Harold Baines isn't quite a Hall of Famer

So this is what it’s come to, Harold Baines is in the Hall of Fame.

It’s too bad there isn’t a Hall of Pretty Good, because that’s where Baines belongs.  He hit 384 home runs, which sounds like a lot (although far less than 500) until you realize he played for 21 seasons, so it adds up to about 18 per year.  Right . . . Ruth, Mantle, McGuire, Bonds and Baines; peas in a pod.  His 2,866 hits averages out to 136 per year, which isn’t Pete Rose territory.  He once finished in the top ten in homers, and twice finished in the top ten in RBIs.

If anything, there is an argument that players like Baines are traditionally undervalued by Hall of Fame voters.  What do I mean by “players like Baines”?  Basically, jacks of all trades, good average hitters with some pop, good fielders, guys who played a long time because as their skills diminished their leadership and coaching abilities still made them valuable.  Maybe Baines should have to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame, but a guy with 384 home runs should also have done better than maxing out at 6.1% of the votes.

The problem comes in when you have players who played a long time and how it affects counting stats, like home runs and runs batted in.  Because of better conditioning and higher salaries, players now stay in the majors for much longer careers than in past eras.  If you get a mediocre number of some counting stat (say 18 home runs per year) and combine it with an extraordinarily long career (say 21 seasons), you get totals that look more impressive than they actually are.

I’ve made the argument before regarding Rafael Palmiero, whose 3,000+ hits and 500+ home runs would have made him a lock for the hall but for his failed steroid test.  Those were impressive markers when careers lasted 12-15 seasons but spread over 20 they aren’t that impressive.  Baines’ 384 home runs put him at 65^th all time, behind Jim Edmonds, Craig Nettles and Aramis Ramierez, all of who are NOT in the Hall (Edmonds, arguably one of the greatest fielding center fielders of all time, should be, but few players get into the Hall for fielding).  He is 34^th in RBIs, which is bordering on impressive.

I put more stock in how a player was judged by his contemporaries when he was playing.  Palmiero played for 19 seasons and started exactly ONE All-Star game, and only went to a total of five (once as a DH).  So for the bulk of his career he wasn’t considered one of the best at his position.  The same thing is true for Baines, who went to only six All-Star games in a 21-season career.  MVP voting is another key indicator of respect during a career, but Baines came in the top ten in voting only twice, and then it was 9^th once and 10^th once.

The biggest mistakes in the history of the Hall have been made by these Veterans Committees.  In the 1960’s Frankie Frisch was the chair and as a result people like his former teammate Jesse Haines got in despite being woefully unqualified.  It is absurd that Baines can get no more than 6.1% of the votes from the 400-500 or so voters in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA), but then gets 12 of 16 votes from the Veterans’ Committee and he’s in.

I could also rip the other person to be voted in, Lee Smith, but my objection to him is that closers are vastly overrated, and I am not impressed by guys who only pitch one inning per game (except for Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersly and Goose Gossage).  The save is a stupid stat, but Smith did hold the record for most saves when he retired which is one more record than Harold Baines held when he called it quits.

Obviously, the HoF voting needs to be reformed.  How can a player who got 6% of the vote from over 400 voters not get in, then be admitted after getting 12 votes from a committee of 16 (several of whom were former owners and teammates of his)?  Who are we going to believe, the collected wisdom of 500 baseball writers, or a bunch of old baseball guys voting for a buddy?