ADVERTISEMENT

Harold Baines made the baseball HOF?

john4psu

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2003
11,564
8,349
1
I know his lifetime stats are good: 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 ave.

However, he never scored 90 or more runs in a season, never had 200 hits in a season, in fact, only once did he have more than 175 hits in a season, and he never hit 30 home runs in a season. The only category he ever led for a season was slugging percentage once.

Hall worthy?
 
I know his lifetime stats are good: 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 ave.

However, he never scored 90 or more runs in a season, never had 200 hits in a season, in fact, only once did he have more than 175 hits in a season, and he never hit 30 home runs in a season. The only category he ever led for a season was slugging percentage once.

Hall worthy?

Not even close. Bizarre. I was stunned to read that this morning. Stunned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu
Baines in the baseball hall of fame makes more sense than Namath in the football hall of fame. Harold has that going for himself.
 
I know his lifetime stats are good: 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 ave.

However, he never scored 90 or more runs in a season, never had 200 hits in a season, in fact, only once did he have more than 175 hits in a season, and he never hit 30 home runs in a season. The only category he ever led for a season was slugging percentage once.

Hall worthy?

Baines was and still is a likable guy, but he is not a Hall of Famer. He falls short on three key stats:

2866 hits, not 3000
384 home runs, not 400
.289 average, not .300

If he had hit the above three milestones, then he would belong in the Hall.
 
I don't recall Baines being close to 75% when the writers voted in the past. I just read Baines never got 7%!

Lou Piniella got 11 votes and missed getting in by one vote. Piniella had 1705 hits, 102 HRs, 766 RBIs and hit .291.
 
I know his lifetime stats are good: 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 ave.

However, he never scored 90 or more runs in a season, never had 200 hits in a season, in fact, only once did he have more than 175 hits in a season, and he never hit 30 home runs in a season. The only category he ever led for a season was slugging percentage once.

Hall worthy?

I have no idea who he is. That shows you how I've lost touch with baseball when I once attended 50+ games a year.
 
Baines was and still is a likable guy, but he is not a Hall of Famer. He falls short on three key stats:

2866 hits, not 3000
384 home runs, not 400
.289 average, not .300

If he had hit the above three milestones, then he would belong in the Hall.

I’m not a big believer in the milestones making you automatic.
Sitting at a work meeting (and obviously not paying attention) I was thinking about Baines and it occurred to me that Tony Perez might be a fair comparison. Looked up the stats and they are fairly similar. I am a Reds fan and don’t think Perez belongs in the Hall either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tri-Power65
I met Harold Baines at a golf outing in Maryland. Nice guy, had time for everyone. The first hole was a par 5. Harold pulls out a 1 iron and smashes the ball 300 yards and, I swear, the ball was never more than 10 feet off the ground. Harold just grinned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSJimbo
I have no idea who he is. That shows you how I've lost touch with baseball when I once attended 50+ games a year.

He was a good player in his day, never considered great. Maybe a couple of core years when he was 'feared' at the plate. Then he extended his career tremendously by being a DH in the American league for a good 5+ years beyond normal baseball life. Left handed hitter with some power can stick around for a while.
 
This is a complete joke. Baines didn’t even get 5% on his second year. And, unlike someone like Ron Santo, modern sabermetrics have not vindicated him. According to Baseball Reference, he was only worth 1.8 wins over an average player during his career. He is also ranked the 74th best right fielder, below guys like Tim Salmon, Reggie Sanders, and Brian Jordan.

You have to let every single player who lasted 15 years on the ballot without getting in now. Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, etc. all need to get in.
 
Last edited:
I was chatting one day with the well known advocate for Dick Allen’s enshrinement. He was telling me that he went to the meeting site where the Vet vote was held hoping to be there when Allen got elected. Frog told me he took the elevator down with Rod Carew after the vote and that Carew was bitterly disappointed that his friend and the player he was advocating, Tony Olivia, missed by one vote (as did Allen). I imagine Carew is now more hopeful that Oliva gets the nod next time. I understand Oliva does not have gaudy career numbers but he was a wonderful player, 3 time batting champ, 8 time All Star, etc in a slightly truncated career beset by injury.

I can only imagine that the MLB channel is going to have some lively debate today. I think the election of Baines will really serve to highlight the vote for guys like Allen and Oliva. If you saw all of these guys play their entire careers, Allen and Oliva have to get in if Baines is in.
 
Pete Rose isn't in because nobody will stand up for him ( nobody really likes him). Maybe Baines is just the opposite. But no, I don't see it either.

This is correct. Baines was selected by the "Today's Game Era committee," which is comprised of only 16 members, and only 12 votes are needed for induction. Jerry Reinsdorf (White Sox chairman) and former Sox manager Tony La Russa are members. You can be sure that Reinsdorf was working behind the scenes to get Harold selected.
 
Well the notion because "someone is in" that "someone else should be in" is a flawed premise--many are in that do not deserve it

If we take the above approach then its a race to the bottom by catering to the lowest common denominator rather than holding to a high standard.

Anyway since we are comparing:

Baines is so similar to Tony Perez but no one else problem --Baines is an Avg OF Tony an above avg 1B. They are also only similar later in their careers. Baines falls very short on the Black ink and Gray Ink tests as does Perez but Perez does better in those tests.

Both marginal HOF material at best, with Perez being the better overall player.

Baines was elected via the Today’s Game Era ballot not the Baseball Writers (although not that the Baseball writers know either). But its clear the HOF is now going to be littered with above avg players.
 
This is correct. Baines was selected by the "Today's Game Era committee," which is comprised of only 16 members, and only 12 votes are needed for induction. Jerry Reinsdorf (White Sox chairman) and former Sox manager Tony La Russa are members. You can be sure that Reinsdorf was working behind the scenes to get Harold selected.

Like I said in an earlier thread, Jerry must have called in some favors.

But I at least prefer his approach as to that of Pat Gillick who voted AGAINST Dick Allen when Allen missed last time by one vote. Even with Gillick’s Philly connection.
 
Didn't Baines DH a lot in his career? Lou Whitaker put up comparable numbers (for a middle infielder) and played stellar defense as well. Head scratcher.
 
I was stunned when I saw he was named to the HOF, then I checked his career stats afterwards. I remained stunned.

well to be fair they are good numbers for a career not HOF numbers. I would even argue milestones are passé as the game has evolved but they do serve as a metric to at least entertain a conversation to control the bottom floor entrants.

For instance is Jim Thome better than both Perez and Baines?? Yes but not by much, with stats almost equal across the board, except that big number 612. Should that be the deciding factor for borderline players?? If he only hits 400 HRs would Thome be worthy? I would say no, same as Perez and Baines
 
well to be fair they are good numbers for a career not HOF numbers. I would even argue milestones are passé as the game has evolved but they do serve as a metric to at least entertain a conversation to control the bottom floor entrants.

For instance is Jim Thome better than both Perez and Baines?? Yes but not by much, with stats almost equal across the board, except that big number 612. Should that be the deciding factor for borderline players?? If he only hits 400 HRs would Thome be worthy? I would say no, same as Perez and Baines
Agree they are very good numbers and certainly borderline on HR’s and RBI’s (probably his best statistic). The other somewhat critical stat is he never played in a World Series. If he had played on some better ball clubs, then that would have been a clincher IMO. Week overall HOF class definitely helped him and that’s the bottom line.
 
Well the notion because "someone is in" that "someone else should be in" is a flawed premise--many are in that do not deserve it

If we take the above approach then its a race to the bottom by catering to the lowest common denominator rather than holding to a high standard.

Anyway since we are comparing:

Baines is so similar to Tony Perez but no one else problem --Baines is an Avg OF Tony an above avg 1B. They are also only similar later in their careers. Baines falls very short on the Black ink and Gray Ink tests as does Perez but Perez does better in those tests.

Both marginal HOF material at best, with Perez being the better overall player.

Baines was elected via the Today’s Game Era ballot not the Baseball Writers (although not that the Baseball writers know either). But its clear the HOF is now going to be littered with above avg players.

The difference that jumps out at me is Perez had 11 consecutive 90+ RBI seasons, 12 overall in his career. Baines had 4 consecutive 90+ RBI seasons, 8 overall in his career.
 
Well the notion because "someone is in" that "someone else should be in" is a flawed premise--many are in that do not deserve it

If we take the above approach then its a race to the bottom by catering to the lowest common denominator rather than holding to a high standard.

Anyway since we are comparing:

Baines is so similar to Tony Perez but no one else problem --Baines is an Avg OF Tony an above avg 1B. They are also only similar later in their careers. Baines falls very short on the Black ink and Gray Ink tests as does Perez but Perez does better in those tests.

Both marginal HOF material at best, with Perez being the better overall player.

Baines was elected via the Today’s Game Era ballot not the Baseball Writers (although not that the Baseball writers know either). But its clear the HOF is now going to be littered with above avg players.

Agree about Perez. Better overall player than Baines, plus was known as a great clutch player and leader on one of the all time great teams. That said, his stats are aided by being on that team and he still shouldn’t be in the hall of Fame.
How about Dave Parker is Baines is in? His best years were great.
 
Baines 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 avg
Parker 1272 R, 2712 H, 339 HR, 1493 RBI, .290 avg

Baines has slightly better career numbers, but Parker was arguably THE best player in all of baseball in the late 70s. Career was destroyed by the awful astroturf in 3 rivers. The cocaine scandal seems to be what is keeping him out of the HOF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NedFromYork
Baines 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 avg
Parker 1272 R, 2712 H, 339 HR, 1493 RBI, .290 avg

Baines has slightly better career numbers, but Parker was arguably THE best player in all of baseball in the late 70s. Career was destroyed by the awful astroturf in 3 rivers. The cocaine scandal seems to be what is keeping him out of the HOF.

For the record, Parker is not a hall of fame player in my mind. But if Baines is in, he is in without a second thought. He was a great defensive right fielder for a time with an intimidating arm, statements that can’t be made for Baines.
The drugs ruined what should have been a no-doubt hall of fame career for Parker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu
I know his lifetime stats are good: 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 ave.

However, he never scored 90 or more runs in a season, never had 200 hits in a season, in fact, only once did he have more than 175 hits in a season, and he never hit 30 home runs in a season. The only category he ever led for a season was slugging percentage once.

Hall worthy?
Well, it's a close one. The fact that he got in on what amounts to a Veterans' Committee vote (the name of the Committee is now different, but the function is the same) tells you that his case was not overwhelming.

Nevertheless, 2,866 hits is a LOT of hits. (Another 134 hits and we would not even be debating this at all.) 1,629 RBI is a LOT of RBI. And the HR and batting average numbers are very respectable. There are a lot of every day players in the Hall with career batting averages below .300.

I think he suffered in BBWAA voting because he spent a fair amount of his career at DH, and a number of writers have historically had a problem voting for designated hitters to get into the Hall. That will change. Edgar will be the next DH to get in, IMO.
 
Baines 1299 R, 2866 H, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, .289 avg
Parker 1272 R, 2712 H, 339 HR, 1493 RBI, .290 avg

Baines has slightly better career numbers, but Parker was arguably THE best player in all of baseball in the late 70s. Career was destroyed by the awful astroturf in 3 rivers. The cocaine scandal seems to be what is keeping him out of the HOF.
ummm ... Mike Schmidt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chickenman Testa
This is a complete joke. Baines didn’t even get 5% on his second year. And, unlike someone like Ron Santo, modern sabermetrics have not vindicated him. According to Baseball Reference, he was only worth 1.8 wins over an average player during his career. He is also ranked the 74th best right fielder, below guys like Tim Salmon, Reggie Sanders, and Brian Jordan.

You have to let every single player who lasted 15 years on the ballot without getting in now. Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, etc. all need to get in.

Was going to ask how he stacked up to Dale Murphy (my childhood hero). I think he could have had a chance if he got to 500 HR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger Dan
Was going to ask how he stacked up to Dale Murphy (my childhood hero). I think he could have had a chance if he got to 500 HR.

Dale Murphy is typical of many players from the “AstroTurf Era” that had a shortened career. He pretty much hit the wall at age 32. Also, the fact that he played right before the steroids era causes many to overlook his stats.

I think he’s a HOF.. For a few years, he may have been the most feared slugger in MLB. He’s more deserving than compilers like Baines
 
Baines was and still is a likable guy, but he is not a Hall of Famer. He falls short on three key stats:

2866 hits, not 3000
384 home runs, not 400
.289 average, not .300

If he had hit the above three milestones, then he would belong in the Hall.
Man, those "magic numbers" are so arbitrary, though.

I admit, Baines instantly falls to the bottom of the barrel in terms of greatest players in the Hall of Fame. He's certainly no better than borderline. But all the baseball writers who have lambasted Baines' selection feel so mean-spirited to me.

I don't think it's a travesty that Baines got in. He had a great career. If anything, be angry about the gatekeepers locking Clemens and Bonds out. Be angry about the blatant disrespect shown for Fred McGriff and Gary Sheffield. Be angry about a lot of things that don't seem just in the Hall of Fame. But don't make Baines out to be the bane of all the Hall's problems, as I've seen some do. I don't know. That's my $.02.
 
Dale Murphy is typical of many players from the “AstroTurf Era” that had a shortened career. He pretty much hit the wall at age 32. Also, the fact that he played right before the steroids era causes many to overlook his stats.

I think he’s a HOF.. For a few years, he may have been the most feared slugger in MLB. He’s more deserving than compilers like Baines
Two MVPs, Murphy should have been in a long time ago.
 
As the saying goes - “If it is debatable, then there really is no debate.” Should not be in.
 
As you can tell by my handle, I'm glad Harold Baines got in. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised.

And now I hope Richie Allen will be next.
 
Schmidt peaked in the early 80s. Parker won MVP in 78.
By 1979, Schmidt already had 3 HR crowns and 4 Gold Gloves and was well on his way to becoming the best 3rd baseman of all time. His 70s numbers would be even better without being plunked by Bruce Kison and being hampered for a large portion of 1978.

Like Lundy said, Schmidt peaked from 1974-87
 
ADVERTISEMENT