Harold Baines a HOFer? [Archive]

micsmith

08-17-2004, 05:51 PM

Harold Baines was a really good player who definitely merits consideration for the Hall.
PROS: one of the best if not the best DH ever, even though he played about two-fifths of his games in the outfield. Edgar Martinez fans would probably put him ahead of Baines and I think it will be tough not to compare Baines and Martinez when the time comes for Baines’s eligibility. Baines also has 2866 hits, the most of any non-hall of famer (presumably Henderson, Boggs, Gwynn, Ripken and Palmeiro are in). And Baines was a 6-time all-star. He was an all-star at DH and outfield. 384 career home runs isn’t too bad either. 1628 RBI placed him in the top 20 at the time he retired. He’s pretty high on the all-time list of total bases and extra base hits
CONS: Not only did he never win any major awards, he never put together a season that was extraordinary. He never reached 200 hits or 30 homers. He never scored 100 runs and he never hit better than .313. His lifetime AVG, OBP and SLG are good but not outstanding. He never led his league once in any major statistical category except in 1984 when he led the AL in slugging. He bounced around among five different teams in his career. Many of his DH records have been eclipsed by Edgar Martinez who was a DH in fewer games. It took Baines 22 seasons to compile all those hits and RBI, and he only hit over 100 RBI three times. Baines best years are far worse than the best years of other players not yet in the hall like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson. More than anything else, you’d have to be a much better DH to get the votes to get in, designated hitters just aren’t viewed as highly as some people feel they should be.

Baines retired in 2001, so his first year of eligibility won’t see him in since he has to compete with Gwynn, McGwire and Ripken. Over the next few years, he’ll have to compete against the likes of Henderson, McGriff, Raines, Martinez, Belle, Canseco and the guys who are already on the list like Sandberg, Dawson and Rice. Was Baines really that much better than any of these guys that he could distinguish himself in the voters’ minds? His chances will decrease the longer he stays on the ballot, partially because we’ll see him have to compete for votes against Bonds, Palmeiro, Biggio, Alomar, and then Sosa, Griffey, Sheffield, Bagwell, Thomas, Gonzalez, Piazza and Walker and Baines won’t be able to compete with these guys.

Brad Harris

08-17-2004, 09:04 PM

Edgar Martinez, not Harold Baines is the greatest DH ever.

Baines career totals are a product of longevity, not greatness. As micsmith pointed out, Baines totaled 100 RBI in a season only thrice in a 22-year career.

Good player for a long time. Not a Hall of Famer. Dale Murphy, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson (to name a few contemporaries) belong in before Baines. So does Edgar Martinez for that matter.

bake mcbride

08-17-2004, 11:51 PM

I, too, have to say that Edgar Martinez is the best DH of all-time. Baines is second with Hal McRae taking third.

However, while Baines was a terrific hitter over the duration of his career, he did collect some of those numbers late in his career when he was no longer quite as effective as he had once been, although still a quality hitter, and while he has more career homers, RBI and hits than Edgar, he did play five more seasons, was an All-Star one fewer times, never won a batting title (Edgar won two) and has a career average below .300.

Don't get me wrong, I think Baines is definetly deserving of consideration, and should be looked upon as a great hitter that just isn't quite great enough for Cooperstown.

Bottom line: if Edgar doesn't get in, Baines doesn't get in.

Cougar

08-18-2004, 12:02 AM

I'm very sympathetic to Baines. I think he was a wonderful all-around hitter and a fine outfielder while he could man the position (which many forget).

But I've got to agree that there are several people ahead of him in the HOF queue.

Never mind the DH (at least for the moment); consider him a RF -- is he really better than Andre Dawson or Dave Parker? Tony Oliva? Dwight Evans? He might be better than Rusty Staub, but he might not be. Same with Bobby Bonds -- depends on peak vs. career weighting.

And that's just eligibles -- you've got guys like Gwynn, Sosa, Canseco, Gonzalez, Ramirez, etc. (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone important).

Despite the nice career totals he compiled, Baines just gets left in the dust. Add the DH issue, and there's just no way. He probably will fall off the ballot in the first year. (Baines deserves a better fate than that, but not the Hall.)

Brad Harris

08-18-2004, 08:15 AM

He probably will fall off the ballot in the first year.

One can only hope.

One of the most frustrating things about the BBWAA is their inability to elect someone of Gary Carter or Ryne Sandberg's quality relatively quickly while players with no real justification receive scant support from an entrenched minority. If it's obvious that Baines (for example) doesn't belong in the Hall, we should hope he leaves the ballot as expeditiously as possible so the voters can focus on the handful of candidates with more legitimate cases.

The fact that some people want to project Hall of Fame voting (for people who were never elected) as some kind of statement on the quality of their career is unecessary. The election is set up to say one thing "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer." There's no "ranking" of candidates from most worthy on down. (Although I'm inclined to think there ought to be.)

Cougar

08-18-2004, 10:26 AM

One of the most frustrating things about the BBWAA is their inability to elect someone of Gary Carter or Ryne Sandberg's quality relatively quickly while players with no real justification receive scant support from an entrenched minority.

I agree. Ballot clutter is making the BBWAA voting sclerotic. Having a guy like Sandberg suck up votes for 3-5 years when he should be in immediately is unjust not only to him but also to other players on the ballot who might receive more consideration otherwise.

However, I actually don't think the BBWAA has regularly given 5%+ to anyone who really doesn't have a case. In fact, they've dropped some excellent candidates. Lou Whitaker, Ron Guidry, Keith Hernandez, Joe Carter, Graig Nettles, Dwight & Darrell Evans all come to mind.

The problem is more at the top than the bottom.

If it's obvious that Baines (for example) doesn't belong in the Hall, we should hope he leaves the ballot as expeditiously as possible so the voters can focus on the handful of candidates with more legitimate cases.

The fact that some people want to project Hall of Fame voting (for people who were never elected) as some kind of statement on the quality of their career is unecessary. The election is set up to say one thing "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer." There's no "ranking" of candidates from most worthy on down. (Although I'm inclined to think there ought to be.)

To speak directly to Baines -- I guess Chancellor's right that if he's not a HOF, he should just drop off right away. But, although I don't, reasonable people can support Baines's candidacy -- this isn't a Jim Deshaies or Juan Samuel situation here. Given that, I'm inclined to prefer having him eligible for a few extra years for consideration rather than dropping him after one cursory ballot. An analogy might be that Type II error (acquitting a guilty man, or keeping an unworthy on the ballot) is preferable to Type I error (convicting an innocent, or dropping a worthy HOF from the ballot).

My favored solution to the "clutter problem" is to drop the 10 vote limit. If you think there are more than 10 worthies on a ballot (a minority view, I think, but one I happen to hold for the last several ballots), then dammit, you should be able to answer your question -- "[the player] is or is not a Hall of Famer" -- affirmatively for all of them. The 10 vote limit in effect does create the ranking situation from "most worthy" on down that Chancellor claims doesn't exist.

Brad Harris

08-18-2004, 12:07 PM

In pragmatical terms, I certainly endorse the idea that the 10-man limit should be removed. Either a player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't and the voters who feel there are 11-14 "Hall of Famers" on a ballot should certainly be given as much opportunity to express that opinion as those who feel there are only 3-4 already have by filling out a balloting with fewer names. I don't think that would get the top candidates inducted that much quicker, necessarily, but it would certainly help sort out how the voters feel about logjams at a particular position.

The Blyleven/Morris/John group would more accurately depict how voters felt. So would the Rice/Dawson group and, perhaps most assisted, the Gossage/Sutter/Smith group. Voters with a full ballot shouldn't have to "pick" between worthy candidates any more than voters shouldn't be required to put 10 names down.

Fuzzy Bear

09-11-2006, 06:26 PM

I've resurrected this in light of the referenced to Baines in the Dawson thread.

Bainsey gave it a good run in 1998-1999, but fell off the map in 2000 and had but a handful of ABs in 2001. The thing that hurts Baines is that he played over 1,600 games as a DH and under 1,100 in the OF. He was a good OF in his day, but there is little question but that he would not have amassed his career totals had it not been for the DH.

If Bainsey had been a career RF, he'd be a favorite for the Hall. He had 2,866 career hits, a .289 BA, with a good OBP and slugging pct. Baines didn't hit a single "milestone", but I cannot think of a single player so close to 3K hits and 400 HRs with a BA as high as Baines' that didn't make a strong candidate. He was well rounded on offense, and he'd have been a strong candidate if he played the field all the way.

In Baines' case, I would not give him any slack for being a DH. Unlike Edgar and Papi, who could have been trotted out to 1B if necessary, Baines' career was artificially extended by the DH, perhaps more than any other player in history. It's a tribute to his hitting that it was, but if he had to play the field, he may not have made it to 2,000 hits.

Redondos

02-26-2007, 09:52 PM

Does Harold Baines belong in the hall?

Captain Cold Nose

02-27-2007, 04:36 AM

Baines was a very good player for a long time. He was never in his day considered a superstar. Some may scoff at contemporary opinions, and there is legitimacy, but Baines was just a good DH. He did not post the numbers Edgar Martinez, Paul Molitor, Frank Thomas, or Dave Parker would post in a single season as a DH. A HOF'er should have something that stands out above his peers, anything. Baines did his job and did his job well. But he was not a HOF'er.

milladrive

02-27-2007, 05:27 AM

I dunno, this is a good one. We could toss out some pretty impressive numbers for a guy who played 22 seasons with only a fraction of his playing time on defense. Over 2800 hits, BA near .290, OPS+ about 120, almost 400 homers, lots of successful postseasons, etc., yet still questionable.

I think Baines is a prime example of why it'd be difficult for a dedicated DH to make the Hall. In spite of this, and despite my general distate for the DH, I propose that his offensive production makes him worthy. I vote yes on Baines.

Colorado Express

02-27-2007, 06:32 AM

I'm going to say no, but only because he was a steady solid performer, but lacks many dominant seasons.

KCGHOST

02-27-2007, 09:10 AM

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

Redondos

02-27-2007, 11:42 AM

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

Myopic? Look at yourself in the mirror. :eek:

If Baines had 134 more hits, then he would be a lock-stock shoo-in for the hall, defensive value or no. As it stands, he is at the very least, a borderline candidate.

And I think Baines' defensive value is being underrated by some folks here. That, or they have forgotten that he was a very good defensive right fielder and was the Sox's regular there for the first 7 seasons of his career, playing only 6 games as a DH during that stretch. It was only after he seriously injured his knee and underwent a series of surgeries that the Sox made him a fulltime DH. So he became a DH, not because the Sox was trying to hide a bad glove, but because they didn't want him to aggravate the chronic condition of his knee.

538280

02-27-2007, 02:43 PM

Baines was a solid hitter over his career but not a HOF one, especially for a corner OF/DH. His longevity is nice, but much of it comes from being a DH to begin with and even though he lasted really long, he never was a great guy for durability in season, many of his years he played 140 games or less. He was a good player for a long time but was never great and only barely got to even where I'd call him "very good" over his career.

AlecBoy006

02-27-2007, 02:57 PM

Tony Perez (934) *
Al Kaline (877) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Rusty Staub (852)
Andre Dawson (851)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (825)
Fred McGriff (809)
Andres Galarraga (807)

Those are his most similar players, and one could argue that all of these men are consideration worthy. I think comparing Baines to Kaline is an insult, but that's just me.

milladrive

03-01-2007, 01:31 PM

Only the most myopic could seriously advance Baines as a Hofer. Fine hitter, no doubt, but not a great one. And very little defensive value.

My what? Well, just for that, innuendo. :p

If Baines had 134 more hits, then he would be a lock-stock shoo-in for the hall, defensive value or no. As it stands, he is at the very least, a borderline candidate.

And I think Baines' defensive value is being underrated by some folks here. That, or they have forgotten that he was a very good defensive right fielder and was the Sox's regular there for the first 7 seasons of his career, playing only 6 games as a DH during that stretch. It was only after he seriously injured his knee and underwent a series of surgeries that the Sox made him a fulltime DH. So he became a DH, not because the Sox was trying to hide a bad glove, but because they didn't want him to aggravate the chronic condition of his knee.

Great post.

Fuzzy Bear

03-01-2007, 04:52 PM

I remember noting that Bainsey was giving the HOF a run for its money in the last years of the decade. After the 1999 season, Bainsey was probably at 50-50 in his chances for 3,000 hits. Those 3,000 hits would have come with 400 HRs, and a decent BA. Bainsey slipped in 2000, and was done in 2001.

Baines' raw numbers are borderline HOF for a career corner outfielder, and, particularly, a career right fielder. Baines' long career is a sign of greatness; he retained most of his hitting ability through age 40; he dropped off at 41 and played poorly at age 42, but was still on an MLB roster. These are the kinds of things that HOFers do.

This has to be balanced off by two factors:

(A) Baines played 1,041 games in the OF, but he DH'd for 1,644 games. That's an extremely LOW percentage of games in the field for a prospective HOFer. Viewed as a career DH, his numbers lose some luster.

(B) The reason Baines DH"d so much was his health. His knees were bad enough to make him a full-time DH at age 28. Baines isn't like Big Papi, who DH's because he's a poor fielder, but would be at 1B if the DH went away; he DH'd because he would have been out of baseball for health reasons if there were no DH.

Without the DH, Baines would have been done in his early 30s. His knees would not have stood up to everyday play; he'd have to have been platooned, given lots of rest, settle into a 4th outfielder role. He MIGHT have been able to play full-time for a few more years, but it is reasonable to suppose that if Baines had done so, he would not have approached 2,500 hits, or 350 HRs. Baines is not even in the HOF discussion without his approaching the 3K milestone; if he was at 2,500 hits, even, we wouldn't be bringing him up here.

He could have been great. He was underrated in his best years. He played in some tough parks. He held his ability to hit a long time. But had there been no DH, Harold Baines would have been done as a regular by 33, and out of the majors soon afterward. He was a memorable player, and a valuable one, but he's not a HOFer.

mtortolero

03-02-2007, 05:51 PM

It´s amazing the things you can discover at baseball-reference with their new splits option:
I was asking myself why Baines, after he was 30 years old and only playing as DH never took more than 500 AB in any othe following 12 seasons.
Well, the answer says a lot about why Baines was so good hitter. Take a look at his splits against RHP/LHP:

--------PA----AB--AVG-- OBP--SLG--OPS
Vs RHP 8473 7490 .296 .369 .483 .852
Vs LHP 2619 2418 .267 .313 .409 .722
carrer 11092 9908 .289 .356 .465 .821

Baines was not only a DH by a great part of his carrer; not, he was a specialist LHB playing practically only as a platton hitter against RHP.
85% of his carrer´s AB were against RHP, having 130 OPS carrer points of diference when he was at bat against LHP. i suppose that DH is the best position in baseball where this option is valid.
No way I can give to Baines the same consideration as any other hitter playing his carrer only as DH and only batting against RHP.

MadHatter

07-03-2007, 10:25 AM

Griffey24-30

07-03-2007, 10:41 AM

KCGHOST

07-03-2007, 11:05 AM

Good hitter, but not a great. Most BBFers like Baines, but don't see him as an HoFer. Fits nicely in the Hall of the Very Good. If you could only pick one retired DH, who would it be?? Baines or Edgar Martinez??

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58088&highlight=baines

MadHatter

07-03-2007, 11:07 AM

Cougar

07-03-2007, 11:18 AM

Looking at Harold Baines' career, his numbers are good.

Baseball Reference stacks him up against:
Tony Perez (935) *
Al Kaline (878) *
Dave Parker (866)
Billy Williams (854) *
Andre Dawson (852)
Rusty Staub (852)
Dwight Evans (840)
Chili Davis (826)
Fred McGriff (808)
Andres Galarraga (807)

* indicates a HOF member

interesting list of some fringe players. IMO Perez shouldn't be in the Hall... should Baines?

These comps are based on statistical comparisons. Baines fares well here because he accumulated a lot counting stats over a long, productive career. I'm a Baines fan...he wouldn't tarnish the Hall by any stretch.

But...

Deconstruct the comps a little further: The only player he's "truly" comparable to (using James's lexicon, if I recall it correctly...a score more than 900) is Tony Perez.

Perez's career was nearly a full generation before Baines', mostly during the offense-starved '60s and '70s. He played two-thirds of his career at 1b, one-third at 3b, and DHed only briefly for Boston as he transitioned into a part-time role. He was a key player in a legendary dynasty.

Baines was a primary DH for 61% of his games; a catastrophic knee injury necessitated the transition from RF (where he had been a good fielder) after his 7th season; he had spot duty in the OF for several seasons after that, but in his final 9 seasons he only played two half-innings in the OF. He benefited from the high-offense 90's, and outside of a secondary role on the A's Bash Brothers squads, never really played for a great team, although he made it to the playoffs a few times -- where he played well.

My point -- Perez and Baines are comparable, but Perez is clearly better when you put them both under a microscope.

The rest:
Kaline > Baines (Much better...this comp is an artifact of the 60's.)
Dave Parker > HB
Billy Williams > HB
Dawson > HB

Staub -- I can see an argument for Baines here...I'll take Rusty.

Dewey Evans, Crime Dog, Big Cat...I'll take them all over Baines. Baines is better than Chili Davis.

It's not just the fielding of the other guys...though that matters -- most of them, especially towards the top of the list, put together MVP-level peaks where they were considered one of the very best players in the league. Baines never really approached that level...he might have, if not for the knee injuries, but he didn't.

Baines might end up, in a few generations, being the best player NOT in the HOF. That strikes me as perhaps about right.

Gee Walker

07-03-2007, 01:14 PM

Does Harold Baines turn into a good comparison to Al Kaline because they both come from Baltimore?

Other than that, there's no comparison. Kaline was crushed for some of the best years of his career (age 29 to 35) by the 1960's strike zone. Baines extended his career for years by being a DH. Superficially, they have similar stats, but Kaline has a career OPS+ of 134 vs. Baines' 120.

You can make a good argument that Al Kaline was a better defensive rightfielder than his contemporary, Roberto Clemente. Clemente had the rifle arm, but Kaline was better everywhere else...

You can make a good argument that Harold Baines was a better defensive rightfielder than his contemporary, Don Baylor. Both turned into fine DH's...

538280

07-03-2007, 01:28 PM

If you could only pick one retired DH, who would it be?? Baines or Edgar Martinez??

Martinez was a far, far better hitter than Baines could ever hope to be. Baines was just a solid hitter for a long time and he had almost no defensive value. I don't see anything HOF about him. If you seriously think Baines is a HOFer, you just need to realize there's more to evaluating players than counting stats.

Lin_Kuei_Fighter

07-03-2007, 08:06 PM

How about that Baines did better than league average? And that he lasted a long time. He'd be in if he had 3K hits if you ask me.

jalbright

07-03-2007, 09:04 PM

How about that Baines did better than league average? And that he lasted a long time. He'd be in if he had 3K hits if you ask me.

If all you have to do is be better than league average for 12 seasons or so, there's going to be one heck of a building spree in Cooperstown, because there's about 500 players or more who meet that description and therefore deserve to be inducted. I love career value, and Baines can get in the general neighborhood of the HOF discussion with me for that reason--but the whole record isn't good enough, IMO.

Jim Albright

Fuzzy Bear

07-04-2007, 10:57 AM

Baines is a case of a guy who would not have been able to have had a long career withouth the DH. Baines would have been done by age 35 had he been required to play the field every day; his knees were that bad.

Edgar Martinez probably could have played the field every day at 1B if he had to. Baines couldn't; he's the biggest example of the DH rule artificially lengthening one's career by years and years. Baines played UNDER 40 PERCENT of his games at DH, and only 107 of those games came from 1987 on. Only ONE game in the field came after 1992.

Bainsey gave it a good run from 1996-99, pushing himself to the point where he was a 50-50 shot at 3,000 hits and 400 HRs with a .290 BA. Those are numbers that would put a position player in the HOF. But he fell apart in 2000 and was done in 2001, stopped 134 hits short of 3,000 and 16 jacks short of 400, with his BA slipping to .289.

Baines was a star. A minor star, but a star. He was quiet, and he was broad-based, doing a number of things well, so this tended to blunt his overall impact. Had Baines been a RF his entire career, I'd rate him over Jim Rice and (possibly) Dwight Evans. But he wasn't, and he'd have been done early had there been no DH rule. I can't support someone for the HOF given those circumstances.

538280

07-04-2007, 05:02 PM

Had Baines been a RF his entire career, I'd rate him over Jim Rice and (possibly) Dwight Evans. .

Rice I probably could see, Evans had about the same career length as Baines and was a little better hitter (126 to 120 OPS+). Baines even as a RF was a so-so fielder at best. Evans was a regular GG winner. Baines missed quite a few games especially the 2nd half of his career, he wasn't all that durable in season. Evans played almost the whole schedule every year. Baines also has no real peak to speak of. He had no big hitting season. His career high in OPS+ is 143. It's not even close IMO-Evans is better than Baines even in your hypothetical of Baines being a full career RF. Baines just wasn't all that special a hitter for a corner OF, and even as a RF he has no draws as a player outside of his hitting, he doesn't even have a good peak like a guy like Dave Parker who was the best in his league or close for a few years. As a DH, he's not a HOFer, but as a RFer, he's at least a credible candidate but still well short IMO.

KCGHOST

07-05-2007, 07:53 AM

[QUOTE=538280;937014If you seriously think Baines is a HOFer, you just need to realize there's more to evaluating players than counting stats.[/QUOTE]

I hope you aren't directing this comment at me. I am the one raising question of why Baines when Martinez is so much better.

Fuzzy Bear

07-05-2007, 04:08 PM

I am the one raising question of why Baines when Martinez is so much better.

Edgar is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better! :waving :waving :waving :waving

In addition to better counting stats, Edgar was not so injured to where he could no longer play the field. He was injury-prone, somewhat, and he was never a GOOD fielding third baseman, but he DHd in part, as opposed to playing at first because the M's had Gold Glove defense at 1B in the late 90s, early 00s (first David Segui, then John Olerud). But he COULD have played 1B. Baines, however, could no longer play the outfield, period; his knees were just too bad. If there were no DH, Baines would probably have been done by age 35, and probably would have spent his last few years at part time play.

Then, too, there's the issue of when they both started. Baines was a major league regular at 21; he had great ability, and probably would have been a HOFer had his knees not been so troublesome, but that wasn't the case. Edgar, on the other hand, had less than 250 MLB ABs before age 27, all due to managerial stupidity. The M's had fair to good players at 1B, 3B, and corner OF, but couldn't see that Martinez was the greatest talent of all of them. Martines was ready for the majors at least 3 years before he got a regular shot, and that's being generous; he is probably missing 4-5 seasons of full time major league play. It's a rare case where a guy who does what Martinez did from age 27 on WASN'T ready for the majors at 21 or 22.

mtortolero

07-06-2007, 04:35 PM

Baines stats are balloned because during his long period as DH he was plattoned to hit only against right hand pitchers. That is the main reason because he never took more than 500 AB in the last 10 years of carrer and probably why he never reached 3000 hits.

Brad Harris

07-06-2007, 06:43 PM

How about that Baines did better than league average? And that he lasted a long time. He'd be in if he had 3K hits if you ask me.

Perfect example of how voters focus (wrongly) on certain "magic numbers". Baines with 3,000 hits is no greater a player than Baines with 2,800 hits. Neither Baines deserves the Hall of Fame. I'm saddened by the truth of your words. Had he hung on long enough to notch #3,000, he would be in. Shouldn't be, but would be.

538280

07-06-2007, 06:48 PM

I hope you aren't directing this comment at me. I am the one raising question of why Baines when Martinez is so much better.

I'm not, I was just agreeing with you and then threw that in there at the end.

Gregory Pratt

07-24-2008, 09:45 AM

Thoughts please.

Brad Harris

07-24-2008, 09:54 AM

I'd rather not think about Harold Baines. He has no business anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

henrich

07-24-2008, 10:06 AM

I'd rather not think about Harold Baines. He has no business anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

No DH"s please:) He scores very high 9900, but 12th in his era at his position (RF)

dgarza

07-24-2008, 10:25 AM

For most of the 80s, the White Sox were not a great team, yet Baines was a pretty good RBI man for the team.

Well, I could go one, but there's really no point. While I don't mind DHs in the HOF, they better be Edgar-Martinez-good. Baines was a 6X AS, and he should be pround of that. He was a solid above-average hitter.

Despite his longevity, he's not that close to having a HOF type career.

Paul Wendt

07-24-2008, 10:46 AM

Thoughts please.
gwrbi. That is my only association. Probably he led the league in the first season they made game winning runs batted in an official statistic.

westsidegrounds

07-24-2008, 11:02 AM

Thoughts please.

(1) The crowd: "Haarold! Haaarold!"

(2) Some Sox PBP guy: "Yes, with Big Frank on the DL the Sox just don't have any hitters they can - Baines hits it up the middle, that'll go for two - rely on."

PVNICK

07-24-2008, 11:06 AM

He was one of the better players in the AL from 1982 through maybe 1985. He led the AL in slugging percentage one of those years, could run and had a decent arm. Not quite a 5 tool player but a step removed. He also had some hype because he was the #1 pick in the draft in 78 or 79. He stayed at that 16-29 HR, .275 - .300 level even after 1987 and I guess you could say got left behind. Somewhere along the way he developed bad knees or had a knee injury making him a full-time DH.

jalbright

07-24-2008, 12:15 PM

Merging several Baines threads

Second Base Coach

07-24-2008, 12:30 PM

dgarza

07-24-2008, 12:44 PM

We've got to get to Hal McRae before we get to Harold Baines.

Paul Wendt

07-24-2008, 01:12 PM

> 85% of his carrer´s AB were against RHP

??
From the table given here, 7490 / 9908 ~ 75%
Probably it is better to use plate appearances.

--
What do we know about the distribution of pitching hands in different league? Equivalently, what do we know about how frequently a lefty or righty batter playing every day would enjoy the platoon advantage? And how frequently would a switch-hitter bat from the left or the right side?

There has been no regular switch-pitcher in the major leagues, only a few pitchers who occasionally used the "other" arm. So pitching hand data is a three-category variable: Unknown, Left, Right.

My edition of the data is a few years old. That doesn't make much difference here, except for coverage of the last few seasons.

Unknown pitching hand ("missing hands")
latest occurrence: 1925 AL (1 inning)
latest 1% share: 1.5%, 1906 NL (175 innings)
latest 10% share: 20%, 1890 AA (1885 innings)

first non-occurrence: 1877 NL (0 innings pitched by unknown hand)
first five leagues with all innings known: 1877 NL, 1900 NL, 1904 AL, 1905 both leagues

The appearance of 1890 and 1900 is "expected". Do you know why?

Left- and Right-hand innings pitched
2003-2006: AL about 30% left, NL about 25% left

Since 1972,
more than 33% left:
AL 1974, 78, 80, 82-83
NL 1986, 90-92,

less than 25% left:
AL 1999, 2000
NL 1996, 97, 2000, 02, 04

Harold Baines became a regular player in a league with unusually high share of left-hand pitching (AL 1980-83). He finished in a league with unusually low share of left-hand pitching (AL 1999-2000, only 94 pa in 2001).

The range during his career was just under 35% lefty in 1983 to just under 22%(!) in 1999. (From 1998 to 1999 in the American League there was a 1000-inning shift from lefty to righty pitchers, a decrease from 5000+ to 4000+ innings.)

Because the share of lefty pitchers was decreasing on the whole during his career, his personal record of lefty-righty splits overstates the degree to which he was platooned more and more

Otis Nixon's Bodyguard

07-25-2008, 03:12 PM

In addition to Edgar Martinez, Paul Molitor was also a better DH than Harold Baines. Harold Baines should not be a HOFer. His career value is moderately close, but his peak value falls well short of HOF standards.

Fuzzy Bear

07-26-2008, 10:43 AM

We've got to get to Hal McRae before we get to Harold Baines.

I don't see any way to agree with this.

Baines had the longer career, compiled the greater stats in career hits, HRs, even BA and OBP. He also spent more time in the field than did McRae. McRae's best season might have been better than Baines, but there's no way that any peak McRae hit overcomes the superiority in career length, as well as superiority in BA, career hits, career HRs, etc.

McRae got a late start; I'll agree with that. He suffered a terrible leg injury early in his career that took him out of the infield and put his whole career in jeopardy. McRae was a big enough talent to where he MIGHT have been a HOFer if he hadn't had the broken leg at age 23. But he also couldn't win the starting job from Bernie Carbo in 1970, and was a bench player for three seasons before finally making it to the AL and the Royals.

Baines was a major league regular at age 21, and he was an All-Star at age 40. That's excellent retention of ability, even for a guy who ended up being a career DH. No way McRae is better than Bainesy, IMO.

Brad Harris

07-28-2008, 10:07 AM

Tremendously disappointed that Baines can hang around the ballot, but Albert Belle can't.

Otis Nixon's Bodyguard

07-28-2008, 06:09 PM

Tremendously disappointed that Baines can hang around the ballot, but Albert Belle can't.

Albert Belle is the new Dick Allen.

Fuzzy Bear

07-28-2008, 07:10 PM

Tremendously disappointed that Baines can hang around the ballot, but Albert Belle can't.

Albert Belle, Lou Whitaker, and Will Clark should all be restored to the ballot.

OleMissCub

07-30-2008, 07:28 PM

11,000 plate appearances with just a 98.3 WARP3? No thanks.

Edgar Martinez, 8600 PA's - 104.4. I'm not saying Edgar is a HOFer either, but Baines certainly isn't.

Walt Zink

08-05-2008, 03:00 PM

baines extended his career a LONG time due to the DH role. no way was he a HOFer.

and i'm one of those who says a HUGE no to albert belle. last i checked, part of what the voters considered was a player's character, also. if he had played longer, and racked up better numbers (and yes, i know he had great numbers as it was for a 10 year career), then i'd say he'd probably get in, but he's suffering the loss of votes or consideration for being an extreme personality. it's a reason jim rice has had so much trouble - albeit to a much lesser extent.

Calif_Eagle

08-07-2008, 10:15 PM

Here's one more aspect of the Baines debate to consider... what if he compiled the exact career record that he actually did, no differences at all; but did it playing his entire career without exception for the Chisox? It might not change anyone's opinion of his numbers here in the Fever, but in the wider world of baseball, its writers and fans; would Baines have made the HOF then ?

I have a theory that the one team only player who plays 15-20 years or so, has a huge advantage over the player who lasts 15-20 years but does it with several teams. Tommy Davis comes to mind. (ala' Baines) I'm not saying that Davis belongs in the HOF myself, but what if he spends his whole career with the Dodgers (with no changes to his year by year record)? (I also do know that a much better "What If?" for Davis is if he doesnt break an ankle as he did.)

So what does anyone else think about this? Imagine players like Kaline or Yaz playing their careers just as they did with 6 teams each and some midseason trades (2 team seasons) to boot. I wonder if they still would have been the locks that they were with their 1 team careers to make the HOF...?