Harold Baines - Hall of Famer? Yes or No? 22 year career - 1980-2001, 2,866 career hits, 384 HR's,?

Question

1,628 RBI's and .289 BA. Those are very good numbers, much better than Kirby Puckett or Ozzie Smith, and they got in. No one gives much love to Harold, why not? Those are some quality numbers. He could've gotten to 3,000 hits, but his playing time great diminished his last few seasons.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baineha01.shtml

Answer 1

No. Very few great seasons. Sticking around for a long time is a real asset, but not one that earns the Hall by itself.

I once worked out how close Baines might have come to 3000 hits if he had complete 1981 and 1994-95 seasons. The numbers put him around 2950, which would have been so agonizingly close that he probably would have gotten another one-year contract somewhere just to finish the job. Just as well he didn't, because I really do not think him Hall class, and had he made the milestone, the arguments (for or against, whether he got in or not) would have been endless and increasingly desperate (think of any Rose "debate", nothing ever changes, just more and more electrons die for the meaningless cause).

Plus he's got "the DH thing" hanging over him.

Baines barely scraped by the 5% relegation limit on the 2007 writers vote, and I think he will fall below next time.

Answer 2

Harold Baines was one of my favorite players but will not make the Hall of Fame and I honestly don't think he will ever get more than 50% of the vote.

He has solid career numbers, but are they enough to make the HOF? The HOF is for superstars and I don't think Baines ever fit that bill - he was never considerd a DOMINANT player in his era. He never led the league in a major offensive category, was never a MVP, and was never considered a better than average defensive player.

You can't compare Baines to Puckett or Ozzie because both men were perennial all-stars at important defensive positions. Puckett was considered one of the best players in the game for close to ten years - no one would have ever traded Kirby or Ozzie straight up for Baines when they were all in their prime.

Defense counts and should - it is 50% of the game which is why I disagree with your other question about Edgar Martinez. I can not equate being on the field and contributing maybe a total of 15 minutes in a 3-hour game with being an all-time great.

The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the very best players to wear the uniform and not just the very good. There is a difference.

Andre Dawson hasn't come close to being in the HOF yet, so I just can't see Baines making any HOF except the White Sox HOF.

Answer 3

If he wasn't a DH for a long part of his career, yes, but I think he won't get in. He was a very good player for a long time. I do hate when people call guys like him compiler's. Why fault someone for having a long productive consistant career? Aren't all HOF's with big numbers compiler's? McGriff I think should get in for pretty much averaging 30/100 for 15 years, but most would call him a "compiler" and not a top player. I would take consistancy over guys with a few huge years any day. Plus, there aren't any questions surrounding McGirff and Baines. They are just hard working players that were consistant and that you can rely on. Look at their 162 game averave, that say more about the players they are.

Answer 4

His numbers are due to durability, not dominance. He has a good player for a long time, not an elite-level player like Puckett was during his prime. He had a very good career, but he's not worthy of enshrinement.

Unlike the others you compare him to, Baines had the benefit of playing most of his career at the DH position. Unlike Ozzie, he didn't help his team every day by making a positive defensive contribution. And while his offensive numbers were good, Puckett was miles ahead.

Baines was a very good player, but the HOF should be only for those who are great - longevity should count, but only as a complement to a great career. Ozzie Smith was a dominant defensive shortstop, and Puckett was dominant both at bat and in the field. Baines was never dominant in either.

Answer 5

Personally, I don't think Baines should get into the Hall of Fame. Yes, his numbers are better than those of Ozzie Smith, but Smith was quite possibly the best defensive player ever.

Most of his numbers are pure testament to the length of his playing career but when you break them down, you realize they just aren't that great. His average season would have looked like this:

BA: .289
Hits: 130
HR: 17.5
Runs: 59
RBI: 74
SB: 1.5

Not exactly the best numbers.

Answer 6

No, he's not a Hall Of Famer. He's a compiler plain and simple. He was a great player just not HOF caliber. One question to ask is at any point in his career was he considered one of the top players at his position (discounting DH) or one of the top 10 in the game? I think you could say that about both Puckett and Ozzie.

Answer 7

If Edgar Martinez gets in the Hall for a DH then I think Harold Baines will. Let's look at who isn't in such as Goose Gossage, Lee Smith and some of those players. Baines definitely deserves the opportunity to be in but then we would have to have the same type of argument for Edgar Martinez

Answer 8

I have to agree with Craig S on this one.
I looked at your link and saw absolutely zero dominent seasons.
twice, he hit 100 or more rbis, never 100 runs, he didn't play defense after 1992.

1628 RBIs is impressive, but that's really only 74 a season and a lot can be said of being in the right batting slot.

I don't think these are hall of fame #s.

Answer 9

of course, he can elect into hall of fame. He need 3,000 hits to make into HOF. His career hits are more shy of reach 3,000 hits. He's the underrated player and always retired as White Sox.

Answer 10

I think he should make it in the Hall. He was an underrated player during his career. His RBI total is impressive. Even though I think he should be in the Hall, he might not get in.