Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Tony La Russa once again defends Harold Baines’ election to Hall of Fame

In December, the Today’s Game Committee (formerly known as the Veterans Committee) elected OF/DH Harold Baines and reliever Lee Smith to the Hall of Fame. Both players’ elections to the Hall of Fame caused some controversy, as many argued that while both players were quite good, neither was quite Hall of Fame material.

Tony La Russa, who was described by Baines as a close personal friend, went on MLB Network to discuss Baines’ election with Chris Russo. La Russa called arguments against Baines’ worthiness “weak-a**, superficial bulls—.”

La Russa is back at it. In an article he wrote (shared by ESPN’s Buster Olney) dated February 5, 2019, he once again put together a case defending Baines as well as pushing back on the idea that cronyism got Baines into the Hall of Fame.

The next time you deal with someone with a JD and delusions of grandeur, remind them that Tony La Russa managed to pass the Florida Bar.

QLE Posted: February 10, 2019 at 04:13 AM | 233 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, hall of very good, harold baines, tony la russa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. bachslunch Posted: February 10, 2019 at 09:43 AM (#5814057)
Fudging and BS on LaRussa’s part. Or as the author cited, “A guy with a law degree who has never met an untenable position he didn’t at least make an effort to argue with a straight face.”

The article author is right — there’s no good defense for Baines getting in. None.
   2. Tony S Posted: February 10, 2019 at 09:56 AM (#5814062)

Well, what's he going to say? "I messed up in getting Baines into the Hall of Fame, and we should rescind his selection"?

What's done is done...
   3. John DiFool2 Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:29 AM (#5814064)
Or "Yeah, he was a close bud of mine and several other committee members, and it's as simple as that. I won't insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise."
   4. The Duke Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:35 AM (#5814065)
The best argument for these 16 guys voting Baines in was that someone else thought he was worthy of consideration. If he really isn’t even worthy why were Baines’ 12 best friends allowed to vote for him. I’d vote for my hall of very good buddy too if someone gave me a chance.
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: February 10, 2019 at 11:00 AM (#5814071)
I'm sure cronyism played a part, but just as big an issue was this was a committee that likely saw its mandate to elect someone, and was given a list of 12 unworthy candidates from which to choose. For as little support as Baines received from the BBWAA, he got a lot more backing from that group than everyone else on the ballot with him, save his fellow inductee.

The chief problem was this era shouldn't have been part of the election cycle for at least two more rounds, giving the committee some overlooked candidates to elect. And McGwire should have been on the ballot, since he was the only Hall talent yet from this era (Walker and McGriff probably make it the next time - one mistake rectified and one, eh, he's better than a lot of guys in there candidate).

   6. eric Posted: February 10, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5814072)
Two thoughts:

1) I had watched LaRussa's previous televised defenses and was quite shocked at his haughty, dismissive, condescending argument style. Now, I get reminded he has a JD. Having been to law school, I was instantly reminded that his exact self-absorbed, I'm-always-right, approach to life was a dime a dozen there. I guess you could say everything clicked into place.

2) Man, did Lee Smith get off easy or what? Normally the primates would be lined up with pitchforks and torches over such an awful selection, but sliding in alongside the Baines stunner he seems almost completely forgotten.
   7. Skloot Insurance Posted: February 10, 2019 at 11:37 AM (#5814081)
H/F as an abbreviation for Hall of Fame? Say what?

But seriously, La Russa argues that Baines was durable, he was clutch and his totals were diminished by three work stoppages.

Fair enough on points one and three, but according to the FanGraphs win probability added leaderboard, there were 21 more valuable hitters in terms of WPA from 1980 to 2001.

The players above him are all Hall of Famers -- H/Fers? -- or qualified or borderline candidates like Bonds, McGwire, Will Clark, McGriff, Sheffield, Grace (!), Walker and Palmeiro.

OK, I have never heard a case for Mark Grace.
   8. Baldrick Posted: February 10, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5814085)
Fair enough on points one and three, but according to the FanGraphs win probability added leaderboard, there were 21 more valuable hitters in terms of WPA from 1980 to 2001.

The players above him are all Hall of Famers -- H/Fers? -- or qualified or borderline candidates like Bonds, McGwire, Will Clark, McGriff, Sheffield, Grace (!), Walker and Palmeiro.

So, cherry-picking the precise years he was active and using a garbage stat, he still doesn't have a good HOF case. Yeah that pretty much checks out.
   9. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM (#5814097)
I think there was actual voiced consideration of Mark Grace as a future HOF (“Most hits in the 1990s!”) during his career which seemed to have died out before he retired. His cherry picked offensive argument probably looked worse as offense increased across the league.
   10. Booey Posted: February 10, 2019 at 12:57 PM (#5814102)
I'm sure cronyism played a part, but just as big an issue was this was a committee that likely saw its mandate to elect someone, and was given a list of 12 unworthy candidates from which to choose.


I get that, but they already had Smith (also unworthy, of course, but at least in line with the previously established, watered down standards for relievers). Why did they feel it their duty to elect TWO players? No one would have said they weren't doing their job if they picked only one from such an underwhelming slate of candidates.
   11. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 10, 2019 at 01:49 PM (#5814113)
A perfect Hall of Fame is better than an imperfect one, but that ship sailed long ago. While Baines is another step toward imperfection, the vehemence, bordering on animus, of some critics is also somewhat off-putting. Opinions vary, but to me part of the charm of the Hall is that those who follow the game closely can quibble about some of the selections. A feature, not [that large] a bug.
   12. Rob_Wood Posted: February 10, 2019 at 02:03 PM (#5814118)
With all due respect, that is total garbage.

There are/were very few human beings on the planet who think/thought that Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. It turns out that they were all in the same room at the same time. Who knew?
   13. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 10, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5814119)
part of the charm of the Hall is that those who follow the game closely can quibble about some of the selections. A feature, not [that large] a bug.
The Hall had that going for it. And then they elected Harold F. Baines and Lee F. Smith. And Jack F. Morris.
   14. SoSH U at work Posted: February 10, 2019 at 02:43 PM (#5814122)
I get that, but they already had Smith (also unworthy, of course, but at least in line with the previously established, watered down standards for relievers). Why did they feel it their duty to elect TWO players? No one would have said they weren't doing their job if they picked only one from such an underwhelming slate of candidates.


I think the committee members feel it's their objective to elect people to the Hall. Not just one person per session, but elect people unlike the old Joe Morgan Super Friends group that was designed to keep people out (not intentionally, but that was the effect of the rules). So they voted for the guys (in their eyes) they deemed the most deserving. They were just given a terrible slate of candidates.

   15. BillWallace Posted: February 10, 2019 at 03:11 PM (#5814131)
I was marginally interested in Hall of Fame debates before this year, but Baines was the last straw. If others enjoy it great, but I think the HoF is completely pointless now.

I entered this thread only to see people #### on TLR... so far so good.
   16. homerwannabee Posted: February 10, 2019 at 03:22 PM (#5814134)
He was elected primarily because of his counting stats in hits and RBI. It's not the end of the world.
   17. Walt Davis Posted: February 10, 2019 at 03:32 PM (#5814136)
OK, I have never heard a case for Mark Grace.

He was durable, he was clutch, he lost time to two work stoppages, he had over 2400 hits, he had 4 GG, he had more WAR than Harold Baines and the term "slump buster" is an enduring "contribution" to the game.
   18. OsunaSakata Posted: February 10, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5814137)
It's not the end of the world.


But my response to every argument from now on is,"Harold Baines is in. Why not?"
   19. bbmck Posted: February 10, 2019 at 04:05 PM (#5814145)
End pointing for Harold, 20+ position player WAR 1988-2003 (Baines 20.6) and Final Year 2003 or earlier there are 64. 10 were already in the HoF and only 12 others have 2000 Hits. 2000 Hits is a terrible criteria but it's been consistently applied to MLB position players by any method of induction for many years. Lou Whitaker 42.9 WAR through 1987 and 32.2 after eliminated. Leaving the nominating committee options:

1B: Will Clark, Mark Grace, Wally Joyner
2B: Tony Phillips
3B: Gary Gaetti, Bobby Bonilla
SS: Tony Fernandez
CF: Brett Butler
OF: Paul O'Neill
DH: Harold Baines, Chili Davis

The committee picks Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Joe Carter and Will Clark for position players so adding those two to the list. Removing the careers of the other 12 from Baines which still would require ballpark and some era adjustment in descending OPS. SB and CS are all negative as Baines is lowest in both:

1474: Gary Gaetti 1275 PA, 456 R+RBI, 62 SB, 31 CS, 612/718/755
1122: Brett Butler 1547 PA, 990 R+RBI, 524 SB, 223 CS, 284/237/884
1112: Tony Fernandez 2299 PA, 1026 R+RBI, 212 SB, 104 CS, 295/387/725
1055: Joe Carter 1938 PA, 312 R+RBI, 197 SB, 32 CS, 459/588/467
990: Tony Phillips 1982 PA, 808 R+RBI, 143 SB, 80 CS, 368/273/716
878: Chili Davis 1095 PA, 315 R+RBI, 108 SB, 64 CS, 394/319/559

867: Wally Joyner 2977 PA, 848 R+RBI, 26 SB, 5 CS, 290/338/529
797: Bobby Bonilla 2835 PA, 670 R+RBI, 22 SB, 23 CS, 318/350/446
783: Paul O'Neill 2763 PA, 617 R+RBI, 107 SB, 39 CS, 294/334/449
778: Mark Grace 1802 PA, 602 R+RBI, 36 SB, 14 CS, 228/214/564
656: Albert Belle 4416 PA, 714 R+RBI, 54 SB, 7 CS, 281/335/322
655: Will Clark 2809 PA, 536 R+RBI, 33 SB, 14 CS, 252/274/381

Will Clark 37-42 to match the career stats of Harold Baines:

760: 646 PA, 138 R+RBI, 282/308/453
707: 562 PA, 117 R+RBI, 270/291/416
655: 506 PA, 104 R+RBI, 257/276/379
589: 449 PA, 75 R+RBI, 235/256/333
570: 365 PA, 59 R+RBI, 228/247/323
524: 281 PA, 43 R+RBI, 201/221/303

This is consistent with the BBWAA vote, from Dick Allen to Lance Berkman the counting stats impress the voters and there is no apparent grasp of how poorly they would have to play to match the career stats of inductees. The Hall of All-Time greats who we don't think used PEDs for validation. The Hall of Really Good players with the health and opportunity to play for a long time. With an occasional Kirby Puckett felt like a Hall of Famer thrown in for variety.

Setting aside DH vs 1B that Will Clark is -101 Rfield + Rpos and Baines is -202 or that Clark is +23 Rbaser + Rdp and Baines is -29 or the 353 to 234 Rbat lead for Clark or that Baines falls just short of 30 Rbat in his best season while Clark averages 31 Rbat from 1987-94. Counting stats are all it takes, in those extra 4 full seasons of play Will Clark would have to really suck to have a career line that looks like Harold Baines. If TLR was capable of grasping that 200/250/300 is not good:

Baines: 884 Hits, 287 BB+HBP, 1632 Total Bases above hitting 200/250/300
Clark: 741 Hits, 363 BB+HBP, 1410 Total Bases above hitting 200/250/300

67 more times reaching base and 222 more Total Bases in 2809 PA than someone with .250 OPS and .300 SLG.
   20. baudib Posted: February 10, 2019 at 07:43 PM (#5814191)
La Russa and most HOF voters are frankly less qualified to vote on the HOF than your average BTF poster.

His peak value is just astonishingly low for a Hall of Fame player and while I'm not going to speak for career/longevity voters, he doesn't have the accumulator stats necessary to get there. Joh

We all have our own favorite pet HOF candidates, and the thing is that Baines is basically worse than all of them. Like literally all of us can come up with 20-30 guys off the top of our heads who are better: Will Clark, John Olerud, Dave Parker, Dwight Evans, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Ron Guidry, Elston Howard, Fred McGriff, Keith Hernandez, Johan Santana, Dick Allen, Bill Freehan, Ted Simmons, Darrell Evans, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Dave Concepcion, Luis Tiant, Reggie Smith, Willie Randolph.

Players who no one advocates for, like Buddy Bell and Dave Cone and Sal Bando, were twice the player Baines was. Mark Grace and Tony Fernandez are infinitely better candidates. I haven't even gotten to pre-1960s players, the "steroid" suspicion guys or pure peak candidate guys like Dwight Gooden or George Foster.

We might as well stop talking about the Frisch VC guys because the modern era of both sportswriter and VC selections make Chick Hafey and Freddie Lindstrom look palatable. We've got Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, Jack Morris and Harold Baines now but no Clemens, Bonds, McGWire? Good grief, let's just agree to ignore whoever the HOF puts in and put it out of its misery.
   21. Skloot Insurance Posted: February 10, 2019 at 08:42 PM (#5814196)
He was durable, he was clutch, he lost time to two work stoppages, he had over 2400 hits, he had 4 GG, he had more WAR than Harold Baines and the term "slump buster" is an enduring "contribution" to the game.


And Grace was the first baseman for a World Series champion, which I had forgotten until just now. Hit .263/.391/.474 against the Yankees, too.

Can we just enshrine this guy already?!?

Still, Keith Hernandez is probably my favorite candidate of the not-really-qualified first basemen.
   22. Ziggy's screen name Posted: February 10, 2019 at 09:15 PM (#5814202)
With Baines in I'm starting to think that the complement of the hall of fame would make a better hall of fame than the actual one.
   23. baudib Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:18 PM (#5814213)
Hernandez would have absolutely made the Hall of Fame if he had played in the 1930s or late-1990s.

Room full of Gold Gloves and "best fielding first baseman ever" rep to go with eye-popping stats. Yeah, he goes in. His batting crown in 1979 is probably equivalent to .400 in 1930 or .350 with 35 homers in 1999.
   24. John Northey Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:34 PM (#5814214)
Look on Baines BR page and you see one black ink - he led in Slg % in 1984 with a 541 number, made the top 10 in MVP voting once (9th), once a silver slugger (best hitter at his position). His peak WAR was 4.3 - 15 players _that season_ who got MVP votes were ahead of him. Pretty sad statement for a HOF'ers best season. There is no case for him being in the HOF. None. If he had gotten 3000 hits he could've had the case of passing a 'magic number' but he'd have been the weakest ever to do it by a mile. Still, that was the only way I saw for him to make it - who knew there would be a vets committee with just his buddies on it?
   25. John Northey Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:39 PM (#5814215)
Heck, thinking more about it I could probably make a better case for Joe Carter.

WS ending HR - big moment always helps.
Led in RBI's once, 10 times over 100 (thanks to his teammates mainly)
2 years with more WAR than Baines peak year, 3 times top 10 MVP peaking at #3 (in a 2.5 WAR season...thank you Robbie Alomar and Devon White for being in scoring position so often). Heck, he even got MVP votes in his worst season (-1.7 WAR in 1990).

Not saying Carter should be in by any stretch. He isn't close, and I'm a Blue Jay fan. Still, compared to Baines he deserves consideration. All he loses on vs Baines is getting playing time forever as a 'meh' player.
   26. bobm Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:46 PM (#5814216)
If he had gotten 3000 hits he could've had the case of passing a 'magic number' but he'd have been the weakest ever to do it by a mile.

Exactly.

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1871 to 2018, (requiring H>=2866), sorted by smallest WAR Position Players

                                          
Rk             Player WAR/pos    H WAA/pos
1       Harold Baines    38.7 2866     1.8
2           Lou Brock    45.3 3023     8.4
3        Omar Vizquel    45.6 2877     5.3
4            Sam Rice    52.7 2987    15.7
5       Willie Keeler    54.1 2932    20.8
6       Ichiro Suzuki    59.3 3089    23.8
7          Zack Wheat    60.2 2884    28.4
8        Jake Beckley    61.6 2938    26.4
9       Dave Winfield    64.2 3110    24.0
10       Craig Biggio    65.5 3060    29.1
11       Eddie Murray    68.7 3255    27.4
12         Al Simmons    68.8 2927    34.8
13         Tony Gwynn    69.2 3141    36.8
14     Frankie Frisch    70.4 2880    39.1
15    Rafael Palmeiro    71.9 3020    30.3
16        Derek Jeter    72.4 3465    31.0
17         Paul Waner    72.8 3152    38.7
18       Sam Crawford    75.2 2961    34.9
19       Paul Molitor    75.7 3319    37.4
20        Robin Yount    77.3 3142    37.4
21          Pete Rose    79.7 4256    29.1
22          Rod Carew    81.3 3053    46.2
23       George Brett    88.7 3154    50.6
24         Wade Boggs    91.4 3010    57.4
25          Al Kaline    92.8 3007    55.5
26          Cap Anson    94.2 3435    55.2
27   Roberto Clemente    94.5 3000    56.9
28      Adrian Beltre    95.7 3166    54.8
29     Cal Ripken Jr.    95.9 3184    53.5
30   Carl Yastrzemski    96.4 3419    50.1
31      Albert Pujols   100.0 3082    63.2
32     Frank Robinson   107.3 2943    64.8
33         Nap Lajoie   107.4 3243    67.9
34            Mel Ott   107.8 2876    70.6
35   Rickey Henderson   111.2 3055    69.0
36     Alex Rodriguez   117.8 3115    76.1
37      Eddie Collins   124.0 3315    78.9
38     Rogers Hornsby   127.0 2930    97.5
39        Stan Musial   128.2 3630    81.7
40       Honus Wagner   130.9 3420    91.8
41       Tris Speaker   134.1 3514    88.6
42         Hank Aaron   143.0 3771    92.9
43            Ty Cobb   151.0 4189   102.0
44        Willie Mays   156.4 3283   110.3
45          Babe Ruth   162.1 2873   125.5
46        Barry Bonds   162.8 2935   123.9


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 2/10/2019.
   27. baudib Posted: February 10, 2019 at 10:49 PM (#5814217)
Just to be clear, RBIs are overrated and not a good indicator of offensive ability, and Joe Carter was a very one-dimensional hitter who made an enormous number of outs. But saying he had 10 seasons over more than 100 RBIs mainly due to his teammates is not correct. Carter was an extremely durable player who rarely missed any games (played 162 games 3 straight seasons) and he had good power. He regularly put up 300 total bases a year. A guy like that is going to put up RBI numbers in any lineup.

   28. bobm Posted: February 10, 2019 at 11:55 PM (#5814225)
[27] For Single Seasons, From 1871 to 2018, (requiring RBI>=100), sorted by greatest Seasons matching criteria

                       
Name                Yrs
Albert Pujols        14
Alex Rodriguez       14

Jimmie Foxx          13
Lou Gehrig           13
Babe Ruth            13

Miguel Cabrera       12
Manny Ramirez        12
Barry Bonds          12
Al Simmons           12

Frank Thomas         11
Hank Aaron           11
Goose Goslin         11

David Ortiz          10
Vladimir Guerrero    10
Rafael Palmeiro      10
Joe Carter           10
Willie Mays          10
Stan Musial          10

Carlos Delgado        9
Jim Thome             9
Chipper Jones         9
Sammy Sosa            9
Albert Belle          9
Mike Schmidt          9
Harmon Killebrew      9
Ted Williams          9
Joe DiMaggio          9
Mel Ott               9
Honus Wagner          9


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 2/10/2019.

All are Hall of Famers except the likely but not yet eligible HOFers (Pujols, Cabrera, Ortiz), the PED notables (Rodriguez, Ramirez, Bonds, Palmeiro, and Sosa), and the rest (Carter, Delgado, Belle).
   29. Walt Davis Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:34 AM (#5814228)
With Baines in I'm starting to think that the complement of the hall of fame would make a better hall of fame than the actual one.

If you limited that to "borderline candidates" (however we might define that), you might be onto something.

I could probably make a better case for Joe Carter.

Quiet you ... before they put Cito Gaston on a VC. I will not be surprised in the least if Carter makes a VC ballot.
   30. bbmck Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:40 AM (#5814229)
~250 OBP and ~300 SLG is roughly 50 OPS+ since dead ball. The 42 seasons with .245-.255 OBP, .295-.305 SLG and 100+ PA since 1920 are 34 OPS+ 1930 Zack Taylor to 68 OPS+ 1972 Syd O'Brien. The average without weighting for PA is 49.86 OPS+ and with weighting it's 50.13. Summing all the seasons:

9024 PA, 8407 AB, 1797 H, 2518 TB, 393 BB, 36 HBP, 54 SF, 836 R, 732 RBI, 214/250/300
Shuck Line: 650 PA, 606 AB, 129 H, 181 TB, 28 BB, 3 HBP, 4 SF, 60 R, 53 RBI, 214/250/300

Named after 2016 JB Shuck because he has the most relevant name among the 41 (Syd did it twice), using a spreadsheet so it's actually 2.593 HBP per 650 PA, the Shuck line rate stats are 213/250/299 with rounding.

Next up normalize everyone to 15000 PA, Pete Rose has 15890 PA so deducts 1.37 Shuck seasons from his career totals because I preferred a round number rather than using Pete Rose as the standard. Yaz has 1.55 seasons of hitting like Shuck and everyone else has more. If you hit better than 214/250/300 then playing longer improves your stats, this still gives a considerable advantage to career length unless you really sucked as a batter.

Top 1200 in Career PA (4517) to include Mike Trout but by this point greatness is diluted into hitting like crap for twice as long:

Shuck Line: 15000 PA, 13974 AB, 2987 H, 4186 TB, 653 BB, 60 HBP, 90 SF, 1390 R, 1217 RBI, 214/250/300
Mike Trout: 15000 PA, 13491 AB, 3243 H, 5101 TB, 1143 BB, 106 HBP, 106 SF, 1750 R, 1486 RBI, 240/303/378
Harold Baines: 15000 PA, 13549 AB, 3644 H, 5694 TB, 1232 BB, 30 HBP, 122 SF, 1661 R, 1945 RBI, 269/329/420

Alternatively can simply subtract the Shuck Line to find Hits and other counting stats above replacement. The worst actual rate stats are George McBride 218 BA and Hobe Ferris 265 OBP so everyone except Pete Rose loses on those rate stats. For SLG George McBride 264, Mark Belanger 280, Rabbit Warstler 287, Sandy Alomar 288, Bud Harrelson 288, Roger Metzger 293, Cub Stricker 294, Ossie Vitt 295 and Al Bridwell 295 gain along with Pete Rose. Rose loses counting stats and everyone else improves.

Hits debut since Hornsby: Tony Gwynn 4090, Stan Musial 4084, Pete Rose 4079, Rogers Hornsby 4029, Al Simmons 4018, George Sisler 4004, Paul Waner 3995, Hank Aaron 3982, Roberto Clemente 3954, Derek Jeter 3943, Ichiro Suzuki 3940.

Ichiro is ahead of Jeter by 480 AB instead of being behind by 1266 and nearly closes the gap. Ichiro even has the really obvious time frame to get those extra 4272 PA, just needed to come over a little sooner although had he hit like JB Shuck he would have been back in the JPPL long before his actual MLB debut. Debut since 1951 (Mays/Mantle) and Baines is 31st behind 15 HoF, 8 statistical locks: Rose, Jeter, Ichiro, Pujols, Beltre, Miggy, Cano and A-Rod so "Most Hits outside the HoF": Al Oliver 3783, Bill Buckner 3703, Steve Garvey 3701, Garret Anderson 3689, Vada Pinson 3672, Dave Parker 3671, Michael Young 3647, Harold Baines 3644, Julio Franco 3635, Todd Helton 3624.

If Nomar Garciaparra Hits like Shuck and reaches 11092 PA he has 2738 career Hits, 128 behind Baines. Nomar did the hard part and hit really well for a pretty long time but simply didn't have the health and/or opportunity to play like crap and accumulate counting stats. HoF voters place a lot of value on playing like crap for years so Nomar is two and done on the ballot. Hits is still a terrible stat but at the very least if you're going to use it include the denominator.

RBI for Baines is pretty similar to Hits, Debut since 1951 he's 33rd and a bunch of HoF or stat HoF ahead of him. 18 HoF, A-Rod, Manny, Pujols, Barry, Ortiz, Sosa, Raffy, Miggy, McGwire, Sheffield, maybe some of those aren't HoFey enough, along with: Juan Gonzalez 2040, Carlos Delgado 2027, Jose Canseco 1964, Jeff Kent 1961, Harold Baines 1945, Fred McGriff 1941, Jason Giambi 1935, Joe Carter 1919, Andres Galarraga 1919, Albert Belle 1909, Carlos Beltran 1905.

Debut since 1951, R+RBI 57th to 68th: Joe Carter 3631, Lance Berkman 3629, Luis Gonzalez 3628, Moises Alou 3627, Scott Rolen 3624, Dwight Evans 3624, Torii Hunter 3609, Mark Teixeira 3608, Harold Baines 3606, Dave Parker 3602, Matt Holliday 3597, Andruw Jones 3594.

If only Lance or Moises had driven in and scored runs like the Shuckster for another 3000 or so PA. 2380 and 2396 actual R+RBI and if I remember correctly it was Grade 5 when I learned fractions and if any HoF voters have forgotten they can tap away at an app on their phone before filling out a ballot.

Debut since 1951 only Rose has a 300 BA with 308. Aaron and Gwynn 298. Tied for 47th at 265 with their actual BA: Larry Walker 313, Kenny Lofton 299, Steve Garvey 294, Dave Parker 290 and Johnny Damon 284.

Tinkering with it, 12500 PA and it's Rose 329, Aaron 316, Gwynn 315, Boggs 311, Jeter 310, Carew 309, Molitor 304 and Mays 302. Walker now tied for 49th at 275: Larry Walker 313, Jeff Bagwell 297, Steve Garvey 294, Bobby Abreu 291, Johnny Damon 284.

It's still BA so you won't learn much about how well they hit but it can probably work reasonably well. OBP and Barry "only" has 414 OBP if a team signs him and he has 2394 PA of hitting like Shuck.

The Top 50 in OBP the lowest position player WAR are 42nd Rusty Staub 45.8, 44th Mark Grace 46.4 and 50th Brett Butler 49.7. The Top 100 the lowest are 99th Adam Dunn 17.4, 91st Paul Konerko 27.7, 96th Mike Hargrove 30.4, 77th Chili Davis 38.2 and 58th Harold Baines 38.7.

The Top 50 in SLG the lowest position player WAR are 48th Harold Baines 38.7, 44th Juan Gonzalez 38.7, 34th Carlos Delgado 44.4 and 47th Jim Rice 47.7. The Top 100 the lowest are 93rd Adam Dunn 17.4, 91st Joe Carter 19.6, 96th Garret Anderson 25.7, 59th Paul Konerko 27.7, 69th Alfonso Soriano 28.2 and 76th Carlos Lee 28.3.

Making a case for Baines the main key is picking the denominator, 15000 is probably close to ideal because he gets 74% his own hitting and 26% ~50 OPS+ while Jim Edmonds is 53% his own and 47% ~50 OPS+.

And then of course it still takes a flying leap from Baines' combination of hitting quality and quantity being on par with Edmonds to then being similar HoF candidates since one of them was pretty good in the field. Since 2016 JB Shuck isn't replacement level, he has -0.7 oWAR in 241 PA playing mostly CF, Harold Baines is never going to be up there even if you isolate to offense or even only hitting using WAR components. Baines is relatively speaking up there in Win Shares which uses a much lower replacement level.
   31. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 08:33 AM (#5814246)
They were just given a terrible slate of candidates.


And then picked the second-worst candidate on that list, ahead of only Steinbrenner? How on earth is that not their fault?

Take Davey Johnson and Will Clark and call it a day.
   32. Rally Posted: February 11, 2019 at 11:57 AM (#5814285)
Quiet you ... before they put Cito Gaston on a VC. I will not be surprised in the least if Carter makes a VC ballot.


They'd first have to put Cito into the HOF - doesn't seem very likely. But watch out for a committee that includes Rickey!, Alomar, Molitor, the Jack, and Pat Gillick.
   33. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:10 PM (#5814287)
And then picked the second-worst candidate on that list, ahead of only Steinbrenner? How on earth is that not their fault?


They were given 10 guys who weren't really Hall of Famers. As is typical of the Vets Committee, they preferred the two players who received the most support from the BBWAA. Wanna fix the Vets for real? Get it to stop taking its cue from the writers.

And I didn't say choosing him wasn't their fault. I offered a thought on why it wasn't strictly cronyism that got him elected.

I will not be surprised in the least if Carter makes a VC ballot.


Then you won't be retroactively nonplussed. Carter was on this ballot (so Hal was at worst third-worst).

As previously mentioned, it was a terrible ballot, because the era didn't have enough representation yet to warrant a vote.
   34. Ithaca2323 Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:15 PM (#5814288)
Carter was an extremely durable player who rarely missed any games (played 162 games 3 straight seasons) and he had good power. He regularly put up 300 total bases a year. A guy like that is going to put up RBI numbers in any lineup.


Carter's runners on base numbers, and the MLB average

1986: 475-433
1987: 456-386
1988: 427-402
1989: 482-429
1990: 542-429
1991: 443-431
1992: 471-420
1993: 508-420
1994: 352-304
   35. base ball chick Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:34 PM (#5814293)
What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 10, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5814119)

part of the charm of the Hall is that those who follow the game closely can quibble about some of the selections. A feature, not [that large] a bug.

The Hall had that going for it. And then they elected Harold F. Baines and Lee F. Smith. And Jack F. Morris


zackly

there is no defending the indefensible
(said someone famous, i'm sure - kevin bass, i think)

and i LOVE a line named after JB shuck - one of my favorite ex-stros who ended up with a lot more of a baseball career than the astros ever thought he would - drafted in one of those years that the astros didn't see why they should spend any money drafting minor leaguers
   36. GregD Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:49 PM (#5814296)
The Hall had that going for it. And then they elected Harold F. Baines and Lee F. Smith. And Jack F. Morris
Agree totally on Baines. No idea what to think about the relievers but basically agree on Smith.

Morris, I was against and still am. But he isn't an embarrassment. He was a bad pick in that there are quite a few more qualified players. But a lot of the players around him statistically are also marginal but legitimate HOF candidates (not legitimate HOFers.) And it's not hard to figure out why the HOF unfairly gave him more than he deserved. He fits a type. Jim Rice fits a type, too, a related one. Maybe even Lee Smith. The guys who get too much press for some combination of mystique and high-profile teams and fluke-y seasons or postseason heroics or whatever. They are bad picks but they don't actually change the HOF.

Baines does. Or he'll be treated as such an embarrassment that it won't actually change the HOF since everyone will pretend he wasn't inducted
   37. base ball chick Posted: February 11, 2019 at 12:57 PM (#5814301)
lee smith is getting by because harold baines is SUCH a bad choice that smith, also a bad choice, is invisible next to mr lindstrom jr
   38. BrianBrianson Posted: February 11, 2019 at 01:34 PM (#5814333)
I have no objection to Baines getting into the Hall of Fame. I don't think I would've voted for him (okay, definitely not), but it's not the end of the world. There are worse players by the numbers, and the Hall of Fame ain't the Hall of Numbers anyhow.
   39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 01:45 PM (#5814344)
And it's not hard to figure out why the HOF unfairly gave him more than he deserved.
The process of Morris's induction is even more offensive to me than the fact that he got in. First off, it was a direct and pointed "f*** you" to the "stat geeks." More than a little pettiness involved there. Second, if you're going to induct a guy what, two years after the writers rejected him for the 15th and final time, what's the point of having the writers vote in the first place? This trend of "so-and-so is doing well enough with the writers to get inducted by the VC" is just dumb.
   40. JJ1986 Posted: February 11, 2019 at 01:51 PM (#5814351)
and the Hall of Fame ain't the Hall of Numbers anyhow.
Baines doesn't really have a non-numbers case either.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5814355)
First off, it was a direct and pointed "f*** you" to the "stat geeks."


No it wasn't.

This trend of "so-and-so is doing well enough with the writers to get inducted by the VC" is just dumb.


Yes that is.

   42. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 02:04 PM (#5814356)
I think Smith also gets a pass because at least he got a fair amount of support from the BBWAA, so he was at least on the radar screen as a possible VC selection. I guess that Baines got the second-most support of the guys on this ballot (in that he stayed on the ballot the second-most years), but that's a bit of a stretch given that he peaked at 6.1%. His selection really did come out of nowhere for many of us (I saw the

Baines' raw career totals don't look out of place in the HOF, and he seems to have been genuinely well-liked throughout the game, and the other guys on the ballot were borderline-at-best candidates. So he got elected.

I do agree that the backlash has gone a bit far...based on all of the posts here I went online expecting to see that Baines had a career total of like 20 WAR (it was actually 39). Likewise I would have thought Rice and Morris were in the 30s; they're actually in the mid-high 40s. Not saying any of them deserve to be in but they're not as horrible selections as one would think if this was the only baseball site you visited.
   43. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 02:14 PM (#5814358)
I guess that Baines got the second-most support of the guys on this ballot (in that he stayed on the ballot the second-most years), but that's a bit of a stretch given that he peaked at 6.1%.


Yes, he didn't get a lot of BBWAA support. But he got six years on the ballot. Only one other player on his ballot even saw a second.

That he stayed on the ballot for six years where virtually everyone else (many of whom seem like better candidates to us - Clark, Hershiser) fell off after one, and that he snuck in while none of those guys got any traction confirms that the Hall/Vets committee voters are much more career-centric than the rest of us.

But, I also think if a McGriff or Walker had been on the ballot in addition to Smith, Baines never gets in. He slipped in based on some combination of a few champions on the committee, dumb voters who take their cues from the BBWAA and, most of all, very fortuitous timing.



   44. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 03:28 PM (#5814388)
Carter was on this ballot (so Hal was at worst third-worst).


Carter and Baines have never been banned from baseball. Big Stein has twice, and for good reason both times.
   45. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 04:24 PM (#5814412)
Carter and Baines have never been banned from baseball. Big Stein has twice, and for good reason both times.


I have no problem putting Big Stein at the bottom. Just noting that Hal's a better candidate than Joe.
   46. base ball chick Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:08 PM (#5814420)
SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5814355)

First off, it was a direct and pointed "f*** you" to the "stat geeks."




No it wasn't


- oh yes

it WAS

he was elected on TWO criteria - the most Wins in a decade
AND game 10 when he would have beat up his manager to stay in the game and he did this when Men Were Men and not Weak Females Like They Are Nowadays Who Only Care About Pitch Counts and Want To Be Rescued Like Rapunzel or some other helpless princess

there are ZERO other criteria under which he could possibly belong, as he had mop titles, no cy youngs and was the best pitcher on his OWN team only twice

cmon

get real
   47. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:15 PM (#5814425)
Yeah, I would agree that was the foundation of his case. Not so much as most wins in a decade, but winning more games than anyone who debuted in his general time frame (more than anyone from Bert in 1970 to Roger in 1984). And Game 7 was the other strong hook.

It had nothing to do with flipping us the bird, though.
   48. base ball chick Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:22 PM (#5814429)
sosh

stat geeks are not moved by a game 7 and are not moved by Wins totals real too particular much ENOUGH to put an otherwise unworthy candidate in the HOF

and by every stat criteria, or even awards, morris is unquestionably not worthy
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:29 PM (#5814432)
BBC, I'm not arguing that Morris is worthy of enshrinement. I'm arguing Elroy's silly claim that it was a direct and pointed FU to the statheads. It wasn't. I'm sure it's fun to insert ourselves into the narrative that way. It's just not true.

We didn't do have anything to do with it. The BBWAA, then the Vet's, improperly evaluated Morris's career, just like they have in the past with Bruce Sutter, Tony Perez, Jim Rice and many others.
   50. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:49 PM (#5814438)
BBC, I'm not arguing that Morris is worthy of enshrinement. I'm arguing Elroy's silly claim that it was a direct and pointed FU to the statheads. It wasn't. I'm sure it's fun to insert ourselves into the narrative that way. It's just not true.

We didn't do have anything to do with it. The
Why are you so certain about this? It seems at least pretty likely to me that the VC was well aware of the "stat geek" opposition to Morris's candidacy and the reasons for it. And thus that they knew exactly what message they would be sending.
   51. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2019 at 05:57 PM (#5814442)
As questionable as the Rice and Morris and Smith picks were, they make sense. Smith by the standard of relievers that have been voted in--if we are going to induct 2-3 closers per generation, he's not a bad choice at all. Rice makes sense in that he was viewed as a superstar and a surefire HOFer during his career. Morris has a similar case, if slightly weaker, tho buttressed by the Greatest Game Ever Pitched. There was a clear constituency for their inductions.

The Baines pick makes absolutely no sense. None. There is no constituency for his induction beyond the fools in that room. Nobody thought he was a star when he played. Nobody thought he was a HOFamer when he retired. He's hurt, not helped by modern valuations. He has no peak. He has no career value. He played on no great teams, won no championships. He had no defensive reputation. He made no special mark.

I disapproved of the Rice and Morris (and Mazeroski and Sutter and Fingers and Perez and....) inductions, but they didn't fundamentally change my view of the HOF. The Baines pick does.



   52. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:03 PM (#5814444)
Why are you so certain about this?


Because there was nothing unusual about Morris's electoral path with the writers, or his quick enshrinement with the VC.

It seems at least pretty likely to me that the VC was well aware of the "stat geek" opposition to Morris's candidacy and the reasons for it. And thus that they knew exactly what message they would be sending.


They weren't sending a message. They were merely electing a guy to the Hall who had gotten 60 percent of the vote from the writers, just as many of us expected them to do. The Vets committees have long taken their cues from the writers, which is exactly why they'll elect Larry Walker in a few years if the BBWAA doesn't beat them to it.

Usually you're the one debunking this kind of evidence-free narrative silliness.

   53. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:05 PM (#5814446)
There is no constituency for his induction beyond the fools in that room.


I wouldn't be surprised if even they didn't think so.

   54. Mefisto Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:07 PM (#5814447)
lee smith is getting by because harold baines is SUCH a bad choice that smith, also a bad choice, is invisible next to mr lindstrom jr


Freddie Lindstrom was a terrific player before he was injured. He had 21.4 WAR through the age of 24, including 2 seasons at 6.4, in one of which he finished second in the MVP voting. He didn't have a HOF career because he got injured, but he probably had HOF talent. He was a far better player, judging by peak, than Baines.
   55. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:13 PM (#5814449)
They weren't sending a message. They were merely electing a guy to the Hall who had gotten 60 percent of the vote from the writers, just as many of us expected them to do. The Vets committees have long taken their cues from the writers, which is exactly why they'll elect Larry Walker in a few years if the BBWAA doesn't beat them to it.

Usually you're the one debunking this kind of evidence-free narrative silliness.
I dunno, it just strikes me as more of a stretch to assume that the controversy around Morris played no role whatsoever, given how much and how heatedly it was discussed. Seems counter to the evidence that we do have available to summarily write that out of the VC narrative.
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:20 PM (#5814452)
I dunno, it just strikes me as more of a stretch to assume that the controversy around Morris played no role whatsoever,


What controversy? He rose up the ballot in an ordinary fashion. He had a nice starting point, deemed the best pitcher of his era from the moment he hit the ballot. He was able to move up the ballot because no valid starting pitching candidates (and not a lot of Hall of Famers in general) hit the ballot after him until his 14th year of eligibility. And it was that late onslaught that kept him from getting over the top via the BBWAA, particularly the arrivals of Maddux and Glavine his final year.

He then moved to the Veterans Committee, which quickly ushered him in, which is what they usually do with guys who have strong support from the BBWAA (Gil Hodges being the lone exception).
   57. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:21 PM (#5814453)
We all have our own favorite pet HOF candidates, and the thing is that Baines is basically worse than all of them. Like literally all of us can come up with 20-30 guys off the top of our heads who are better: Will Clark, John Olerud, Dave Parker, Dwight Evans, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Ron Guidry, Elston Howard, Fred McGriff, Keith Hernandez, Johan Santana, Dick Allen, Bill Freehan, Ted Simmons, Darrell Evans, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Dave Concepcion, Luis Tiant, Reggie Smith, Willie Randolph.


Mattingly and Randolph are two of my absolute favorites.

Guidry's 1978 season is the reason I'm a Yankees fan.

All of them are HOVG, none of them (well, maybe Randolph) would be in my personal HOF, but I'm capable of looking past my fandom to their actual qualifications.

With Smith and especially Baines, the Veterans Committee #### the bed and themselves ...
   58. Booey Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:34 PM (#5814456)
Rice makes sense in that he was viewed as a superstar and a surefire HOFer during his career. Morris has a similar case, if slightly weaker, tho buttressed by the Greatest Game Ever Pitched. There was a clear constituency for their inductions.


I don't think Rice and Morris are that comparable. Rice was a surefire future HOFer at his peak (8 time AS, MVP, 5 other top 5 MVP finishes, lots of black ink) who faded away before he could amass the no doubt HOF counting stats. He was a lot more similar to Mattingly, Murphy, Belle, Nomar, Juan Gone, Andruw, Santana, etc (yes, I know that most of those guys got hurt). I don't remember Morris ever being talked about as one of the best players in baseball or a future HOFer when he played. Only 5 AS selections, never finished higher than 3rd in CYA voting, etc. Yeah, he had a lot of opening day starts, but everyone noticed that his era was high, and the "pitched to the score" narrative seemed to be mostly retroactive, from what I could tell. I always thought his reputation was just a very good, but never really great pitcher (except in a few select postseasons).

Morris got in because (in no particular order):

- Wins are still overrated and he really does have a W/L record that generally means "HOFer"

- Championships and overall postseason success in a few select series, focusing especially on Game 7

- There really is a dearth of HOF starting pitchers from his general era, and it was clearly evident on the ballots until ballotgeddon hit. As much as the SABR crowd likes to claim victory for Blyleven (and they do deserve their fair share of credit), I think this really helped Bert, too.

- Like SoSh said, too often the VC just takes their cues from the BBWAA results rather than doing their own research. Once Jack topped 60% with the writers - hell, probably even 50% - it was inevitable that the VC was going to induct him if the writers didn't, and most of us called that right away. Ditto with Smith; he seemed like an obvious first ballot VC pick (in that no one should have been surprised by it, I mean, not that he was deserving).
   59. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:37 PM (#5814457)
What controversy?
Seriously?
   60. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:39 PM (#5814458)
Once Jack topped 60% with the writers - hell, probably even 50% - it was inevitable that the VC was going to induct him if the writers didn't, and most of us called that right away. Ditto with Smith; he seemed like an obvious first ballot VC pick (in that no one should have been surprised by it, I mean, not that he was deserving).
If that's going to be the way they operate, just get it over with and lower the standard to 50% of the writers' vote.
   61. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:47 PM (#5814460)

I think there was more controversy around Morris here because we have a particularly argumentative poster who really went to the mat for him, and most people here simply cannot help themselves from debating with him.
   62. bbmck Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:48 PM (#5814461)
Low enough replacement level does make Harold Baines look like a really good hitter, Final Year 2003 or earlier and career mid-point 1988 or later, 4517+ PA.

1.7*OBP + SLG and Baines is 1069 between Dante Bichette 1070 and Cecil Fielder 1068. Adding on enough Shuck level hitting to get anyone to 10000 PA, even without removing anything from players over 10000 PA:

1148 - Wade Boggs 10740 PA
1126 - Mark McGwire 7660 PA
1119 - Tony Gwynn 10232 PA
1101 - Rickey Henderson 13346 PA
1080 - Tim Raines 10359 PA

1075 - Paul Molitor 12167 PA
1074 - Will Clark 8283 PA
1069 - Harold Baines 11092 PA
1067 - Mark Grace 9290 PA
1063 - Chili Davis 9997 PA

1039 - Jose Canseco 8129 PA
1034 - Albert Belle 6676 PA
1026 - Cal Ripken Jr 12883 PA
1025 - Paul O'Neill 8329 PA
1016 - Bobby Bonilla 8257 PA

1016 - Ryne Sandberg 9282 PA
1010 - Kirby Puckett 7831 PA
1009 - Mo Vaughn 6410 PA
1003 - Brett Butler 9545 PA
999 - Don Mattingly 7722 PA

Rickey 1232, Boggs 1180, Molitor 1153, Gwynn 1128, McGwire 1126, Cal 1114, Baines 1107 and Raines 1093 giving credit for going over 10k PA which only those 7 other than McGwire do during the time period. Of course it also rates other players as really good hitters and then you can consider playing the field, base running, peak, MVP voting, ringz or Canseco's Pulitzer. The more the replacement level increases or the PA standard decreases the more the short careers improve, David Justice, Darryl Strawberry, Danny Tartabull, Jay Buhner. And the inverse is also true, raising the bar to 12500 PA and Baines is 7th with 1030 ahead of everyone outside the HoF except McGwire 1043 starting with Clark 1005, Grace 998, Chili 994, Canseco 975 and Belle 971.

Brett Butler by some random spreadsheet 1003, 110 OPS+, 188 Rbat, .344 wOBA, 115 wRC+, 248.1 offensive Win Shares or whatever vs Harold Baines 1069, 121 OPS+, 234 Rbat, .358 wOBA, 119 wRC+, 290.4 offensive Win Shares or whatever. C and SS are generally the only defensive positions considered by the voters, maybe too considered in the case of Vizquel, the nominating committee going Baines, Clark, Belle and Carter because in their view what's missing from the Hall is more guys who could hit and not really do anything else well. While increasingly mainstream metrics like WAR suggest players like Butler, Tony Phillips, Devon White and Matt Williams to be nominated instead of the position players other than Will Clark. If you want to make a case for Baines you have to focus exclusively on hitting and then place an emphasis on career length. Assuming you're trying to convince people who have moved past arguments like "most Hits not in the HoF" and "lots of RBI" you need to fill in the rest of the career with some level of hitting performance and establish why you would prefer Baines for 11k PA instead of Will Clark for 8k PA and then JB Shuck, Jose Uribe 75 OPS+, Rich Gedman 90 OPS+ or Bip Roberts 100 OPS+ for the other 3k.
   63. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2019 at 06:54 PM (#5814464)
I think there was more controversy around Morris here because we have a particularly argumentative poster who really went to the mat for him, and most people here simply cannot help themselves from debating with him.
Googling "Jack Morris Hall of Fame controversial" brings up hits from a whole bunch of "mainstream" sources - SI, Minneapolis Star Tribune, NBC Sports, Yahoo, MLB.com, Sporting News, etc.
   64. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 07:00 PM (#5814466)
Seriously?


Yes. Seriously. Jack had his detractors among the saberscenti. Just as Rice did. Just as Lee Smith did and Omar Vizquel does. We argued against his case. Our opposition was shared by some voters. Other voters disagreed. Rice managed to slip through, Jack and Lee were stopped short (at least temporarily). Omar's TBD.

But there's no reason to think his election was a giant stick poked in our eyes. We're just not that important. And certainly not important at all to most of the guys on the damn Vets Committee.

And this is the logical conclusion because there's just nothing out of the ordinary about Jack's electoral history.

He started with a decent level of support* (which was long before any statheads were beating an anti-Jack drum) and was able to gain from there because he didn't have a lot of Hall of Famers come on the ballot after him, and no Hall of Fame pitchers for 13 years. He gained ground on weak ballots, saw his progress halted on stronger ones.

Then, when he was closing in on election, the 2013-14 ballot wave stopped him in his tracks, just as it did to Jim Bunning before him. So the Vets Committee did with Jack exactly what the Vets Committee did with Bunning before him.

It's not juicy. We don't have a role in the production. But it's what happened.

* A level much, much higher than other SPs who hit the ballot at around the same time such as Stieb, Hershisher, Cone, etc.
   65. Booey Posted: February 11, 2019 at 07:41 PM (#5814471)
#60 - Exactly. It makes the entire 75% threshold pointless. That's one of the reasons why the VC needs to stop taking their cues from the writers. Other than Hodges and some guys still on the current ballot, everyone who ever topped 50% on a BBWAA ballot was elected eventually.
   66. BrianBrianson Posted: February 11, 2019 at 07:48 PM (#5814473)
but they didn't fundamentally change my view of the HOF. The Baines pick does.


So Lloyd Waner is fine, but Harold Baines is a bridge too far?

   67. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 07:48 PM (#5814474)
#60 - Exactly. It makes the entire 75% threshold pointless. That's one of the reasons why the VC needs to stop taking their cues from the writers.


I've been saying that for years. There is a legitimate purpose for the Vet's Committee -- to give a second look to guys who were overlooked by the BBWAA. But that's not the way they've operated. If I could make one change to the entire Hall voting process, it would be to create Vet's Committees that operated completely divorced from the BBWAA results.
   68. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: February 11, 2019 at 07:52 PM (#5814475)
I dunno, it just strikes me as more of a stretch to assume that the controversy around Morris played no role whatsoever, given how much and how heatedly it was discussed. Seems counter to the evidence that we do have available to summarily write that out of the VC narrative.

Here's a bit more available evidence: if the VC was targeting statheads by inducting Morris, why did they simultaneously induct Trammell, a candidate favored by statheads who was outpolled by Morris every year they were on the BBWAA ballot together?
   69. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2019 at 08:42 PM (#5814481)
. . . but they didn't fundamentally change my view of the HOF. The Baines pick does.

Baines may change your view of the Hall of Fame, but it doesn't change the Hall itself that much. If the Veterans Committee now elects all the players with more hits than Harold Baines - excluding Pete Rose, the allegedly PED tainted, and not yet eligibles - it will add one player (who is currently on the ballot and many here have predicted will eventually be elected).
   70. Booey Posted: February 11, 2019 at 08:53 PM (#5814482)
I've been saying that for years. There is a legitimate purpose for the Vet's Committee -- to give a second look to guys who were overlooked by the BBWAA. But that's not the way they've operated. If I could make one change to the entire Hall voting process, it would be to create Vet's Committees that operated completely divorced from the BBWAA results.


Same, although they kind of did that with Baines. Yeah, he lasted longer on the writers ballot than anyone else they were given to choose from (save Smith), but he topped out at 6.1%, which isn't exactly following the BBWAA's lead. Hershiser (11.2%) and Belle (7.7%) both got more support in their best showing than Baines ever did.
   71. bbmck Posted: February 11, 2019 at 09:20 PM (#5814487)
So Lloyd Waner is fine, but Harold Baines is a bridge too far?

Lloyd Waner is fine because it was 50 years ago, Harold Baines won't be a big deal in 2070. Even Steve Garvey, Jim Rice, Tommy John and Jack Morris having strong debuts with way more focus on the two that eventually get elected there is, or at least was until Baines was elected, a perception that with the rapid increase in available information since those players reached the ballot and things would have gone differently and that Darrell Evans, Willie Randolph, Bret Saberhagen and/or Dave Stieb would have gotten more consideration if the current level of information was available when they reached the ballot.

Lee Smith, no big deal, worst reliever elected since last year. Relievers, Tom Yawkey, Doug Harvey or Deacon White is a completely different discussion. Inducted as a modern MLB player other than relievers, Harold Baines is the worst induction since?

2019 Harold Baines
2018 Jack Morris
2001 Bill Mazeroski
1994 Phil Rizzuto
1989 Red Schoendienst

1987 Catfish Hunter
1985 Lou Brock
1984 Rick Ferrell
1983 George Kell
1982 Travis Jackson

Other than Morris and since Maz it's unlikely many consider Baines a worse selection than 2009 Jim Rice let alone Joe Gordon, John Smoltz or any other non-reliever.
   72. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 09:31 PM (#5814491)
Yeah, he lasted longer on the writers ballot than anyone else they were given to choose from (save Smith), but he topped out at 6.1%, which isn't exactly following the BBWAA's lead. Hershiser (11.2%) and Belle (7.7%) both got more support in their best showing than Baines ever did.


I didn't realize ol' Orel got that much support in Year 1. That was a big fall to off the ballot in Year 2.

No, Hal's peak level was lower, but he did last much longer than any of them. I doubt the Vet's committee was committing their peak support to memory, given looking at the numbers isn't something they're particularly adept at.


   73. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: February 11, 2019 at 09:44 PM (#5814493)
Same, although they kind of did that with Baines. Yeah, he lasted longer on the writers ballot than anyone else they were given to choose from (save Smith), but he topped out at 6.1%, which isn't exactly following the BBWAA's lead. Hershiser (11.2%) and Belle (7.7%) both got more support in their best showing than Baines ever did.

Also, part of the reason Baines hung around at 5-6% is that the ballots he was on were some of the weakest in the modern HOF-voting era (evaluating by votes per ballot, 2008 had the lowest total since 1946, and 2009 was barely higher). Usually players who have that little support lose votes because their voters say "forget it, I'll take this guy instead"; in Baines's case, there were no other players to replace him with. (The strongest position players who fell off the ballot in '08-'10 were Chuck Knoblauch, Mark Grace/Matt Williams, and Robin Ventura/Ellis Burks; only Ventura had over 50 WAR in that group, and his profile - balanced non-superstar third baseman - hasn't usually done much for the BBWAA.) He dropped off in 2011, which was a stronger ballot but still just under 6 votes per.

(Note that I'm not considering 2007 in this because it was Baines's first year on the ballot, so the people voting for him had no way of gauging how much support he would get.)
   74. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 11, 2019 at 09:50 PM (#5814496)
To be fair, I went back and read Jay Jaffe’s article about Morris in SI. He thought Morris’ rise in the BBWAA voting over the years was due to an anti-sabermetric movement. That doesn’t mean it was why the VC selected him, but I shouldn’t be so dismissive of that theory.

PS I think that Morris and Trammell, despite having very different cases, mutually helped each other by both being members of the ‘84 Tigers.
   75. Rob_Wood Posted: February 11, 2019 at 10:00 PM (#5814498)
Maybe we are having a semantic argument over Morris's selection allegedly being a giant middle finger to stat geeks. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that voters (both BBWAA and Veterans Committee members) essentially dug in their collective heels on Morris being fully aware of how "stat geeks" viewed Morris's candidacy.

MLB Network devoted innumerable segments to this issue over the years with many baseball writers and ex-players. John Heyman (IIRC) was adamant in his unbridled support for Morris as were quite a few other talking head sportswriters. Ex-players appearing on the shows were virtually unanimous in their support of Morris for the Hall of Fame. Brian Kenny, the network's chief proponent of sabemetrics and the host of these discussions, attempted to present the "anti-Morris-for-the-HOF" case, but always did so very respectfully of Morris and the writers/ex-players.

Anyway, I don't think we can know for certain whether the "middle finger to stat geeks" played any part in Morris's selection. But there is no doubt that that was the outcome and the Veterans Committee members were well aware of that.
   76. baudib Posted: February 11, 2019 at 10:18 PM (#5814500)
Baines is a lot worse than Smoltz or Gordon, are you kidding.

I do think Baines lowers the standards of the Hall in a way that almost no other selection does. You can make arguments for other bad selections but there's usually some kind of case for them that's better than Baines. For example:

Tony Perez - Had some big years early in his career, key contributor on one of the greatest teams of all time.
Bill Mazeroski - There was a belief/argument that he was perhaps the greatest defensive player of all time, biggest hit in MLB history.

Baines doesn't have anything like this. He essentially has no case, no argument, he's a non-candidate. He has less than zero defensive value, he has no baserunning value. He has no championship value. He was a quality professional hitter for a long time and that's it. This is an easy one, even morons should be able to evaluate pure hitters.
   77. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2019 at 11:06 PM (#5814511)
Maybe we are having a semantic argument over Morris's selection allegedly being a giant middle finger to stat geeks. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that voters (both BBWAA and Veterans Committee members) essentially dug in their collective heels on Morris being fully aware of how "stat geeks" viewed Morris's candidacy.


Those bastards who supported him wouldn't stop supporting him even though we told them they should. Clearly, their support was a big FU to us.

   78. Rob_Wood Posted: February 12, 2019 at 12:15 AM (#5814516)
I don't give two shits about your opinion, but it is clear that you are not even trying to hear what other people are saying.
   79. SoSH U at work Posted: February 12, 2019 at 01:24 AM (#5814520)
You should try re-reading what you just said.

Jon Heyman voted for Morris from the beginning. That he never wavered in his support should be interpreted, if we're not being incredibly hubristic, that he didn't find our arguments persuasive enough to change his mind. But, no, he and his ilk must have been "digging in their heels."

The strong stathead arguments against Morris started when he began his ascent on the ballot (there was no real need to make an anti-Jack push when he was in the 20s and 30s). From there, he slowly gained more support, just as Rice and Goose and Sutter did among the unworthies of the past and Edgar and Moose and Raines did among our guys. It was a perfectly normal backlogger climb. Then, unlike those other guys, he ran into a final year onslaught of better candidates, and he was unable to make the final push (similar to Bunning that way). And, like the Senator from the Great State of Kentucky, once he hit the Veteran's Committee, a group that has historically taken its cues from the BBWAA, he sailed in easily.

If you remove the stathead Jacklash, absolutely nothing changes with that. He makes a slow climb up the ballot (aided immensely by the lack of good starting pitching candidates hitting the ballot in the years that followed). Then he hits the 2013-14 wall and gets stymied. But he sails in through the Vets. Where was our effect on things?

There's no evidence that his election had anything to do with us. But, if you've got tape of Rod Carew saying, "Suck it Sheehan, Jack's in the Hall,"* I'll be happy to reconsider my less-than-two-shits worthy opinion.

* By the way, that would be awesome.
   80. Rally Posted: February 12, 2019 at 09:02 AM (#5814546)
Baines is a lot worse than Smoltz or Gordon, are you kidding.


Also confused as to why Gordon's name was even brought up. He's the polar opposite of Harold Baines - great value stats, short on counting stats. Gordon was a power hitting second baseman who also played great defense - an early Bobby Grich or Chase Utley. 57 WAR as it is, but he missed 2 seasons in his prime to WW2, otherwise he'd be close to 70 like Grich. Joe had barely over 1500 hits, only a little more than half of Baines total, but when it comes to wins above average, Joe had 37 and Baines a mere 1.8.
   81. Hysterical & Useless Posted: February 12, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5814644)
Curious as to why, if the ballots The Jack was on were so weak, why his climb was so slow? Wouldn't that indicate that the arguments for him weren't viewed as particularly convincing?
   82. SoSH U at work Posted: February 12, 2019 at 02:43 PM (#5814652)
Curious as to why, if the ballots The Jack was on were so weak, why his climb was so slow?


Because, ultimately, he wasn't a great candidate. He never makes that kind of gain* if he ran headlong into the talent that hit the ballot from 13-18. He'd have languished with low-support levels like Tram did.

Wouldn't that indicate that the arguments for him weren't viewed as particularly convincing?


I think that's true** of most slow climbers, with the possible exception of a guy like Mussina, since his ballots were consistently teeming with Cooperstownian timber.

*Then again, neither does the guy whose wake he was in for most of that time, Bert

** Though I believe a healthy percentage of voters are not really being persuaded by arguments. I think a lot of disengaged voters simply move with the crowd, only throwing their support behind the non-obvious choices once those players have made progress with their peers. I think that explains why it’s possible for guys to go from 25 percent support to 75 percent from the same group of voters: a lot of the voters are just lazy. They only vote for the "felt-like" players, and let the rest of the BBWAA do the heavy lifting on the cases you need to study.
   83. bbmck Posted: February 12, 2019 at 02:56 PM (#5814662)
Gordon's name was brought up because non-reliever MLB inductees since 2002 are why there was reason to be reasonably confident in the minimum standard for MLB players elected to the HoF. Deacon White which is more about time lining or quantity of inductees from the era than quality of play is specifically mentioned, Jack Morris is listed as a possible Baines is worst since.

C: Carter, I-Rod, Piazza
1B/DH: Bagwell, Molitor, Thomas, Thome, Murray, Baines
2B: Sandberg, Alomar, Biggio, Gordon
3B: Boggs, Chipper, Santo
SS: Cal, Ozzie, Trammell, Larkin
CF: Griffey
OF: Rickey, Raines, Gwynn, Dawson, Vlad, Rice
P: Maddux, Johnson, Blyleven, Pedro, Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, Halladay, Morris

Worst: Harold Baines
2nd Worst: Jack Morris
3rd Worst: Jim Rice

Then why the Baines election is so terrible, trying to come up with next worst position player and pitcher I went with Gordon and Smoltz, you could pick others for next worst inductees but they would still have really solid HoF cases. Ideally to me the availability of information would have derailed the election of Morris and Rice since Steve Garvey and Tommy John show that a strong debut doesn't mean you have to be inducted. Nearly two decades where it was almost entirely about who didn't get inducted which can realistically be fixed, hopefully while the players are alive.

I'd go with Baines is the worst since Kell so Baines is the worst non-reliever inducted since I was 9. Pretty much the entire time I've been aware the Hall of Fame existed the non-reliever inductions are pretty easy to justify with only a few whipping boys with The Fear, Game 7, the most famous HR in MLB history, at the time all-time leader and still #2 in caught stealing or five straight 20 win seasons who have reasonable HoF cases but leapfrogged various other candidates for unconvincing reasons. Reliever elections are a reminder that the right to vote in HoF elections is not based on merit but the avalanche of information seemed to have been enough to overcome everything except the Save until Harold Douglas Baines had enough compromising pictures stored in a safe to backdoor his way into the HoF and TLR went full Chass.
   84. baudib Posted: February 12, 2019 at 06:42 PM (#5814711)
I don't understand why Will Clark has so little support.

I realize HOF voters are slaves to career totals and he's lacking there, but he was a guy who was absolutely considered HOF quality in his best seasons. He had a mythic status within the game, maybe not quite to Don Mattingly levels but at least as much as Jim Rice. He was the guy with the "perfect swing" who hit a home run off Nolan Ryan in his first at-bat. He had two great nicknames, "The Natural" and "Will the Thrill."

His career batting average ended up over .300, and he's the perfect guy for the anti-steroids contingent to latch onto as their hero. He was great in the postseason.

There's also the fact that he's probably a deserving Hall of Famer.
   85. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2019 at 06:58 PM (#5814713)
Will Clark's experience in Hall of Merit voting was unusual.

In "2006" (real time was Oct. 2007 as we were almost caught up), he entered arguably the weakest ballot in HOM history. The top holdovers were Indian Bob Johnson, Alejandro Oms, Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, and Cannonball Dick Redding.

Clark crushed the field, getting a top 15 vote on 51 of 54 ballots - and 20 of those votes were for the top spot. Oms leapfrogged Johnson for the next spot, while Graig Nettles in a big burst nosed out Smith for the other 'elect-me' spot (Smith and Redding subsequently have gotten in).

No one except for Clark was on even half of the ballots - it was that fragmented.

so his voting result tells us little about what the electorate really thinks of him, other than "way better than THESE leftovers!" (the second-rated newcomer was Albert Belle, who finished 25th with an appearance on 14 ballots.)
   86. alilisd Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:09 PM (#5814715)
He was elected primarily because of his counting stats in hits and RBI.


No, he was elected solely because of his friendship with LaRussa, Reinsdorf, and perhaps Gillick, and they convinced 9 other people to vote with them.
   87. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:23 PM (#5814717)
I don't understand why Will Clark has so little support.
I don't think it's that mysterious.

I realize HOF voters are slaves to career totals and he's lacking there,
Point #1, as you note. Retired young, so his career totals are unimpressive.

but he was a guy who was absolutely considered HOF quality in his best seasons.
But only maybe 2 "wow" seasons, and because of his skillset and the offensive context, they don't really seem that "wow."

He had a mythic status within the game, maybe not quite to Don Mattingly levels but at least as much as Jim Rice. He was the guy with the "perfect swing" who hit a home run off Nolan Ryan in his first at-bat. He had two great nicknames, "The Natural" and "Will the Thrill."
I think "mythic" is a little overstated. I'd say "professional hitter" was closer.

His career batting average ended up over .300,
But he's got very little black ink of the sort the writers get excited about.

and he's the perfect guy for the anti-steroids contingent to latch onto as their hero.
If they didn't latch onto McGriff and his 493 HRs, they weren't going to latch onto Clark and his 284.

He was great in the postseason.
But no rings.

I'm not running Clark down or your appreciation of him. He was a great player and deserved a longer look. I just don't think it's really that surprising that he got little support, especially 13 years ago.
   88. baudib Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:30 PM (#5814720)
Clark had the reputation of being the best hitter in baseball for a 3-4 year period, he was routinely compared to Stan Musial. I'm not surprised he didn't fare well with the BBWAA but he's a perfect Veterans Committee type inductee.
   89. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:39 PM (#5814722)
I'm not surprised he didn't fare well with the BBWAA but he's a perfect Veterans Committee type inductee.
There I would definitely agree, and sorry if I misunderstood your previous post.
   90. Master of the Horse Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:49 PM (#5814725)
88--Really? Will Clark had one season of a WAR of 8 or more. Musial had 8 seasons like that. Clark best OPS plus was 175. Musial did that 5 times. Musial had 13(!) seasons of OPS plus over 150 including at age 36(!). Clark had 4. If you want to give Clark his season of 148 that makes 5. In 10 out of 11 years Musial led his league in either at least two major counting stats or rate stats. That is INSANE. I am not here to take shots at writers or other people around baseball but who the #### would think these guys are remotely comparable? That's just ####### lunacy
   91. baudib Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:56 PM (#5814727)
I am not saying they were comparable. But from 1988-1992ish it was very very common for people to say Will Clark was the next Stan Musial. A lot like the way people compared Mattingly to Lou Gehrig.
   92. Adam Starblind Posted: February 12, 2019 at 07:56 PM (#5814728)

Worst: Harold Baines
2nd Worst: Jack Morris
3rd Worst: Jim Rice


It should be pretty obvious that RBI Baseball for NES is to blame. What's Tony Armas up to?
   93. baudib Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:02 PM (#5814729)
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-30/sports/sp-2608_1_home-run

Will Clark with a bat in his hands is not exactly Rembrandt with a brush, but it could be Montana with a man open, Nicklaus with a 1-iron to the green, Becker at match point, Tyson going for the body.

You start a conversation around baseball people about Will Clark and, before you know it, the conversation veers around to Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Billy Williams, Al Kaline--those kinds of people, those kinds of comparisons. Will Clark's name travels in the best of company.
   94. Master of the Horse Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:08 PM (#5814731)
91: Ok. So I am stating that these people making those statements strike me as kind of clueless. So I don't get why those bad opinions should be considered as part of any case to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
   95. Master of the Horse Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:09 PM (#5814732)
93--great. So we know this was wrong. So why does it matter??
   96. baudib Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:12 PM (#5814734)
It matters because people who were contemporaries of Clark said and/or remember his stature within the game and I'm surprised that none of them are pushing him for the Hall of Fame. People compared Jim Rice to Hank Aaron, etc. No one ever said Harold Baines was Willie McCovey or Stan Musial.
   97. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:14 PM (#5814736)
It should be pretty obvious that RBI Baseball for NES is to blame. What's Tony Armas up to?
That's a good point. Detroit and Boston were by far the best RBI teams. Although not even RBI can get Clemens in, it would appear. And Morris wasn't even the ace of his RBI staff - Doyle Alexander had more break on his pitches.
   98. Master of the Horse Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:15 PM (#5814737)
96--Maybe they are not pushing for him because they didn't think he was as awesome as media people. And again, I don't get this whole "sure his actual performance was just pretty good but because I thought he was incredible that is was really matters" argument. Not saying you are making his case. But you are saying this argument is valid. Or do I have that wrong??
   99. Adam Starblind Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:30 PM (#5814738)
That's a good point. Detroit and Boston were by far the best RBI teams. Although not even RBI can get Clemens in, it would appear. And Morris wasn't even the ace of his RBI staff - Doyle Alexander had more break on his pitches.


My theory is clearly wrong because Saberhagen. Dude was untouchable.
   100. Booey Posted: February 12, 2019 at 08:38 PM (#5814742)
flip
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(177 - 6:06pm, Apr 20)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread, v.2019
(1205 - 6:05pm, Apr 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogFrustration with MLB umpires growing again after series of heated confrontations
(22 - 5:19pm, Apr 20)
Last: Jack Sommers

NewsblogPhiladelphia CBP Seizes Counterfeit Bryce Harper Jerseys
(4 - 5:10pm, Apr 20)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogMLB’s juiced baseball is juicing Triple-A home run totals
(2 - 4:58pm, Apr 20)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER! for April 20-21, 2019
(46 - 4:52pm, Apr 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJustin Verlander wants to be the Tom Brady of baseball
(11 - 4:33pm, Apr 20)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogYankees sign Logan Morrison, who once beefed with Gary Sanchez and called their fans 'stupid'
(6 - 3:49pm, Apr 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

Sox TherapyWe Can Be Concerned Now
(54 - 3:26pm, Apr 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogPedroia gets good news on latest knee injury
(4 - 2:49pm, Apr 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThe Official Mets Fan Self-Immolation Thread
(873 - 1:53pm, Apr 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHarding 'Pete' Peterson: General manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates during its World Series triumph, 'a brilliant baseball mind,' started as Rutgers catcher
(13 - 1:43pm, Apr 20)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogExclusive: Giants acknowledge it’s finally time to explore moving in the fences at Oracle Park – The Athletic
(49 - 1:34pm, Apr 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogMan Sues L.A. Dodgers for More Than $2 Million, Alleges Security Guards Attacked Him ‘Unprovoked’
(2 - 10:40am, Apr 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogPithy comment, pithy comment, OMNICHATTER! for April 19, 2019
(85 - 2:06am, Apr 20)
Last: JAHV

Page rendered in 0.8268 seconds
46 querie(s) executed