I guess that writer doesn’t vote for steroids guys (although he does vote for Jeff Kent, who never got caught, but come on). And it seems his vote for Polanco is more about trying to get him to 5% just to stay on the ballot. But why? What difference does it make if you never get in?
In addition to that, Edgar was also the best Mariner before Ken Griffey Jr., and he was a lifelong Mariner. I think there’s a little ephemeral boost you get for team loyalty, or at least for easy identification with a single uniform. Larry Walker was definitely a two team guy, and those were two much worse teams than Gar’s M’s.
I’m admittedly petty about Sheffield. He essentially pouted his way off of the Brewers, and, from then on, I never cared for his attitude. Maybe he goes in the Asshole Wing, too.
I mean, literally speaking, he certainly was not. Prior to 1989, when Griffey debuted, Edgar had only played 27 games in the majors, and in 1989 he only played 65. At every point in their careers after Edgar’s cups of coffee in 1987 and 1988, Griffey had helped the Mariners more. You could make a pretty strong argument Griffey was the greater Mariner even if you only count his Seattle years against Edgar’s entire career.
I am obviously not the first person to ever say this, but you’'d have trouble finding any franchise in baseball history that did less with more talent than the Seattle Mariners of the 1990s. They had three no brainers Hall of Famers, a pretty good candidate in Edgar, and a hell of a supporting cast. You’d think they would have owned the league.
Lee Smith and Harold Baines in the HOF.
Is this a joke story? How is Baines a HOF’er? Lee Smith really isn’t either, but what the hell did Baines do to earn this honor?
I hate the stupid Veteran’s Committee or whatever they call themselves these days. That’s what caused the bloat in the Hall of Fame to begin with.
Wow. I brought up the possibility earlier just as a hypothetical, I didn’t think they’d really do it.
There really needs to be some greater bar to “extra chance elections” for anyone recent who was voted down by the BBWAA.
Halliday will get a few bonus votes because he died.
These committees suck and they’re making a mockery of the honor. Just for perspective:
Harold Baines (38.7 bWAR)
Brett Gardner (37.5 bWAR)
Blech. What a joke.
Baines is easily the worst position player post-WWII to be elected to the Hall of Fame (there were some very bad choices from the 1920s and 1930s, and even they have arguments they’re greater than Baines.) I mean, if Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer, Edgar Martinez should get in with what, 140% of the vote? I assume Big Papi will be built his own wing? Baines was a good player but…
… well, let me put it this way; if I started a thread called “Players Who Were Greater Than Harold Baines But Aren’t In The Hall of Fame” and every day, just once a day, posted the credentials of a player who’s not in the Hall but at least probably deserves it more than Harold Baines,** I still would not be done when the 2019 World Series ends.** Harold Baines wasn’t any better than Rusty Staub, the player I can think of most like Baines. Anyone think Rusty is a Hall of Famer?
I thin Lee Smith was a terrible choice, too, but at least he does not appear quite as out of place as compared to other enshrined relief pitchers, so if you’re grading on that curve he’s ahead of Harold Baines.
I thought they made a mistake with Jack Morris, but Morris is way, way, way more qualified than Harold Baines and Lee Smith. That’s no contest at all.
With Bruce Sutter in, Lee Smith is definitely not the worst pitcher or even worst relief pitcher in the HOF. Not saying that “not the worst” should be the bar, but I do like Lee Smith.
And yes, there are so many better players than Harold Baines that are not in the HOF (nor should they be) I barely know where to begin.
I would definitely rank Sutter higher than Smith, but YMMV. I think it fair to say neither is a terrific choice. If we’re arguing their relative merits about the HOF we aren’t arguing about the right two players.
I would like to ditch the Vet’s Committee entirely (for modern players), but many feel that some players who have been voted down by the BBWAA deserve extra chances. But even many of those agree that the Vet’s Committee is making selections that the BBWAA was correct about rejecting. I’d like to propose the following change to Hall of Fame voting:
Should the Veterans’ Committee vote in a player who was already rejected by the BBWAA, the BBWAA must vote on whether or not to allow that induction to proceed, with only 25% acceptance required to ratify. Should more than 75% of the BBWAA vote against the induction, the Vet’s induction is cancelled, and said player shall no longer be eligible for Vet’s Committee consideration.
It has the effect of giving a path to induction for those who might have been wrongfully passed over, but at least some weight is given to the fact that the BBWAA’s initial rejection is not to be so lightly discarded.
That’s a bloody good idea.
Also, how do players like Baines and Joe Carter get another look, but not Lou Whitaker?
I’m all for checks and balances, and I don’t have a better solution at this very moment but giving even more power to the BBWAA is not ideal.
Completely agreed. Today, we begin three decades of debate along the lines of “why the hell isn’t in the Hall, when Harold Baines is in there?”
Pretty good article by The Ringer as to how Baines got in the Hall, and how he ranks with other “bad” choices for the HoF. They go through the effort of determining how the other “bad” choices made it and, surprise! It’s the Veterans Committee (or successors).
That Hall of Baines is pretty good. I almost feel bad for Harold. It’s not his fault he got elected, he didn’t even expect it. All he did was play pretty decent baseball for a long time and now he’s going to be known for being basically the worst HOFer.
Well, worst of modern times, anyway. Some of the Frisch selections were probably worse.