Roger Maris HOF

[rats60]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

So accumulating 2,800 hits and 1,600 RBI automatically makes a player a Hall of Famer?

To Hall of Fame voters? Yes!

[awz50]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

You know that's not what I meant. Roger Maris is not Harold Baines. He is Hack Wilson. And no one ever says Hack doesn't deserve to be there.



So what? It is not the Hall of WAR. And if it were, Big Daddy would be in the Hall.

Ohh I gotta disagree with you there. Hack Wilson and Maris are not the same. Hack had a better peak then Marris. Hack had a true "hof peak" Maris had two seasons. Hack played center and hit .307. Maris played in the corner and hit .260

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rats60

Harold Baines getting elected to the Hall of Fame didn't lower the bar. You still had Tommy McCarthy, Rick Ferrell, Rube Marquard, High Pockets Kelly, Freddie Lindstrom, Jesse Haines, Ray Schalk, Chick Hafey and Ross Youngs as members of the Hall of Fame.

Those are all 19th century guys....I'll be more precise.....Baines lowered the bar for post-expansion (i.e. 1962) players.....

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Those are all 19th century guys....I'll be more precise.....Baines lowered the bar for post-expansion (i.e. 1962) players.....

Huh? McCarthy is the only 19th Century player on that list.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rats60

To Hall of Fame voters? Yes!

Not true. Baines never got more than 6.1% from the voters, and then was elected by a Veteran's committee filled with some of his buddies.

There should be a "minimum standards" requirement for the veteran's committee candidates that would narrow down potential candidates....maybe either a minimum of 50 WAR, 50% on at least one HOF writers ballot, or 33% on at least five ballots.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

To Hall of Fame voters? Yes!

Not the hundreds of baseball writers who vote on candidates every year -- the small group of friends and associates on the veterans committee.

I can rattle off many players more noteworthy than Baines. I'm not trying to tear him down by pointing that out -- I'm trying to give justice to the players who haven't been as lucky as him.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Not the hundreds of baseball writers who vote on candidates every year -- the small group of friends and associates on the veterans committee.

I can rattle off many players more noteworthy than Baines. I'm not trying to tear him down by pointing that out -- I'm trying to give justice to the players who haven't been as lucky as him.

The point really wasn't about Baines. It was about the 2,800 hits and 1,600 RBI. There's no precedent for keeping out a clean player with those numbers. That's not an opinion, it's what has happened. Keeping Baines out wasn't some crime, but putting him in is nowhere near the travesty people like to make of it.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Huh? McCarthy is the only 19th Century player on that list.

Fine....pre-WWII guys who played before the HOF even existed....

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by awz50

Ohh I gotta disagree with you there. Hack Wilson and Maris are not the same. Hack had a better peak then Marris. Hack had a true "hof peak" Maris had two seasons. Hack played center and hit .307. Maris played in the corner and hit .260

No worries. Hack wasn't inducted because of his .307 average or his high peak. He was inducted because he held the single season RBI record which was considered more important at the time. Which is why his case is so similar to Roger's. In fact, Hack fared worse on the BBWAA ballot than Maris did.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Fine....pre-WWII guys who played before the HOF even existed....

Ok, but those guys are in the Hall of Fame. They make up part of the mythical "standard". Mazeroski and Scooter were worse selections than Baines.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Not true. Baines never got more than 6.1% from the voters, and then was elected by a Veteran's committee filled with some of his buddies.

There should be a "minimum standards" requirement for the veteran's committee candidates that would narrow down potential candidates....maybe either a minimum of 50 WAR, 50% on at least one HOF writers ballot, or 33% on at least five ballots.

Ted Simmons only received 3.7% his one year on the ballot and he was elected by the Veterans Committee. Bobby Grich (2.6%), Lou Whitaker (2.9%) and Kenny Lofton (3.2%) were also one and done on the HOF ballot. A lot of people think they belong.

There are minimum standards. The Historical Overview Committee of 10-12 Baseball Historians selects players they feel are worthy of consideration. Then the Veterans Committee of 16 HOFers, Executives, Media or Historians votes on them. Two seperate groups have to agree that a player belongs.

Your standards are ridiculous. 50 WAR? Lol. Which WAR? Now you are saying one person should be in charge of making a ballot based on their standards. Is it Baseball Reference or Fangraphs?

50% on one ballot? That leaves Curt Schilling and Steroid Cheats that the VC is never electing. So Curt Schilling is the only guy they can pick in the forseeable future? Besides, Jack Morris received more than 50% and a lot of people think he was a terrible pick. Even if you lower it to 40%, you only add Roger Maris, Steve Garvey, Maury Wills and Marty Marion.

33% on 5 ballots? Now we are back to Schilling and Garvey as the only electible players.

Back to my post, it is true. Name someone with 1600 RBI or 2800 hits, that didn't dope to reach those milestones, who isn't in the HOF? You can't because they either are already in, are on the ballot or haven't become eligible yet. Baines achieved both.

Why shouldn't one of the standards be reaching certain difficult milestones like hits or RBI? Isn't 300 Wins, 3000Ks, 500 HRs and 3000 hits considered automatic if you didn't dope? 1600 RBIs is only 30 players, not counting the 6 guys who cheated to reach that milestone. That seems pretty exclusive. Lowering the hit standard from 3000 to 2800 only adds 18 guys (plus one doper) bringing the total number of players to reach that milestone to 49 (plus 3 dopers). There are some pretty good players in that "between 2800 & 3000 hit club" such as Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby. That is still pretty exclusive.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rats60

There are minimum standards. The Historical Overview Committee of 10-12 Baseball Historians selects players they feel are worthy of consideration. Then the Veterans Committee of 16 HOFers, Executives, Media or Historians votes on them. Two seperate groups have to agree that a player belongs.

A meaningful "standard", by definition, has to have some level of objectivity.

And the opinions of small groups of people are anything but objective...

WAR, for all its flaws, is fairly objective....i.e. it evaluates everyone using the same criteria.

Right now the problem is that the Veterans Committees are essentially pulling names out of a hat....you've got guys like Simmons, and Baines, and Parker getting elected, while much stronger candidates (like Whitaker or Keith Hernandez) are getting ignored. There's nothing remotely objective about it.

There is no universe, for example, in which you can make the argument that Dave Parker was a better player than Keith Hernandez. Heck...how do you explain Steve Garvey making the Classic Era Ballot this year while Hernandez didn't ??? The answer is that these "committees" are a hugely flawed joke.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

A meaningful "standard", by definition, has to have some level of objectivity.

And the opinions of small groups of people are anything but objective...

WAR, for all its flaws, is fairly objective....i.e. it evaluates everyone using the same criteria.

Right now the problem is that the Veterans Committees are essentially pulling names out of a hat....you've got guys like Simmons, and Baines, and Parker getting elected, while much stronger candidates (like Whitaker or Keith Hernandez) are getting ignored. There's nothing remotely objective about it.

There is no universe, for example, in which you can make the argument that Dave Parker was a better player than Keith Hernandez. Heck...how do you explain Steve Garvey making the Classic Era Ballot this year while Hernandez didn't ??? The answer is that these "committees" are a hugely flawed joke.

WAR does not evaluate everyone using the same criteria. The WAR calculations for defense in the Statcast Era are a lot different than the calculations in the 20th century/early-21st Century. And even then, the late 20th century calculations are far different than the 1st half of the 20th century.

As for Keith Hernandez vs Parker and Garvey, it's pretty simple. Parker and Garvey performed better than Hernandez on the BBWAA ballots.

Don't get me wrong, Hernandez was fantastic and deserves to be there, but I think Garvey has a stronger case.

In the 22 seasons from 1970-1991, the Dodgers:
Went to 7 World Series, winning 2 of them
Went 1,914-1,587-3 for a .547 Winning Percentage (That's averaging 89-73 for 22 seasons)
Finished in 1st place 6 times
Finished in 2nd place 11 times

In fact, aside from Don Sutton, they only had 5 other Hall of Famers even make a pit stop there in those 22 seasons:
Eddie Murray spent 3 years there from 89-91
Frank Robinson hung out with them in 1972
Gary Carter spent his 1991 season there at the end of his career
Juan Marichal pitched 6 innings for them in 1975
Hoyt Wilhelm pitched his final 43 innings for them when he was 48 and 49


Garvey was certainly the star player from those 70s teams. He also helped the Padres make their first World Series.

In fact, the 1981 Dodgers are the 1st team to win a World Series without a single HOFer appearing on the roster at any point during the season.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

Why shouldn't one of the standards be reaching certain difficult milestones like hits or RBI? Isn't 300 Wins, 3000Ks, 500 HRs and 3000 hits considered automatic if you didn't dope? 1600 RBIs is only 30 players, not counting the 6 guys who cheated to reach that milestone. That seems pretty exclusive. Lowering the hit standard from 3000 to 2800 only adds 18 guys (plus one doper) bringing the total number of players to reach that milestone to 49 (plus 3 dopers). There are some pretty good players in that "between 2800 & 3000 hit club" such as Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby. That is still pretty exclusive.

RBIs are not a skill. They are partial a product of circumstances beyond a hitter's control -- where they hit in the lineup, who hits in front of them, etc.

Hit totals don't tell you the kind of hits a batter had or how good of an overall hitter they were. Baines had more hits than Ken Griffey Jr, Chipper Jones, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams -- the list goes on.

Baines' all-time rankings (minimum 6,000 PA):

OBP: 310

SLG%: 210

OPS: 219

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

RBIs are not a skill. They are partial a product of circumstances beyond a hitter's control -- where they hit in the lineup, who hits in front of them, etc.

While I would agree that someone hitting is a specific spot in a lineup has more opportunities for RBI's I would make sure to mention that the person hitting in that spot is there for a reason.

Without a doubt, RBI's are a skill. Historically, there are hitters that do much better than others with runners in scoring position. They are better skilled and do better under pressure. There is a reason why you put specific hitters in the 3-4-5 spots in the lineup.

However, the modern game 2016-now has completely done away with this skill in the game and replaced it with the home run or strike-out mentality. Contact-hitting, advancing runners, and most importantly, driving in runs have been mostly phased out of the game. It's embarrassing to see so many instances over the past 10 years where runners were in scoring positions at key moments in the game only to have yet another hitter at the plate who's only ability was to swing for the fence or strike out.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

However, the modern game 2016-now has completely done away with this skill in the game and replaced it with the home run or strike-out mentality. Contact-hitting, advancing runners, and most importantly, driving in runs have been mostly phased out of the game. It's embarrassing to see so many instances over the past 10 years where runners were in scoring positions at key moments in the game only to have yet another hitter at the plate who's only ability was to swing for the fence or strike out.

Agreed....and that's why baseball has become almost unwatchable for older fands like me...

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

While I would agree that someone hitting is a specific spot in a lineup has more opportunities for RBI's I would make sure to mention that the person hitting in that spot is there for a reason.

Without a doubt, RBI's are a skill. Historically, there are hitters that do much better than others with runners in scoring position. They are better skilled and do better under pressure. There is a reason why you put specific hitters in the 3-4-5 spots in the lineup.

The best hitters with RISP are the generally the best hitters overall, which is why they hit in the middle of the order.

Last 20 seasons (2005-2024):

Highest BA with RISP (minimum 1,000 PA):
1. Joe Mauer: .335 (.291 with bases empty)
2. Freddie Freeman: .334 (.282 with bases empty)
3. Miguel Cabrera: .332 (.293 with bases empty)
4. Mookie Betts: .331 (.286 with bases empty)
5. Daniel Murphy: .328 (.282 with bases empty)

Highest OPS with RISP (minimum 1,000 PA)
1. Mike Trout: 1.048 (.985 with bases empty)
2. Joey Votto: 1.043 (.877 with bases empty)
3. Lance Berkman: 1.002 (.863 with bases empty)
4. Juan Soto: .997 (.924 with bases empty)
5. Freddie Freeman: .996 (.854 with bases empty)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

RBIs are not a skill. They are partial a product of circumstances beyond a hitter's control -- where they hit in the lineup, who hits in front of them, etc.

Hit totals don't tell you the kind of hits a batter had or how good of an overall hitter they were. Baines had more hits than Ken Griffey Jr, Chipper Jones, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams -- the list goes on.

Baines' all-time rankings (minimum 6,000 PA):

OBP: 310

SLG%: 210

OPS: 219

RBIs are definitely a skill. It requires being able to hit with runners in scoring position. I wish it was a skill that Barry Bonds had in the 1990-92 Playoffs. Maybe if he had done better .191 with 3 RBIs in 83 plate appearances, he would have some rings. Instead he is just a loser who is never making the Hall of Fame.

Ichiro OBP .355 SLG .402 OPS .757
Jeter OBP . 377 SLG .440 OPS .817
Baines OBP .356 SLG .465 OPS .820

If getting a lot of hits isn't a skill, maybe we should kick Ichiro and Jeter out of the Hall of Fame. No one is calling Baines an inner circle Hofer, so comparing him to All-time greats is ridiculous. Unless you want to have a HOF of about 100 guys and let 1 in per year, Baines is the type of guy who belongs. Getting a lot of hits and driving in a lot of runs, wins a lot of games. Being top 50 in hits, total bases and RBIs is the type of production voters look for, not who has more WAR than Baines.

[Skipscards]

Harold Baines was a Designated Hitter. He has the most Hits of any Designated Hitter in history. He was designated to “Hit” and that’s exactly what he did.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ichiro OBP .355 SLG .402 OPS .757
Jeter OBP . 377 SLG .440 OPS .817
Baines OBP .356 SLG .465 OPS .820

If getting a lot of hits isn't a skill, maybe we should kick Ichiro and Jeter out of the Hall of Fame. No one is calling Baines an inner circle Hofer, so comparing him to All-time greats is ridiculous. Unless you want to have a HOF of about 100 guys and let 1 in per year, Baines is the type of guy who belongs. Getting a lot of hits and driving in a lot of runs, wins a lot of games. Being top 50 in hits, total bases and RBIs is the type of production voters look for, not who has more WAR than Baines.

You compared Baines to lead-off hitters who played the field full time. He hit in the middle of the order and was primarily a DH. Let's compare him to other DHs:


Hitting numbers at DH (minimum 3,000 PA):


Edgar Martinez: .314/.428/.532, .960 OPS, 6,218 PA

David Ortiz: .289/.383/.559, .942 OPS, 8,861 PA

Jim Thome: .265/.391/.531, .922 OPS, 3,451 PA

Frank Thomas: .275/.394/.505, .899 OPS, 5,698 PA

Travis Hafner: .275/.378/.504, .882 OPS, 4,442 PA

Edwin Encarnación: .262/.358/.510, .868 OPS, 3,287 PA

Jose Canseco: .265/.356/.510, .866 OPS, 3,730 PA

Chili Davis: .282/.382/.483, .864 OPS, 4,899 PA

Nelson Cruz: .273/.348/.512, .860 OPS, 4,426 PA

JD Martinez: .274/.343/.505, .848 OPS, 3,294 PA

Harold Baines: .291/.370/.467, .837 OPS, 6,618 PA

Paul Molitor: .308/.374/.454, .828 OPS, 5,338 PA

Brian Downing: .272/.375/.453, .828 OPS, 3,527 PA

Hal McRae: .294/.357/.463, .820 OPS, 5,917 PA

Don Baylor: .259/.344/.449, .792 OPS, 5,391 PA

Andre Thornton: .254/.350/.436, .786 OPS, 3,152 PA

Victor Martinez: .285/.345/.437, .782 OPS, 3,644 PA

Billy Butler: .283/.347/.425, .772 OPS, 3,865 PA

Kendrys Morales: .260/.323/.438, .762 OPS, 3,438 PA

Willie Horton: .265/.321/.408, .729 OPS, 4,383 PA

So, Baines was a middle-of-the-pack DH. Most noteworthy, Chili Davis was a better DH.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Chilli Davis was a better DH.

Nvm. Not going to engage.

[fabiani12333]

Harold Baines vs Chili Davis:

Baines:
WAR: 38.8 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .820 and 121
162-game averages: 164 H, 22 HR, 93 RBI

Davis:
WAR: 38.3 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .811 and 121
162-game averages: 158 H, 23 HR, 91 RBI

Why is one in the Hall of Fame and the other isn't?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Harold Baines vs Chili Davis:

Baines:
WAR: 38.8 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .820 and 121
162-game averages: 164 H, 22 HR, 93 RBI

Davis:
WAR: 38.3 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .811 and 121
162-game averages: 158 H, 23 HR, 91 RBI

Why is one in the Hall of Fame and the other isn't?

Baines 2866 hits
Davis 2380 hits

Baines 1628 RBI
Davis 1372 RBI

[rats60]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

You compared Baines to lead-off hitters who played the field full time. He hit in the middle of the order and was primarily a DH. Let's compare him to other DHs:


Hitting numbers at DH (minimum 3,000 PA):


Edgar Martinez: .314/.428/.532, .960 OPS, 6,218 PA

David Ortiz: .289/.383/.559, .942 OPS, 8,861 PA

Jim Thome: .265/.391/.531, .922 OPS, 3,451 PA

Frank Thomas: .275/.394/.505, .899 OPS, 5,698 PA

Travis Hafner: .275/.378/.504, .882 OPS, 4,442 PA

Edwin Encarnación: .262/.358/.510, .868 OPS, 3,287 PA

Jose Canseco: .265/.356/.510, .866 OPS, 3,730 PA

Chili Davis: .282/.382/.483, .864 OPS, 4,899 PA

Nelson Cruz: .273/.348/.512, .860 OPS, 4,426 PA

JD Martinez: .274/.343/.505, .848 OPS, 3,294 PA

Harold Baines: .291/.370/.467, .837 OPS, 6,618 PA

Paul Molitor: .308/.374/.454, .828 OPS, 5,338 PA

Brian Downing: .272/.375/.453, .828 OPS, 3,527 PA

Hal McRae: .294/.357/.463, .820 OPS, 5,917 PA

Don Baylor: .259/.344/.449, .792 OPS, 5,391 PA

Andre Thornton: .254/.350/.436, .786 OPS, 3,152 PA

Victor Martinez: .285/.345/.437, .782 OPS, 3,644 PA

Billy Butler: .283/.347/.425, .772 OPS, 3,865 PA

Kendrys Morales: .260/.323/.438, .762 OPS, 3,438 PA

Willie Horton: .265/.321/.408, .729 OPS, 4,383 PA

So, Baines was a middle-of-the-pack DH. Most noteworthy, Chili Davis was a better DH.

I can agree with this

Thomas
Martinez
Thome
Molitor
Ortiz


Baines


The Rest

In the middle right on the HOF cut line. Everyone else below those 6 is not worthy of HOF.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Harold Baines vs Chili Davis:

Baines:
WAR: 38.8 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .820 and 121
162-game averages: 164 H, 22 HR, 93 RBI

Davis:
WAR: 38.3 bWAR
OPS and OPS+: .811 and 121
162-game averages: 158 H, 23 HR, 91 RBI

Why is one in the Hall of Fame and the other isn't?

Because one had buddies on the Veteran's Committee and the other didn't.

Same reason Garvey was on this year's ballot but Keith Hernandez wasn't....