|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Dec 10, 2018 1:28:45 GMT
Good for Lee Smith. Harold Baines getting in bodes well for Edgar Martinez and Big Papi.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Dec 10, 2018 1:57:44 GMT
Smith should have gotten in a while ago. As for Baines, i didn’t follow his career all that closely, but I didn’t think he was ever dominant.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 10, 2018 2:01:03 GMT
Jeff Kent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 2:04:43 GMT
This may be a final nail in the coffin for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Pat Gillick, Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Joe Morgan, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith , Joe Torre, Al Avila, Paul Beeston, Andy MacPhail and Jerry Reinsdorf; and veteran media members/historians Steve Hirdt, Tim Kurkjian and Claire Smith.
These people should be hanging their heads in shame tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 10, 2018 3:21:56 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding??
I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh....
Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once.
No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith?
It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Dec 10, 2018 3:24:40 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding?? I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh.... Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once. No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith? It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke. If upon a player’s retirement he finishes his career as the ALL-TIME career leader in something, he’s hall worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 10, 2018 3:32:05 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding?? I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh.... Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once. No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith? It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke. If upon a player’s retirement he finishes his career as the ALL-TIME career leader in something, he’s hall worthy. Perhaps you're right, but Lee Smith wasn't a Hall of Famer, sorry. I need some dominance, that's just how it is, and trust me, Lee Smith was NEVER the most dominant closer of his time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 3:39:42 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding?? I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh.... Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once. No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith? It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke. If upon a player’s retirement he finishes his career as the ALL-TIME career leader in something, he’s hall worthy. It's easy to be an all-time leader when no one is even close in opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Dec 10, 2018 3:42:22 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding?? I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh.... Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once. No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith? It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke. Well he certainly isn't getting in for his Red Sox years. With the Cubs and Cardinals he was pretty great. He's a weird candidate because he's young as the multi-inning reliever was ending and old when the one-inning reliever was becoming vogue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 3:59:18 GMT
Lee Smith? Are you kidding?? I watched him blow way too many saves with the Sox, sorry. Was he good? Yes. Was he great? Uhhhh.... Was he dominant? Never, not once in his entire career would I ever had called him a dominant closer.....not once. No Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, but Lee Smith? It's official, the Hall of Fame is a joke. Well he certainly isn't getting in for his Red Sox years. With the Cubs and Cardinals he was pretty great. He's a weird candidate because he's young as the multi-inning reliever was ending and old when the one-inning reliever was becoming vogue. You're right in the fact that Lee came along at just the right moment. Saves didn't become a stat until 1969. Lee's rookie year was 1980. From 1969-1979, only 15 relievers had 100+ save opportunities. Rollie Fingers was #1 at 221 SaveOps. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 10, 2018 4:09:41 GMT
Baines & Smith suggests to me that recent player voters are signalling that DH & closers ought to be recognized on any/all balloting.
Neither should be hall of famers though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 4:18:22 GMT
Never saw either play. I only know who Lee Smith is because of record books and I honestly can't say I've ever heard the name Harold Baines before today so there's that.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 10, 2018 4:33:16 GMT
Never saw either play. I only know who Lee Smith is because of record books and I honestly can't say I've ever heard the name Harold Baines before today so there's that. As an 80's kid, I heard about Baines early on - his number retired by the White Sox while he was still active in 1989, being dealt to the Rangers. In RBI Baseball, he's who I always take out for Mark McGwire on the AL AllStars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 4:52:01 GMT
Never saw either play. I only know who Lee Smith is because of record books and I honestly can't say I've ever heard the name Harold Baines before today so there's that. As an 80's kid, I heard about Baines early on - his number retired by the White Sox while he was still active in 1989, being dealt to the Rangers. In RBI Baseball, he's who I always take out for Mark McGwire on the AL AllStars. I don't remember exactly when it was I got into baseball but it was in the 94-96 ish seasons when I would have been 8 or so. So mostly anything pre mid 90's I wasn't aware of growing up. My first baseball video game I wanna say was like Triple Play 2000 for the PlayStation. |
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Dec 10, 2018 5:06:26 GMT
Okay, I watched both Lee Smith and Harold Baines a lot back in the day, many times in person. They were both really good players, at times great players. Both were All-Stars, no doubt.
Hall of Fame? No, sorry I just don't see it. You could make the case that for a few years with the Cubs, Lee Smith maybe was the most scary closer, but really not the best or most dominant. When the Sox got in in 1988, I was psyched, but truthfully he was good, not great in Boston. He was better with the Cardinals and hung around for a long, very solid career, but is that really Hall-worthy?
Baines was a terrific hitter in the 80s and on a personal note, he used to DESTROY the Red Sox. Seriously, ask any Sox fan from that time and they'll tell you how much Harold Baines ripped against Boston. And he was truly a great hitter, but he was basically a DH, and for me a strictly DH HAS to be dominant. You can make the case for Edgar Martinez and Big Papi, but I don't see it with Harold Baines.
The Hall of Fame can't be for guys who had very good, long careers, it's gotta be for the truly elite, and these guys don't quite fit the bill for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Dec 10, 2018 5:10:56 GMT
Baines & Smith suggests to me that recent player voters are signalling that DH & closers ought to be recognized on any/all balloting. Neither should be hall of famers though. I think you hit it there. It is like the modern political atmosphere, inclusivity and the recognition of the diversity. Someday, Andrew Miller, Rob Dibble, David Robertson, Ron Davis and all the dominant middle relievers will be considered too. |
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Dec 10, 2018 5:22:30 GMT
If upon a player’s retirement he finishes his career as the ALL-TIME career leader in something, he’s hall worthy. Perhaps you're right, but Lee Smith wasn't a Hall of Famer, sorry. I need some dominance, that's just how it is, and trust me, Lee Smith was NEVER the most dominant closer of his time. Apparently, the HOF look for the two criteria, dominance and longevity. Lee Smith was very good and not dominant, but he had longevity. Longevity is what put players like Craig Biggio, Trevor Hoffman, and Jim Thome into HOF. I never thought any of them dominating. They stacked enough numbers to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 10, 2018 5:36:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Dec 10, 2018 5:53:10 GMT
Unfortunately for the Cubs, he didn't have the same stuff in game 4 against Steve Garvey. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 10, 2018 5:57:06 GMT
|
|
