Baines was as a clutch hitter. Hawk Harrelson has said for years that Baines is in his top three clutch hitters that he's ever seen, along with Yaz and Brett. I think it's notable that Baines ranks 28th in RBI on his 40th hit ranking. I also think it's telling that his 187 career intentional walks rank 19th in baseball history. What better proof of being a feared hitter is there?

The argument that you put forth for Harold is legitimate.

The problem with this thread is that it began with the premise that if Rice is a Hall of Famer then so must Baines be. My point is that Rice and Baines are apples to oranges.

A better argument in my opinion for Baines is to compare him to the sacredest of all Boston cows, the Yaz. When you get beyond Carl's triple crown season, you struggle to find 10 Hall of Fame caliber seasons in his 23 year career. Baines compares favorably to Yaz in peak value (best ten seasons) and his lousy years are not as lousy as Yastremski's. Sure, Yaz has the gold gloves (mostly for fielding the Monster) but Harold was quite a right fielder in his prime defensively so I call that close to a wash.

I don't get into the clutch hitter argument too often -- nor do I take much stock in any of hawk's All-time greatest lists. However, Harold had what you look for in a clutch hitter -- great stroke, good eye and the ability to hit line drives to all fields.

As far as the all-time records go, Harold's placeemnt is impressive. At the end of the day, I am a peak value guy. The guy I'd be going to bat for in this thread would be Dick Allen. The "if Rice is in then this guy should be in" axiom is much more applicable to Richie.

Tragg
01-14-2009, 05:42 PM
My point is that Rice and Baines are apples to oranges.

A better argument in my opinion for Baines is to compare him to the sacredest of all Boston cows, the Yaz.

Why is Baines to Rice a bad comparison, but Baines to Yaz a relevant one?

Two things about Yaz - his prime was in the peak pitcher's era....he had a great, great feat, the triple crown. A touch of greatness is something I think is important...many hall of famers and putative hall of famers lack it.

Save McCuddy's
01-14-2009, 06:49 PM
Why is Baines to Rice a bad comparison, but Baines to Yaz a relevant one?


In a previous post I lay out the reasons why Rice and Baines are not comparable.

In this most recent post I merely suggest that Baines and Yastremski are more comparable than Baines and Rice.

Player Seasons Career SLG 162 Gm Avg for HR " " for RBI

Rice 16 .502 30 113
Baines 22 .465 22 93
Yaz 23 .462 22 90


In addition to that data, I would add that Rice was HR king 3 times to none for Baines and 1 for Yaz. Rice is a top ten Slugger 8 times in 16 years, Baines once in 22 and Yaz 6 times in 23. As power hitters, which Rice undeniably is, the two do not compare. Was Yaz superior to Baines? The answer I'm sure is yes, but as a player type I find him to be more comparable to Harold than Rice is.

BainesHOF
01-14-2009, 10:43 PM
In this most recent post I merely suggest that Baines and Yastremski are more comparable than Baines and Rice.

Player Seasons Career SLG 162 Gm Avg for HR " " for RBI

Rice 16 .502 30 113
Baines 22 .465 22 93
Yaz 23 .462 22 90


Very interesting.

I agree with you about Dick Allen, by the way. My friend wrote a book about the best 100 players not in the Hall of Fame, and Allen was ranked No. 1.

TDog
01-26-2009, 10:23 AM
...

I agree with you about Dick Allen, by the way. My friend wrote a book about the best 100 players not in the Hall of Fame, and Allen was ranked No. 1.

Dick Allen, of course, is not in the Hall of Fame because too often he was an embarrassment to baseball.

doublem23
01-26-2009, 10:34 AM
Dick Allen, of course, is not in the Hall of Fame because too often he was an embarrassment to baseball.

Dick Allen's not there because for all his skill, his career burnt out way too quickly. There are plenty of Hall of Famers far more embarrassing to baseball.

PennStater98r
01-26-2009, 04:02 PM
One discriminatring question you can ask about Rice and Baines is was either one ever the most feared hitter in the game. The answer, IMHO, is yes and no respectively.

W

Who gives a crap? Fielder was one of the most feared hitters in baseball for 4 seasons. So was George Foster and Richie Allen. Don't forget about Roger Maris!

Is this the Hall of Feared Hitters for 3 or 4 years or the Hall of Fame? Rice in is crap - pure and simple.

PennStater98r
01-26-2009, 04:06 PM
In a previous post I lay out the reasons why Rice and Baines are not comparable.

In this most recent post I merely suggest that Baines and Yastremski are more comparable than Baines and Rice.

Player Seasons Career SLG 162 Gm Avg for HR " " for RBI

Rice 16 .502 30 113
Baines 22 .465 22 93
Yaz 23 .462 22 90


In addition to that data, I would add that Rice was HR king 3 times to none for Baines and 1 for Yaz. Rice is a top ten Slugger 8 times in 16 years, Baines once in 22 and Yaz 6 times in 23. As power hitters, which Rice undeniably is, the two do not compare. Was Yaz superior to Baines? The answer I'm sure is yes, but as a player type I find him to be more comparable to Harold than Rice is.

Yaz reached his 3000 hits though - and that's a bonafide HoF milestone imo. Yaz also was a triple crown winner - the last one to do it no-less... I think those accomplishments go further than Rice's.

I mean - 20+ years played has to mean something as well. In my opinion - Rice should have been at the door knocking - while Yaz was just invited in. The Babe is the host of the gig - with guys like Cobb and Williams taking coats and welcoming people to the party.

jabrch
01-27-2009, 01:15 AM
Rice shouldn't be in. Harold shouldn't be in.

Frater Perdurabo
01-27-2009, 05:55 AM
Baines falls short, IMHO.

However, if he had played a big chunk of his career for the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs, he'd be in by now.

NLaloosh
01-27-2009, 07:56 AM
I'm thinking that if 67% of die hard White Sox fans don't think he's a HOFer then he's not.

Thome25
01-27-2009, 10:15 AM
I'm thinking that if 67% of die hard White Sox fans don't think he's a HOFer then he's not.

See this quote:

Baines falls short, IMHO.

However, if he had played a big chunk of his career for the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs, he'd be in by now.

Just because a handful of die-hards thinks he shouldn't be there doesn't me he's not worthy IMHO. The team you play for has bearing on getting in to the HOF.........which is a shame because Baines may have deserved it.

wilburaga
01-27-2009, 11:01 AM
WHO GIVES A CRAP? Fielder was one of the most feared hitters in baseball for 4 seasons. So was George Foster and Richie Allen. Don't forget about Roger Maris!

Is this the Hall of Feared Hitters for 3 or 4 years or the Hall of Fame? Rice in is crap - pure and simple.

Apparently, the HOF voters.

W

TDog
01-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Dick Allen's not there because for all his skill, his career burnt out way too quickly. There are plenty of Hall of Famers far more embarrassing to baseball.

Pete Rose and Joe Jackson embarrassed baseball. Joe Jackson was never banned from the Hall of Fame until, technically, Pete Rose was. Of course, one of the reasons Jackson's career ended too quickly was his permanent suspension. If Dick Allen's absences from the game were mostly due to injury and not, for the most part, his own flakiness, he would have received serious Hall of Fame consideration. Long after the Phillies suspended him and traded him, he had one great year with the White Sox that was as great as any hitter had ever had with the team. Two seasons later, he walked away from the team and apparently baseball. But he popped up a couple of more times. The way people felt about Dick Allen, there was no way he was ever going to get into the Hall of Fame, which is not about statistics.

Harold Baines belongs in the Hall of Fame. He doesn't get more support because writers believe DH isn't a position, although he played more than 1,000 games in the outfield. But for two innings in the White Sox outfield in 1997, he had not played in the outfield since 1992. He had a great arm and had double-digit assists in seven seasons. In 1981, he only played 81 games in right and had 10 assists, in one week throwing out three runners trying to advance from first to third on singles. He might have had more assists if people hadn't stopped running on him.

Voters look at stats to justify their votes. Some fans look at stats as criteria because they never watched these people play. Most of the people voting for the Hall of Fame don't have this excuse. Baines was one of the great players of his era.

Eddo144
01-27-2009, 02:13 PM
Harold Baines belongs in the Hall of Fame. He doesn't get more support because writers believe DH isn't a position, although he played more than 1,000 games in the outfield. But for two innings in the White Sox outfield in 1997, he had not played in the outfield since 1992. He had a great arm and had double-digit assists in seven seasons. In 1981, he only played 81 games in right and had 10 assists, in one week throwing out three runners trying to advance from first to third on singles. He might have had more assists if people hadn't stopped running on him.
1. Writers believe DH isn't a position because it isn't a position. Being a DH is, by definition, not having a position. In no way are you contributing to your team defensively.

2. No one uses outfield assists to measure anything. Manny Ramirez has led the league in OF assists before, and no one ever tries to argue he's good defensively.

3. I love Baines, he's probably my favorite player ever. I'm glad I got to meet him in Daley Plaza last April. He's my mother's favorite player. He used to hit fungoes to my uncle, who sells beer at Comiskey, for fun. But he's not a Hall of Famer, sorry. If he does somehow get in, I'll be sure to get my picture taken with his plaque, but it won't bother me if he doesn't.

TDog
01-27-2009, 02:50 PM
1. Writers believe DH isn't a position because it isn't a position. Being a DH is, by definition, not having a position. In no way are you contributing to your team defensively.

2. No one uses outfield assists to measure anything. Manny Ramirez has led the league in OF assists before, and no one ever tries to argue he's good defensively.

3. I love Baines, he's probably my favorite player ever. I'm glad I got to meet him in Daley Plaza last April. He's my mother's favorite player. He used to hit fungoes to my uncle, who sells beer at Comiskey, for fun. But he's not a Hall of Famer, sorry. If he does somehow get in, I'll be sure to get my picture taken with his plaque, but it won't bother me if he doesn't.

The American League believes DH is a position. In fact, it is the position in the American League that is paid the highest average salary. And while outfield assists don't necessary mean anything, like many statistics, in Harold Baines the statistic speaks to a DH who routinely threw out runners from the outfield.

Had Baines not been traded from the White Sox, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He would have well over 3,000 hits and people would have noticed his worthiness. Baines didn't hit as often against lefties after he left the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf insists that it is his fault Baines isn't in the Hall of Fame and also insets it is wrong that he is not there. As it was, Baines fell less than a season short of 3,000 hits.

sox1970
01-27-2009, 02:57 PM
DH shouldn't be a factor on Hall of Fame worthiness unless defense is the reason why you're in (Ozzie Smith).

Having stated that, if you think Harold Baines is worthy for the Hall, then I'd like to know if you think Al Oliver should be in? Steve Garvey?

Frater Perdurabo
01-27-2009, 04:12 PM
Slightly off-topic, but one my own personal "criteria" for HOF consideration is whether or not a player would be considered a HOF-er if he played on any other team, or bounced around the leagues.

Think of it this way: if Babe Ruth played his entire career with and put up those numbers with, say, the Detroit Tigers, he certainly would still be a HOF-er.

But if Jim Rice had put up the same numbers with the San Diego Padres, would he be a HOF-er? I think not.

Likewise, I'm reasonably sure Ryne Sandberg would NOT be in the Hall if he had played his whole career in the obscurity of San Diego, Pittsburgh or Montreal.

One the flip side of the coin, imagine if Tim Raines and Andre Dawson had not had to start their careers in Montreal. I'll bet either or both would already be in if they had had their best years in Chicago, New York, or Boston.

HOF voters should try to do a similar mental exercise to determine to what extent a player was privileged as a result of playing for certain team(s).

soxinem1
01-27-2009, 05:00 PM
The American League believes DH is a position. In fact, it is the position in the American League that is paid the highest average salary. And while outfield assists don't necessary mean anything, like many statistics, in Harold Baines the statistic speaks to a DH who routinely threw out runners from the outfield.

Had Baines not been traded from the White Sox, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He would have well over 3,000 hits and people would have noticed his worthiness. Baines didn't hit as often against lefties after he left the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf insists that it is his fault Baines isn't in the Hall of Fame and also insets it is wrong that he is not there. As it was, Baines fell less than a season short of 3,000 hits.

I have wondered what the situation would be if HB would have had 3,000 hits. How do you deny him?

But I'm not sure one could assume Baines would have had reached that plateau just by playing his entire career in Chicago.

Like others posting here, I think you change the bar on letting Jim Rice in. Before this happened, I felt Baines fell a little short. Now, I am not so sure.

I believe one of the things that hurt Baines was playing for teams like the 1980, 1984, and 1986-89 White Sox. All of those teams were offensively challenged, and he was routinely pitched around even when he mastered hitting well to the opposite field. Baines, while never a power hitter, probably lost at least 50 HR's just because he played for the White Sox in some pretty lousy years.

Others who compare Baines to Yaz are really comparing apples to oranges, as they played in two different eras by far. Baines career was just beginning as Yaz was winding down. Yaz played in a time when pitching was much more dominant, especially in the 60's. The year he won the triple crown, he barely hit .300.

TDog
01-27-2009, 08:33 PM
... But I'm not sure one could assume Baines would have had reached that plateau just by playing his entire career in Chicago. ...

After Harold Baines left Chicago, other teams treated him more as a platoon player. The general assumption is that if he would have stayed in Chicago, he would have continued facing left-handed pitching regularly and would not have been mostly a DH against right-handed pitching.

Eddo144
01-27-2009, 08:42 PM
After Harold Baines left Chicago, other teams treated him more as a platoon player. The general assumption is that if he would have stayed in Chicago, he would have continued facing left-handed pitching regularly and would not have been mostly a DH against right-handed pitching.
I'm sorry, how is the fact that other teams thought he was only good enough to be a platoon player supposed to enhance his Hall of Fame case?

Craig Grebeck
01-27-2009, 08:56 PM
Had Baines not been traded from the White Sox, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He would have well over 3,000 hits and people would have noticed his worthiness. Baines didn't hit as often against lefties after he left the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf insists that it is his fault Baines isn't in the Hall of Fame and also insets it is wrong that he is not there. As it was, Baines fell less than a season short of 3,000 hits.
The Hall of Fame has never been about statistics.

TDog
01-28-2009, 08:38 AM
The Hall of Fame has never been about statistics.

No, it isn't. Harold Baines is worthy of being in the Hall of Fame without 3,000 hits. Many haven't noticed. If he had 3,000 hits, though, he would have the attention of the voters who have been ignoring him.

soxinem1
01-28-2009, 02:20 PM
After Harold Baines left Chicago, other teams treated him more as a platoon player. The general assumption is that if he would have stayed in Chicago, he would have continued facing left-handed pitching regularly and would not have been mostly a DH against right-handed pitching.

Okay, but don't you think that might have watered his stats down then? He never really hit LHP great, and only other than a couple seasons in the mid-80's was he ever better than adequate.

Conversely, Mickey Mantle had some real differences comparing AVG, SLG, HR/AB, etc. on how he fared against LH or RH pitching. It sure did not harm his chances.

Thome25
01-29-2009, 08:32 AM
Hey soxinem--Love the signature!!:D: