hall of fame, next vote...

i kind of feel bad for Baines, because for the next year all he's going to hear about is how he's not really *that* good and he will forever be a benchmark for undeserving hall of famers.

i kind of hope (but doubt) he calls out the vet committee for their stupidity.

is there any chance this causes MLB (or whoever is in charge of these things) to re-examine how the vet's committee works?

If anyone should protest, it's the BBWAA. They get raked over the coals every year for their choices and individual writers get put under tremendous pressure to justify and defend their choices. Everyone debates and researches and argues over candidates for ten (formerly fifteen) years and the whole process has the illusion of carrying some serious weight -- reputations of players are on the line, and legacies are at stake! Then the next year a bunch of Jack Morris' old drinking buddies get together one afternoon and put him in the HOF anyway. It's ridiculous.

And the Baines case is obv. 10000X worse because the BBWAA (rightly) dismissed him as a serious candidate early on, only to have the New Vets Committee come around 20 years later and say "fuck it, we don't care what you guys think, he's a HOFer".

The writers have made a bunch of one and done screw ups (e.g. Kevin Brown, Lou Whitaker) but surely there's a way of dealing with this. You could have the BBWAA vote on a supplementary ballot for reconsidering players who have fallen off the regular ballot. If you get, say, 40-50% of the vote, *then* you get your name added to a Vets Committee list, and can be reconsidered once every five years. Anything is better than a system where Harold Baines gets elected out of the blue.

I know nobody cares about RBI, but I'm actually surprised and impressed to learn that Baines was second for that time frame. (And no, that doesn't change anything--longevity + fluke of the calendar.)

i kind of feel bad for Baines, because for the next year all he's going to hear about is how he's not really *that* good and he will forever be a benchmark for undeserving hall of famers.

He was much better on the outside--people always spoke highly of him, looked at him as one example of the good player who falls short of the HOF. Now, as TT says, he'll be vilified and held up as a joke.

And for longer than the next year, I'd say.

Nice clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnF08SLklKc

rumor has it LaRussa was venting about analytics today! stay tuned

Harold Baines, the type of solid player whose mid-'80s Topps cards highlight would read something like "laced an RBI double on opening day in a ChiSox 7-3 loss."

https://sportsinfosolutionsblog.com/2018/12/10/the-hall-of-fame-value-standard/

skimming my way through this...

Come on, Baines had ten walk off home runs. He was a good hitter for a really long time.

Thirteen grand salamis

more than 1st ballot hof-er derrack j4ter iirc

Over a seventeen year stretch, he hit under .280 twice. OBP and SLG also both really good consistently. Could have had 400/3,000 if not for the strike, etc.

I'm always arguing against Andruw Jones; I like what James writes about Jones in the piece linked to above. Part of that:

Jones has very, very good defensive numbers, numbers derived from early efforts to measure Defensive Runs Saved, and I do not question that he was a very good defensive center fielder until he put on weight. Those good defensive numbers are incorporated into his WAR, and in fact form the basis of his outstanding 62.8 WAR.

But that means that Jones’ claim to greatness relies on assets that are simply not available to the players to whom he is being compared. If we had parallel data available for Devon White, for Garry Maddox, for Curt Flood, Willie Davis, Paul Blair, Jim Landis and Jimmy Piersall, it is extremely likely that some of them ALSO would have extremely high Defensive Runs Saved, and thus would suddenly leapfrog Andruw Jones in the values; this is not only likely, in my opinion, it is certain. The entire argument for Andruw Jones as a Hall of Famer rests on giving him an advantage that other center fielders are denied. I think it is just totally wrong. I don’t believe that Andruw Jones was a Hall of Famer, I don’t believe that he was anywhere NEAR a Hall of Fame level, and I am strongly opposed to his election.

tim ellison doing a great job of making me wonder whether he’s serious or not

Accumulator!

I really wanted there to be a 3000 Hit Guy not in the HOF. Lou Brock is probably the worst of the modern ones.

Harold Baines was of course a good hitter, the kind of guy you like to have as your third best hitter on a really good team. but he's also a guy whose best bWAR season falls short of the best bWAR season of Raul Ibanez.

Right, but he's not getting in for blockbuster seasons, he's getting in for like eighteen years straight (no injuries?) of being pretty darn good, mostly as a DH. (And not just in some counting stat that doesn't tell the whole picture. He got hits but also got on base a lot and had power.)

I'm not Kevin - I don't think he's a no brainer but I think there's more of a case to be made than others, seemingly.

other posters, that is

Fascinating passage there, clemenza, about those sixties and seventies era outfielders

but Rusty Staub and Al Oliver aint getting in, tim, and they were better.

(but I wdnt vote for them)

as Jeff Sullivan pointed out, Baines was far from the best choice on that ballot. Orel Hershiser should be pissed.

Staub looks to have been a more valuable player for basically a three year stretch '69-'71.

Well, and '67. Four years.

I do wonder if Staub's bWAR for '69 and '70 is high, though, given his astronomical walk totals while hitting third in an Expos expansion-era lineup.

Coco Laboy, Mack Jones, Ron Fairly hitting behind him. Staub scored 89 runs in '69 and 98 in '70.

that was a relative deadball era, even post-'68

Staub was more valuable *over his career*

According to his lifetime bWAR, yes. But those four years are Expos '69-'71 and the ninth place '67 Astros.

no one ever called harold baines le grand orange

Harold Baines has zero HOF case and his peak wasn’t peak enough to make his entry as a compiler especially legitimate. None of which I would mind this much (it would still be astonishingly wrongheaded) if the BBWAA would not one-and-done guys like Whitaker or shake their heads sadly in the direction of Larry Walker or make legit great players like Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven and presumably Edgar Martinez wait til the last second to let them sneak in. Fingers crossed for Walker there...

his peak wasn’t peak enough to make his entry as a compiler especially legitimate

I think the argument would be that it doesn't have to be peak enough when you average 2.75 WAR over your twelve best seasons.

what do you think a list of all the players who have averaged 2.75 WAR over 12 years looks like? mostly hall of famers?

It's a good question. Do you have an answer?

Maybe you're right. Oliver and Staub both average closer to 3.5 WAR if you take their 12 best seasons.

i don't have play index, but here are some players who posted 33-35 bWAR over their *first* 12 seasons:

jorge posada
ellis burks
travis fryman
mark ellis
brady anderson
wally joyner
ray durham

here's the leaderboard for most WAR accumulated between a player's age 22 season and his age 33 season

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=22,33&filter=&players=0&page=18_30

baines comes in at 516th, just between jake daubert and riggs stephenson

For reference, Frank White was worth about 2.4 WAR on average over his best 12 (consecutive) seasons, 1975-87

from 1989 to 2001 Mark Grace was 3.6 WAR per year and was dropped from the HOF ballot after his first year (4.1% of the vote)

Yes, and all these guys had defensive opportunities that Baines did not. As a DH, Baines was...really good and for a long time. So maybe it's the specialist conundrum again as with closers.

but a lot of the guys above who had defensive opportunities would have been at least as good as harold baines at the plate as DHs. it's just that they were good in the field as well, so they weren't DH's. but they're not hall of famers, either. so why should baines get in ahead of people who did everything he did at the plate, plus more?

Wait, which of those guys had anything like Baines' offensive numbers?

Ellis Burks did.

(Although over 100 of his HR were for Colorado.)

Baines had 759 more hits

mark grace did

421 fewer hits, 211 fewer HR

Baines lifetime postseason - 113 PA, .324/.378/.510 with 5 HR.

i think we're done here

421 fewer hits, 211 fewer HR

i thought we were still talking the 12 year thing? on that age 22-33 leaderboard kevin posted above, even just looking at offense alone (no defense/DH penalty), harold baines is 320th (mark grace is 282nd. just to be clear, i also don't think mark grace is a hall of famer. i'm just saying, the guy who no one really considers as a hall of fame hitter outhit harold baines.)

i'm going to see if i can find mark grace on twitter so i can update him on this

i wonder if anyone has ever had the guts to say "hall of the very good" out loud in his presence