PDA

View Full Version : Harold Baines and the Hall of Fame


jortafan
01-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Am I the only one whoís disgusted with the vote total received Tuesday by Harold Baines?

Itís not like I expected him to get 75 percent. But to come within one vote of being knocked off the ballot entirely for future years? Thatís just ridiculous.

Personally, I bop back and forth mentally about whether Harold belongs in Cooperstown. Despite the significant career stats, I can see where some people could think that Baines was never a dominant enough player during his era. Letís be honest -- the presence of Harold didnít stop some of those White Sox teams from the 1980s (particularly the latter part of the decade) from being dreadful.

If I had a Hall of Fame ballot, I probably could have been persuaded to give a vote to Baines. Of course, I also would have voted for Andre Dawson just so I could see all the Cubs fans choke in disgust when his bronze plaque immortalized him as a Montreal Expo (he did play there for 10 seasons).

For those who have a problem with the designated hitter, I think they need to get over it. It is a fully legitimate position in modern-day baseball. Besides, Harold was a fully legitimate outfielder for several seasons until his knee problems cropped up in the mid-1980s. Itís not like weíre talking about Edgar Martinez, who became a DH because he was never good enough to play a defensive position in the major leagues.

Yet somehow, I expect Martinez will manage to get considerably more respect when he gets on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2010.

And for those who think it would have made a difference if Harold could have got another 134 regular season base hits (to reach the magic number of 3,000 for his career), I donít think it matters. I honestly believe there are a number of people with ballots who would have gladly made Harold the first player with 3,000 career hits to not make the Hall of Fame.

In closing, I would hope the attitude could change during upcoming years and Harold can manage to get respectable vote totals in the future. Who knows -- maybe a future version of the Veterans Committee will look more favorably on Baines and heíll actually get inducted into the Hall?

Iíd hate to see Harold suffer the fate of Fernando Valenzuela, who in 2002 barely got enough votes to stay on the ballot for a second try Ė only to get knocked off for good in 2003.

A. Cavatica
01-09-2007, 10:20 PM
Am I the only one whoís disgusted with the vote total received Tuesday by Harold Baines?

Itís not like I expected him to get 75 percent. But to come within one vote of being knocked off the ballot entirely for future years? Thatís just ridiculous.

Personally, I bop back and forth mentally about whether Harold belongs in Cooperstown. Despite the significant career stats, I can see where some people could think that Baines was never a dominant enough player during his era. Letís be honest -- the presence of Harold didnít stop some of those White Sox teams from the 1980s (particularly the latter part of the decade) from being dreadful.

If I had a Hall of Fame ballot, I probably could have been persuaded to give a vote to Baines. Of course, I also would have voted for Andre Dawson just so I could see all the Cubs fans choke in disgust when his bronze plaque immortalized him as a Montreal Expo (he did play there for 10 seasons).

For those who have a problem with the designated hitter, I think they need to get over it. It is a fully legitimate position in modern-day baseball. Besides, Harold was a fully legitimate outfielder for several seasons until his knee problems cropped up in the mid-1980s. Itís not like weíre talking about Edgar Martinez, who became a DH because he was never good enough to play a defensive position in the major leagues.

Yet somehow, I expect Martinez will manage to get considerably more respect when he gets on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2010.

And for those who think it would have made a difference if Harold could have got another 134 regular season base hits (to reach the magic number of 3,000 for his career), I donít think it matters. I honestly believe there are a number of people with ballots who would have gladly made Harold the first player with 3,000 career hits to not make the Hall of Fame.

In closing, I would hope the attitude could change during upcoming years and Harold can manage to get respectable vote totals in the future. Who knows -- maybe a future version of the Veterans Committee will look more favorably on Baines and heíll actually get inducted into the Hall?

Iíd hate to see Harold suffer the fate of Fernando Valenzuela, who in 2002 barely got enough votes to stay on the ballot for a second try Ė only to get knocked off for good in 2003.


Harold was one of my favorite players, but regrettably, he fell just short of my standard. A career average of .289 with 384 homers, never finishing higher than 9th in the MVP voting...that's not a HoF career.

rdivaldi
01-09-2007, 11:09 PM
If Tony Perez is a Hall of Famer, Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. I am disgusted with the amount of votes he received especially when you see how many votes that Andre Dawson recieved. The HOF voting is a joke.

ondafarm
01-09-2007, 11:36 PM
The HOF voting is a joke.

Can't disagree.

AJ Hellraiser
01-10-2007, 12:33 AM
If Tony Perez is a Hall of Famer, Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. I am disgusted with the amount of votes he received especially when you see how many votes that Andre Dawson recieved. The HOF voting is a joke.

I am a lifelong White Sox fan and hate the Cubs just as much, if not more, than most people here.. especially since I am from the Northwest suburbs and ALL my friends are Cubs fans...

that all being said, the one Cubs player I always loved to watch is Andre Dawson... in my mind, he is a HOFer and was a better player than Harold Baines and it wasn't even close... Dawson won an MVP, had 438 career HR's and stole over 300 bases.. he was also a true 5-tool ballplayer and if the turf in Montreal hadn't ruined his knees his numbers would be much better...

Sorry, but in my mind I don't think you should be comparing Baines and the Hawk...

goofymsfan
01-10-2007, 06:26 AM
For those who have a problem with the designated hitter, I think they need to get over it. It is a fully legitimate position in modern-day baseball. Besides, Harold was a fully legitimate outfielder for several seasons until his knee problems cropped up in the mid-1980s. Itís not like weíre talking about Edgar Martinez, who became a DH because he was never good enough to play a defensive position in the major leagues.

Yet somehow, I expect Martinez will manage to get considerably more respect when he gets on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2010.



You obviously don't know much about Edgar then. When he first came up he was a third baseman and even won a batting title while playing there. It wasn't until he had leg troubles that he became a DH.

It's not a sure thing that Edgar will get in and probably not on the first try if he does eventually get in. There are still too many among the people that get to cast a vote that are against the DH as a position. The one thing Edgar has going for him is that he does have the DH award named after him.

WhiteSox5187
01-10-2007, 07:13 AM
If Jim Rice can get up to 63.5% of the HOF vote, so should Baines. I don't think Baines is a first ballot Hall of Famer, but I think he is a LEGITMATE candidate (guys like Tommy John are not, they're good but not great). I think he will eventually get up to getting into the hall (look forward to '08, if Goose doesn't get in, they should just close the place down) but whether or not he ever gets in I go back and forth on.

spawn
01-10-2007, 08:07 AM
I may piss some people off with this, but if Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are much more deserving of HOF status that Harold. I was a big Harold Baines fan...but I really don't think he's a Hall of Famer...

Huisj
01-10-2007, 08:14 AM
The number for Baines that stands out to me is RBI. He's 23rd all time. Take a look at this list of names ahead of him in that stat, and it's pretty remarkable. They are all undisputed Hall of Famers except Bonds and Palmeiro.

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 08:56 AM
that all being said, the one Cubs player I always loved to watch is Andre Dawson... in my mind, he is a HOFer and was a better player than Harold Baines and it wasn't even close... Dawson won an MVP, had 438 career HR's and stole over 300 bases.. he was also a true 5-tool ballplayer and if the turf in Montreal hadn't ruined his knees his numbers would be much better...

Sorry, but in my mind I don't think you should be comparing Baines and the Hawk...

Oh puh-lease. When you compare Baines and Dawson's numbers they're very similar. The only thing Baines doesn't have is the Cubbie over-hyping machine working for him. Take a look:

Baines / Dawson
Games: 2830 / 2627
AB: 9908 / 9927
R: 1299 / 1373
H: 2866 / 2774
2B: 488 / 503
3B: 49 / 98
HR: 384 / 438
RBI: 1628 / 1591
SB: 34 / 314
BB: 1062 / 589
K: 1062 / 1509
BA: .289 / .279
OBP: .356 / .323
OPS: .820 / .805

Are you telling me that one of these guys is more deserving of the HOF than another. I think not. More evidence of the utter BS of media bias when it comes to HOF voting.

:whatever:

AuroraSoxFan
01-10-2007, 09:08 AM
I am a lifelong White Sox fan and hate the Cubs just as much, if not more, than most people here.. especially since I am from the Northwest suburbs and ALL my friends are Cubs fans...

that all being said, the one Cubs player I always loved to watch is Andre Dawson... in my mind, he is a HOFer and was a better player than Harold Baines and it wasn't even close... Dawson won an MVP, had 438 career HR's and stole over 300 bases.. he was also a true 5-tool ballplayer and if the turf in Montreal hadn't ruined his knees his numbers would be much better...

Sorry, but in my mind I don't think you should be comparing Baines and the Hawk...

I can't disagree. always hated the Cubs. But as a kid learning to play the game it was cool watching the Hawk. Used to love when a guy would hit a base hit to right and trot to 1st all slowly and Hawk would gun him out at 1st. Showed a lot of kids (and likely a lot of his peers) to play hard and not take stuff for granted.

I was mad that Baines only got 5.3% of the votes. I did not expect him to join Cal and Tony, but that was pathetic. I can't see how guys like Goose, Baines, Rice etc are left out of Cooperstown. Besides Gwynn and Rip, the only positive point of the ballot totals IMO was the awful result given to McGwire.

AuroraSoxFan
01-10-2007, 09:23 AM
Oh puh-lease. When you compare Baines and Dawson's numbers they're very similar. The only thing Baines doesn't have is the Cubbie over-hyping machine working for him. Take a look:

Baines / Dawson
Games: 2830 / 2627
AB: 9908 / 9927
R: 1299 / 1373
H: 2866 / 2774
2B: 488 / 503
3B: 49 / 98
HR: 384 / 438
RBI: 1628 / 1591
SB: 34 / 314
BB: 1062 / 589
K: 1062 / 1509
BA: .289 / .279
OBP: .356 / .323
OPS: .820 / .805

Are you telling me that one of these guys is more deserving of the HOF than another. I think not. More evidence of the utter BS of media bias when it comes to HOF voting.

:whatever:

Those stats are pretty damn close. On those numbers alone you really can't say that 1 is more/less deserving than the other. But on top of the tribune and it's hype given to their former emps, defense is a big factor that separates them in votes. Hawk had some gold gloves (8) under his belt.

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 11:48 AM
Those stats are pretty damn close. On those numbers alone you really can't say that 1 is more/less deserving than the other. But on top of the tribune and it's hype given to their former emps, defense is a big factor that separates them in votes. Hawk had some gold gloves (8) under his belt.

Gold gloves should not give one player 309 compared to 29. That's absolute BS. This is media bias at its finest. Look at Don Mattingly's ridiculous 54 votes. The guy barely got 2000 hits to go with his massive 222 homers. Complete garbage. Thanks to the Trib and Sun-Times for metioning this today. Oh wait.............

:whatever:

Foulke You
01-10-2007, 11:52 AM
Oh puh-lease. When you compare Baines and Dawson's numbers they're very similar. The only thing Baines doesn't have is the Cubbie over-hyping machine working for him. Take a look:

Baines / Dawson
Games: 2830 / 2627
AB: 9908 / 9927
R: 1299 / 1373
H: 2866 / 2774
2B: 488 / 503
3B: 49 / 98
HR: 384 / 438
RBI: 1628 / 1591
SB: 34 / 314
BB: 1062 / 589
K: 1062 / 1509
BA: .289 / .279
OBP: .356 / .323
OPS: .820 / .805

Are you telling me that one of these guys is more deserving of the HOF than another. I think not. More evidence of the utter BS of media bias when it comes to HOF voting.

:whatever:

Those numbers are very telling. I'm in full agreement that Baines is deserving of more consideration for the HOF than he is currently getting but he has two giant albatrosses around his neck. 75% of his career he played as a DH and it has a stigma attached to it with baseball writers for some reason. They don't even vote for DH David Ortiz for MVP even though the guy's offensive numbers are ridiculous. The other thing holding Harold down was that he had his best years with the White Sox, a team that the national writers have a habit of ignoring when we're not storming our way to a World Series title. These two factors will sadly keep Harold out of the hall.

Harold also won't be the first White Sox player either to be overlooked for the hall. Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso didn't get in despite having worthy numbers. It took Nellie Fox WAY too long to get elected and it happened after he died. Fisk at least had the Boston factor to help him get in. The main thing that hurts Bert Blyleven's HOF is that he played in Minnesota for his whole career. It's sad but the HOF voting has turned into a big popularity contest it seems.

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 11:57 AM
It's sad but the HOF voting has turned into a big popularity contest it seems.

To go along with the All-Star, Cy Young, and MVP voting. It's complete BS.

itsnotrequired
01-10-2007, 12:15 PM
To go along with the All-Star, Cy Young, and MVP voting. It's complete BS.

Well, the All-Star is selected by fans now so it is no surprise it is a popularity contest. The fact that one can vote on the internet now rather than just at the ballpark only exasperates this situation.

I have no problem with recent Cy Young and MVP voting. Are you suggesting that players that have won it recently are not deserving or if deserving, got the nod because of some type of "popularity vote"? Just look at the AL MVP in 2006. Morneau beat out more "popular" players like Jeter and Ortiz when many people feel Jeter should have gotten it. Same deal with the Cy Young. Zito beat out Martinez in 2001 when Martinez easily could have won and could easily be considered a more popular player.

In my opinion, Gold Glove is the award that is really messed up. Why offensive skills should have any impact on a defensive award is beyond me. Is glovework considered in Silver Slugger awards? With the GG, the award is more or less "owned" by a player until someone unseats them. So as long as a reigning player puts in a respectable performance, the award is more or less theirs to keep. I mean, Torri Hunter winning the GG in 2005 despite playing in only 98 games? Totally messed up award.

kittle42
01-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Who cares who gets more votes and who gets fewer? Baines is not an HOF'er, and if he wasn't a White Sox player, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

TDog
01-10-2007, 01:46 PM
I am a lifelong White Sox fan and hate the Cubs just as much, if not more, than most people here.. especially since I am from the Northwest suburbs and ALL my friends are Cubs fans...

that all being said, the one Cubs player I always loved to watch is Andre Dawson... in my mind, he is a HOFer and was a better player than Harold Baines and it wasn't even close... Dawson won an MVP, had 438 career HR's and stole over 300 bases.. he was also a true 5-tool ballplayer and if the turf in Montreal hadn't ruined his knees his numbers would be much better...

Sorry, but in my mind I don't think you should be comparing Baines and the Hawk...

I agree with your last sentence. Harold Baines was a nastier hitter and better in the clutch. People forget how good an outfielder Baines was. He had a great arm from right field. He didn't have a public-relations machine promoting him as Andre Dawson did. But he did have a higher career batting average, more RBI, more hits, appreciably more walks and appreciably fewer strike outs than Dawson.

Support for Baines will grow as people talk about how he only got a little more than 5 percent of the vote. Baines finished his career with nearly 2,900 hits. Jerry Reinsdorf believes (http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061221&content_id=1765913&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) he would have passed 3,000 if he had stayed with the Sox. But I won't blame President Bush for keeping Baines out of the Hall of Fame.

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 01:57 PM
Who cares who gets more votes and who gets fewer? Baines is not an HOF'er, and if he wasn't a White Sox player, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If Tony Perez is a HOF'er, then Harold Baines is a HOF'er.

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 02:09 PM
I have no problem with recent Cy Young and MVP voting. Are you suggesting that players that have won it recently are not deserving or if deserving, got the nod because of some type of "popularity vote"? Just look at the AL MVP in 2006. Morneau beat out more "popular" players like Jeter and Ortiz when many people feel Jeter should have gotten it. Same deal with the Cy Young. Zito beat out Martinez in 2001 when Martinez easily could have won and could easily be considered a more popular player.

Yeah, thinking about it, you're probably right. It's not all that bad sans the disgraceful 2000 MVP voting.

AJ Hellraiser
01-10-2007, 02:20 PM
I agree with your last sentence. Harold Baines was a nastier hitter and better in the clutch. People forget how good an outfielder Baines was. He had a great arm from right field. He didn't have a public-relations machine promoting him as Andre Dawson did. But he did have a higher career batting average, more RBI, more hits, appreciably more walks and appreciably fewer strike outs than Dawson.

Support for Baines will grow as people talk about how he only got a little more than 5 percent of the vote. Baines finished his career with nearly 2,900 hits. Jerry Reinsdorf believes (http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061221&content_id=1765913&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) he would have passed 3,000 if he had stayed with the Sox. But I won't blame President Bush for keeping Baines out of the Hall of Fame.

In my opinion, the number of hits argument is null and void here since Baines played in 203 more games and only had 92 more hits... I can't speak for defensive comparisons, cause I don't remember Baines in the OF to be perfectly honest.. but I do remember Dawson having the most feared arm in baseball for a long time.... Dawson also had more stolen bases, doubles, triples and home runs... As for RBI, again in 203 more games, Baines only had 37 more RBI playing in the AL...

Paulwny
01-10-2007, 02:39 PM
In my opinion, the number of hits argument is null and void here since Baines played in 203 more games and only had 92 more hits... I can't speak for defensive comparisons, cause I don't remember Baines in the OF to be perfectly honest.. but I do remember Dawson having the most feared arm in baseball for a long time.... Dawson also had more stolen bases, doubles, triples and home runs... As for RBI, again in 203 more games, Baines only had 37 more RBI playing in the AL...

Unless I looked at the wrong numbers, Baines may have played in more games , but Dawson had 9927 ab's and Baines had 9908 ab's.

sox1970
01-10-2007, 02:42 PM
If Tony Perez is a HOF'er, then Harold Baines is a HOF'er.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But I get what you're saying. Look at Phil Rizutto....what a joke. Alan Trammell puts him to shame.

spiffie
01-10-2007, 02:43 PM
Unless I looked at the wrong numbers, Baines may have played in more games , but Dawson had 9927 ab's and Baines had 9908 ab's.
I would assume that is a function of Baines having more walks.

Paulwny
01-10-2007, 02:45 PM
I would assume that is a function of Baines having more walks.

or, pinch hitting later in his career 1 game but only 1 ab

kittle42
01-10-2007, 02:53 PM
If Tony Perez is a HOF'er, then Harold Baines is a HOF'er.

If you're going to look for something to distinguish them, Perez did play on four WS teams and two WS champions.

Paulwny
01-10-2007, 02:55 PM
I would assume that is a function of Baines having more walks.

Walks, Dawson--589
Baines---1062

TDog
01-10-2007, 04:33 PM
In my opinion, the number of hits argument is null and void here since Baines played in 203 more games and only had 92 more hits... I can't speak for defensive comparisons, cause I don't remember Baines in the OF to be perfectly honest.. but I do remember Dawson having the most feared arm in baseball for a long time.... Dawson also had more stolen bases, doubles, triples and home runs... As for RBI, again in 203 more games, Baines only had 37 more RBI playing in the AL...

Baines probably had a stronger arm than Dawson. He doesn't have a lot of assists, but after a week in 1982 when Baines threw out three runners trying to advance from first to third on singles to right, teams rarely ran on him. And despite playing in the AL, Baines came up with the White Sox when they played in a park that was tough on hitters. He went to Oakland when it was a pitchers' park. Dawson's great years with the Cubs were in a hitters' park. There was talk in the early '80s of the White Sox trading for Dawson. Had he played in Old Comiskey during the '80s instead of Wrigley Field, he might not have cracked the 400-home run mark.

Baines was a better hitter than Dawson. His batting average was better. His on-base percentage was much better. He didn't have the slugging numbers, but he also didn't strike out as much. And the fact that he had more RBI in fewer at bats with smaller slugging numbers is testament to his knack for clutch hitting. Baines' RBI total is very impressive.

Giving Dawson every benefit of the doubt, his Hall of Fame qualifications are comparable to Baines.

AJ Hellraiser
01-10-2007, 04:48 PM
Baines probably had a stronger arm than Dawson. He doesn't have a lot of assists, but after a week in 1982 when Baines threw out three runners trying to advance from first to third on singles to right, teams rarely ran on him. And despite playing in the AL, Baines came up with the White Sox when they played in a park that was tough on hitters. He went to Oakland when it was a pitchers' park. Dawson's great years with the Cubs were in a hitters' park. There was talk in the early '80s of the White Sox trading for Dawson. Had he played in Old Comiskey during the '80s instead of Wrigley Field, he might not have cracked the 400-home run mark.

Baines was a better hitter than Dawson. His batting average was better. His on-base percentage was much better. He didn't have the slugging numbers, but he also didn't strike out as much. And the fact that he had more RBI in fewer at bats with smaller slugging numbers is testament to his knack for clutch hitting. Baines' RBI total is very impressive.

Giving Dawson every benefit of the doubt, his Hall of Fame qualifications are comparable to Baines.

OK-- great arguments... the bottom line is that this is all a debate and our opinions... although they differ, i respect your opinion... my personal opinion is that Andre Dawson was the better player and deserves to be in the HOF, while Baines does not... you might think I am wrong and that is fine, but this is the beauty of sports... Debates can go on forever...

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 04:48 PM
If you're going to look for something to distinguish them, Perez did play on four WS teams and two WS champions.

That doesn't distinguish the players, that distinguishes the teams that they played for. If you want to distinguish in terms of postseason peformance, just look at the difference between how they played on the big stage.

Perez: 172 AB, 16 R, 6 HR, 25 RBI, .238/.291/.669
Baines: 102 AB, 14 R, 5 HR, 16 RBI, .324/.378/.888

Harold is getting screwed...

rdivaldi
01-10-2007, 04:49 PM
OK-- great arguments... the bottom line is that this is all a debate and our opinions... although they differ, i respect your opinion... my personal opinion is that Andre Dawson was the better player and deserves to be in the HOF, while Baines does not... you might think I am wrong and that is fine, but this is the beauty of sports... Debates can go on forever...

That's fine, BUT the HOF voting is an absolute farce...

A. Cavatica
01-10-2007, 04:57 PM
That doesn't distinguish the players, that distinguishes the teams that they played for. If you want to distinguish in terms of postseason peformance, just look at the difference between how they played on the big stage.

Perez: 172 AB, 16 R, 6 HR, 25 RBI, .238/.291/.669
Baines: 102 AB, 14 R, 5 HR, 16 RBI, .324/.378/.888

Harold is getting screwed...

Harold is not getting screwed, Perez should never have been admitted to begin with. But Perez at least finished 3rd in the MVP voting one year. My guess is the reasons voters saw Perez differently are that Perez is identified with the Big Red Machine while Baines is identified with Sox teams that didn't accomplish much. That, and Harold was mostly a DH.

TheVulture
01-10-2007, 05:42 PM
I may piss some people off with this, but if Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are much more deserving of HOF status that Harold. I was a big Harold Baines fan...but I really don't think he's a Hall of Famer...

I'd have to agree. Jim Rice was THE dominant hitter of the mid-70s to early 80s and Dawson was just a great 5-tool player, especially when he was with Montreal. Harold was my favorite, and actually a very good outfielder before his DH days, but I don't know if he deserves it. If he hadn't had those knee problems, he'd probably be a shoo-in, though.

TheVulture
01-10-2007, 05:56 PM
Baines probably had a stronger arm than Dawson. He doesn't have a lot of assists, but after a week in 1982 when Baines threw out three runners trying to advance from first to third on singles to right, teams rarely ran on him. And despite playing in the AL, Baines came up with the White Sox when they played in a park that was tough on hitters. He went to Oakland when it was a pitchers' park. Dawson's great years with the Cubs were in a hitters' park. There was talk in the early '80s of the White Sox trading for Dawson. Had he played in Old Comiskey during the '80s instead of Wrigley Field, he might not have cracked the 400-home run mark.

Baines was a better hitter than Dawson. His batting average was better. His on-base percentage was much better. He didn't have the slugging numbers, but he also didn't strike out as much. And the fact that he had more RBI in fewer at bats with smaller slugging numbers is testament to his knack for clutch hitting. Baines' RBI total is very impressive.

Giving Dawson every benefit of the doubt, his Hall of Fame qualifications are comparable to Baines.

First off, yes, Baines was a very good outfielder, but he was not comparable to Dawson in the field. Dawson was one of the best defensive OFer's of all time, especially before he went to the Cubs. Baines probably was a better hitter than Dawson, but that's not what makes Dawson hall worthy in my opinion. It's the fact that he was a tremendous defensive player and base-runner in addition to his hitting ability. Good point about Baines' playing in pitcher's parks his whole career, though.

TheVulture
01-10-2007, 06:09 PM
Harold is not getting screwed, Perez should never have been admitted to begin with. But Perez at least finished 3rd in the MVP voting one year. My guess is the reasons voters saw Perez differently are that Perez is identified with the Big Red Machine while Baines is identified with Sox teams that didn't accomplish much. That, and Harold was mostly a DH.

A better comparison with Perez, considering they played in the same era, one heavily dominated by pitching, would be good ol' Dick Allen. How can Perez be in and Allen not? That guy dominated Perez's era. I'd love to see Allen's numbers translated to the current era. They would be Pujols-esque, if you ask me.

edit: for argument's sake
career OPS+

Pujols-171
Allen-156
Rice-128
Perez-122
Baines-120
Dawson-119

For further reference:
Mays- 156
R. Jackson - 139
Aaron- 155
Mantle- 172

santo=dorf
01-10-2007, 06:15 PM
If Tony Perez is a Hall of Famer, Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. I am disgusted with the amount of votes he received especially when you see how many votes that Andre Dawson recieved. The HOF voting is a joke.
If Bill Mazeoski is a Hall of Famer, than everybody else except Neifi Perez and Jim Parque are Hall of Famers.

It doesn't work that way.
career OPS+

Pujols-171
Allen-156
Rice-128
Baines-120
Dawson-119
Wow. I never knew how good Dick Allen really was.

TheVulture
01-10-2007, 06:35 PM
If Bill Mazeoski is a Hall of Famer, than everybody else except Neifi Perez and Jim Parque are Hall of Famers.

It doesn't work that way.


Yeah, but wasn't Mazeroski basically the Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson of second-basemen? I don't think any of those guys are in for their offensive production.

santo=dorf
01-10-2007, 06:44 PM
Yeah, but wasn't Mazeroski basically the Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson of second-basemen? I don't think any of those guys are in for their offensive production.
Which is why I laugh at people who claim DH's shouldn't be in the HOF or guys like Frank Thomas because he wasn't that good at first. If players have to play "both sides of the game," shouldn't they be at least above average in both spots to make the HOF?

Is Frank's defense at first that much worse than Ozzie's putrid offensive numbers? Is Edgar Martinez's bat so good it makes up for his lack of defense?

A. Cavatica
01-10-2007, 07:04 PM
A better comparison with Perez, considering they played in the same era, one heavily dominated by pitching, would be good ol' Dick Allen. How can Perez be in and Allen not? That guy dominated Perez's era.

Agreed. Allen (career .912 OPS, 1 MVP, 1 RoY) >> Perez (career .804 OPS, no major awards) and Baines (career .821 OPS, no major awards). But Allen's career was shorter, so he didn't rack up 1600+ RBIs.

According to baseball-reference.com, Baines' most similar batter is Tony Perez, and vice versa. Allen's is Jim Edmonds -- who in my mind is no Hall of Famer, despite a good career.

I don't think this argues for Allen or Baines being in, I think it argues for Perez being out.

Zisk77
01-16-2007, 10:28 AM
The main thing that hurts Bert Blyleven's HOF is that he played in Minnesota for his whole career. It's sad but the HOF voting has turned into a big popularity contest it seems.


Bert played in Cleveland, Anaheim, and Pittsburgh also... which probably wasn't much better then Minnesota.

Grzegorz
01-16-2007, 10:38 AM
Am I the only one whoís disgusted with the vote total received Tuesday by Harold Baines?


Wasn't the procedure on his knee a disaster which cut his career as an offensive and defensive player?

Of course; Baines deserves better. Maybe if his knee held up and played more in the outfield and then moved to DH he'd be in.

The real crime is that Andre Dawson is in danger of being dropped. IMO this guy is a HOF'er.

Nellie_Fox
01-16-2007, 11:11 AM
...Allen's is Jim Edmonds -- who in my mind is no Hall of Famer, despite a good career.You can't compare offensive stats of a guy like Allen, who played during the height of pitching dominance in baseball in the '60s and 70's, with Edmonds who played during the offensive explosion . Edmonds would never have put up those numbers in the 60's and 70's.

FarWestChicago
01-16-2007, 08:53 PM
You can't compare offensive stats of a guy like Allen, who played during the height of pitching dominance in baseball in the '60s and 70's, with Edmonds who played during the offensive explosion . Edmonds would never have put up those numbers in the 60's and 70's.You are correct, sir.

A. Cavatica
01-16-2007, 09:59 PM
You are correct, sir.

Thank you both, the comparison didn't make sense to me, but I didn't
take the time to think about it.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-16-2007, 11:20 PM
Thank you both, the comparison didn't make sense to me, but I didn't
take the time to think about it.

I agree with the above statements (Allen's offensive numbers are more impressive because of the era he played in) but Edmonds' should get some credit for being one of the better centerfielders in the game whereas Dick Allen was not a great fielder.

Both are excellent ballplayers but both fall short of Hall of Fame standards (well, at least against my "upper tier" argument for Hall of Famers). Allen simply didn't play enough years / games but he performed at a Hall of Fame level for a 4 or 5 year stretch in Philadelphia and of course in 1972 with the White Sox. Too bad he didn't play much after 1972 (due to breaking his leg in June of 1973, his "retirement" (i.e. quitting the team) in mid September 1974 and general ineffectiveness after he left Chicago (1975-77)).

Harold Baines is my all time favorite player in any era but I think he falls short at least on my ballot. Sure most of the players elected via the Veterans Committee are not worthy (Baines is better than most of these players) and Baines is also better than recent BBWAA inductee Tony Perez. If you go down the slippery slope of "this guy is better than that guy (who shouldn't be in the HOF in the first place)" than you'll induct another 100 - 200 players who are not upper tier players. The HOF should be for the very best players in each generation. Too bad it has been watered down over the years.

BainesHOF
01-17-2007, 02:29 AM
Baines actually played some center field early in his career. He had a very good defensive reputation until his bad knees forced him into becoming a DH. There's no doubt he would have reached 3,000 hits if he would have stayed healthy.

As it is, he should be a Hall of Famer for his career RBI alone. He was the best clutcher I've seen on the Sox, and one of the best in his era.

On top of everything, Baines honored the game by the way he played it and conducted himself around it.

Of course, he's not in the same class as such Hall of Famers as Ruth, Mantle and Mays, but Baines was a better player than some who have already been voted to Cooperstown. He belongs in the Hall.

His low vote total speaks volumes about the baseball intellect of the sport's writers.

Railsplitter
01-18-2007, 04:33 PM
Harold Baines, like Ron Santo, never led the league in a major offensive catogary, never won a championship, and never won an MVP. If Santo deosn't belong, niether does Baines.

ode to veeck
01-18-2007, 04:57 PM
Harold Baines, like Ron Santo, never led the league in a major offensive catogary, never won a championship, and never won an MVP. If Santo deosn't belong, niether does Baines.

there's significat deltas in the numbers between these two in Harold's favor, especially H and RBI, not a good argument

I think Dick Allen should be in just because he hit a baseball harder than any human ever, steroids or not, nuff said

FarWestChicago
01-18-2007, 07:10 PM
I think Dick Allen should be in just because he hit a baseball harder than any human ever, steroids or not, nuff saidAgreed. :thumbsup:

Grzegorz
01-18-2007, 09:15 PM
I think Dick Allen should be in just because he hit a baseball harder than any human ever, steroids or not, nuff said

I'd guess that Mickey Mantle, Jimmy Foxx, & Willie McCovey could give Mr. Allen a run for his money...

FarWestChicago
01-18-2007, 09:31 PM
I'd guess that Mickey Mantle, Jimmy Foxx, & Willie McCovey could give Mr. Allen a run for his money...You could guess, but you would be wrong. :D: