Reggie Smith HOF?

[rockondlouie]

No

Hall of Very Good, just like:

Dale Murphy

398 HR
1266 RBI
.265 .346 .469 .815
121 OPS+

2 time NL MVP
7 time all-star
5 Gold Gloves
4 Silver Sluggers

Smith's 137 career wRC+ is significantly better than Murphy's 119 wRC+.

Murphy's 2 NL MVP's vs none and 5 Gold Gloves vs 1 is significantly better.

Hall of Fame is about career achievements, not just one stat like wRC+.

Neither is a Hall of Famer, Hall of Very Good.

[12xu]

Reggie was an excellent player, and I was very angry when the Cards gave him away to LA for stinking Joe Ferguson. I don't think Reggie is quite HOF worthy, but close. At least until Vada Pinson gets in, I think Reggie should remain on the outside looking in.

[Bomber1]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

Haven’t thought of Reggie Smith in a long time.

He was a really good player, solidly built and had a good arm in the OF.

Solid career numbers but IMO not a MLB hall of famer.

[rbirules]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

[rbirules]

No

Hall of Very Good, just like:

Dale Murphy

398 HR
1266 RBI
.265 .346 .469 .815
121 OPS+

2 time NL MVP
7 time all-star
5 Gold Gloves
4 Silver Sluggers

Smith's 137 career wRC+ is significantly better than Murphy's 119 wRC+.

Murphy's 2 NL MVP's vs none and 5 Gold Gloves vs 1 is significantly better.

Hall of Fame is about career achievements, not just one stat like wRC+.

Neither is a Hall of Famer, Hall of Very Good.

Smith is also a 7 time all-star. He might not have had peaks as high as Murphy but he sustained a high level of play much better.

Smith has better fielding metrics than Murphy.

Smith's overall hitting is significantly better than Murphy's: .287/.366/.489/.855, he's got Murphy beat by 20 points across the board, 40 points in OPS.

Enos Slaughter is in the HOF. Do you think he was a better player than Smith? If so, why?

[sikeston bulldog2]

Reggie turned 80 last month and I'm not feeling so hot myself this morning.

The Cards traded Reggie for a terrible half-year of Joe Ferguson, ostensibly because they were afraid of losing him to free-agency. He got something like $200K from the Dodgers for some great years. Poor StL, just couldn't match the big boys in signing elite talent.

So you say that spending trend deficit has been going on for 50 years.

[JDW]

Pretty much a 5 tool player that had decent length to his career. I don't get into these debates, and with however the votes go down I'm not arguing one way or another, but I'd vote yes for him to get in.
If I was a scout, any prospect with similar plus tools like RS would get some extra attention, but duh, that's pretty obvious, ha.

[rockondlouie]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Disagree

It's not archaic, it's a tremendous CAREER achievement that separates those 61 players from the other 20,826 players who've ever played MLB meaning they are the ELITE.

ANY Player who does something over the course of a LONG CAREER like garnering 3,000 hit's or hitting 500+ Home Runs is a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame is about CAREER achievements.

While a stat like wRC+ is great for evaluating a players individual season, it's not the be all and end all when evaluating a players Hall of Fame resume.

Roger Maris has a career 126 wRC+ but his CAREER achievements aren't Hall of Fame worthty.

[ecleme22]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Archaic? No, I would say 'traditional.'

Modern stats don't discount those w 3K hits and 500 HR, but rather sheds light on talented players who didn't hit these milestones.

I don't care what kind of hitter you were, if you get to 3,000 hits, you are a HOFer. If you get to 300 wins, you're a HOFer. If you get to 500 HR in this post roid era, you're a HOFer.

And if Baines got just 134 more hits, he would've been a HOFer like in 2008. And no one would be complaining about it.

[nighthawk]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Oh, the subjectivity quirks have been around a lot longer than Harold Baines' enshrinement. See Tommy McCathy's enshrinement in 1946. The difference between McCarthy and Baines is that McCarthy was judged in the context of only 70 years of baseball history whereas Baines was judged in the context of more than double that -- 143 years of history. In that respect it is actually more challenging to be enshrined, especially with today's metrics that no one used 40, 50, 60 70, 80 or so years ago.

[rockondlouie]

No

Hall of Very Good, just like:

Dale Murphy

398 HR
1266 RBI
.265 .346 .469 .815
121 OPS+

2 time NL MVP
7 time all-star
5 Gold Gloves
4 Silver Sluggers

Smith's 137 career wRC+ is significantly better than Murphy's 119 wRC+.

Murphy's 2 NL MVP's vs none and 5 Gold Gloves vs 1 is significantly better.

Hall of Fame is about career achievements, not just one stat like wRC+.

Neither is a Hall of Famer, Hall of Very Good.

Smith is also a 7 time all-star. He might not have had peaks as high as Murphy but he sustained a high level of play much better.

Smith has better fielding metrics than Murphy.

Smith's overall hitting is significantly better than Murphy's: .287/.366/.489/.855, he's got Murphy beat by 20 points across the board, 40 points in OPS.

Enos Slaughter is in the HOF. Do you think he was a better player than Smith? If so, why?

Murphy played not one (Catcher) but two (Centerfield) of the more demanding positions than did Smith who manned a lesser position in Rightfield.


Dale Murphy
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 31 (70th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 147 (118th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 116 (140th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 34 (256th), Average HOFer ≈ 50

-vs-

Reggie Smith
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 4 (542nd), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 124 (192nd), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 65 (336th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 35 (235th), Average HOFer ≈ 50


I'd vote Murphy into the Hall of Fame 100/100 times before I would Smith but as always respect your opinions.

[rbirules]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Disagree

It's not archaic, it's a tremendous CAREER achievement that separates those 61 players from the other 20,826 players who've ever played MLB meaning they are the ELITE.

ANY Player who does something over the course of a LONG CAREER like garnering 3,000 hit's or hitting 500+ Home Runs is a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame is about CAREER achievements.

While a stat like wRC+ is great for evaluating a players individual season, it's not the be all and end all when evaluating a players Hall of Fame resume.

Roger Maris has a career 126 wRC+ but his CAREER achievements aren't Hall of Fame worthty.

Again, great achievements, not automatic HOF inclusion though. There will obviously be huge overlap in the two.

With a significant amount of playing time wRC+ is great for looking at career achievement.

Why are we discussing Maris? 126 wRC+ is good (better than Murphy, on par with Enos), but not great (much worse than Smith's). Maris has 36 WAR, that doesn't even get him in the HOF conversation. 60-65 WAR gets you consideration.

[rbirules]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Archaic? No, I would say 'traditional.'

Modern stats don't discount those w 3K hits and 500 HR, but rather sheds light on talented players who didn't hit these milestones.

I don't care what kind of hitter you were, if you get to 3,000 hits, you are a HOFer. If you get to 300 wins, you're a HOFer. If you get to 500 HR in this post roid era, you're a HOFer.

And if Baines got just 134 more hits, he would've been a HOFer like in 2008. And no one would be complaining about it.

Semantics on my slightly hyperbolic choice of adjective.

Most players that get to either 3000 hits or 500 HRs are good enough players that they are easily HOF worthy. There are a few accumulators that reached these milestones (or almost did in Baines' case) where that alone doesn't warrant enshrinement, IMO.

People wouldn't have complained back in 2008, but I think he would be viewed as one of the worst players in the HOF if that happened (even with 3000 hits).

[rockondlouie]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Disagree

It's not archaic, it's a tremendous CAREER achievement that separates those 61 players from the other 20,826 players who've ever played MLB meaning they are the ELITE.

ANY Player who does something over the course of a LONG CAREER like garnering 3,000 hit's or hitting 500+ Home Runs is a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame is about CAREER achievements.

While a stat like wRC+ is great for evaluating a players individual season, it's not the be all and end all when evaluating a players Hall of Fame resume.

Roger Maris has a career 126 wRC+ but his CAREER achievements aren't Hall of Fame worthty.

Again, great achievements, not automatic HOF inclusion though. There will obviously be huge overlap in the two.

With a significant amount of playing time wRC+ is great for looking at career achievement.

Why are we discussing Maris? 126 wRC+ is good (better than Murphy, on par with Enos), but not great (much worse than Smith's). Maris has 36 WAR, that doesn't even get him in the HOF conversation. 60-65 WAR gets you consideration.

Why did you bring up Slaughter?

Again

3000 hits or 500 Home Runs is absolutely 100% Hall of Fame inclusion.

Proof?

Only the steroid freaks and P. Rose aren't in after achieving those feats.

Smith and his wRC+ aren't

[The Nard]

ON THIS DAY... May 22, 1976 - St. Louis' Reggie Smith hit three home runs - two right-handed and one left-handed - and drove in five runs in a 7-6 win over the Philadelphia Phillies. Smith's third homer came with two outs in the ninth and broke a 6-6 tie.

Got me thinking...should we consider Reggie Smith for the HOF?

Pros: 7 All Star, 64.6 fWAR, .855 OPS 137 OPS+, GG, 2,000+ hits, 300+ HR.

Cons: injuries limited his counting numbers. Only 7,033 career ABs limited total HR & RBI.

I remember we stole him from the Red Sox and stupidly gave him to the Dodgers. But he was fun to watch!

You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Wiiliams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too? How about Bob Johnson or Moises Alou???

I think Smith is a borderline case, and a very underrated player. As soon as Harold Baines was voted in the flood gates were thrown open. If he's now a barometer for enshrinement then all of those players pass the test.

Baines was a mistake and should not be used as a barometer for the HOF IMO.

It is funny how Baines is referred to as a mistake. But yet, he's arguably 134 hits away from being first ballot material.

I know I'm in the minority, but I kind of agree with TLR's logic that the loss of time from the two strikes ('81 and '94, some lost time in '95) should be considered when evaluating his stats.

Would these numbers look better: 40 WAR / 500 Doubles /400 HR /3000 hits?

That's a similar "accumulator" path to the HOF that Brock took, except you have more HRs and a lot less steals. 40 WAR isn't close to HOF worthy, 60 WAR is a rough measuring stick for consideration (which gets Smith in the conversation), IMO.

Before advanced stats using an archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds made some sense but they don't stand up to scrutiny now. Baines is one of the worst players in the hall, and given when he was inducted he was probably the worst choice in the history of the hall.

".. archaic method like 3000 hits or 500 HRs as automatic thresholds"

So getting 3,000 hits or hitting 500 HR's is now "archaic" rbi's?

Not hardly

It's an amazing CAREER achievement that only 33 PLAYERS (3,000+ hits) and only 28 PLAYERS (500+ HR's) have ever reached out of 20,887 players who have ever played MLB!

Those are a HELLUVA great achievements and 100% a true measuring stick for election into the Hall of Fame.

"archaic"

C'mon rib's

No, using 3,000 hits or 500 HRs as a sole benchmark to determine enshrinement is archaic when much better methods are available to evaluate a player. As I said, it was somewhat understandable many decades ago before we had a better understanding of baseball stats.

Again, not saying it's not an achievement to reach those milestones, it certainly is, but it should absolutely not be automatic HOF enshrinement. Many of the players that reached those milestones are absolutely HOF caliber players, but the milestone itself doesn't guarantee that.

Disagree

It's not archaic, it's a tremendous CAREER achievement that separates those 61 players from the other 20,826 players who've ever played MLB meaning they are the ELITE.

ANY Player who does something over the course of a LONG CAREER like garnering 3,000 hit's or hitting 500+ Home Runs is a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame is about CAREER achievements.

While a stat like wRC+ is great for evaluating a players individual season, it's not the be all and end all when evaluating a players Hall of Fame resume.

Roger Maris has a career 126 wRC+ but his CAREER achievements aren't Hall of Fame worthty.

Again, great achievements, not automatic HOF inclusion though. There will obviously be huge overlap in the two.

With a significant amount of playing time wRC+ is great for looking at career achievement.

Why are we discussing Maris? 126 wRC+ is good (better than Murphy, on par with Enos), but not great (much worse than Smith's). Maris has 36 WAR, that doesn't even get him in the HOF conversation. 60-65 WAR gets you consideration.

Why did you bring up Slaughter?

Again

3000 hits or 500 Home Runs is absolutely 100% Hall of Fame inclusion.

Proof?

Only the steroid freaks and P. Rose aren't in after achieving those feats.

Smith and his wRC+ aren't

So you're saying that Dave Kingman is a HoF'er?

[rbirules]

No

Hall of Very Good, just like:

Dale Murphy

398 HR
1266 RBI
.265 .346 .469 .815
121 OPS+

2 time NL MVP
7 time all-star
5 Gold Gloves
4 Silver Sluggers

Smith's 137 career wRC+ is significantly better than Murphy's 119 wRC+.

Murphy's 2 NL MVP's vs none and 5 Gold Gloves vs 1 is significantly better.

Hall of Fame is about career achievements, not just one stat like wRC+.

Neither is a Hall of Famer, Hall of Very Good.

Smith is also a 7 time all-star. He might not have had peaks as high as Murphy but he sustained a high level of play much better.

Smith has better fielding metrics than Murphy.

Smith's overall hitting is significantly better than Murphy's: .287/.366/.489/.855, he's got Murphy beat by 20 points across the board, 40 points in OPS.

Enos Slaughter is in the HOF. Do you think he was a better player than Smith? If so, why?

Murphy played not one (Catcher) but two (Centerfield) of the more demanding positions than did Smith who manned a lesser position in Rightfield.


Dale Murphy
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 31 (70th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 147 (118th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 116 (140th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 34 (256th), Average HOFer ≈ 50

-vs-

Reggie Smith
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 4 (542nd), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 124 (192nd), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 65 (336th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 35 (235th), Average HOFer ≈ 50


I'd vote Murphy into the Hall of Fame 100/100 times before I would Smith but as always respect your opinions.

Murphy played 85 games at catcher, started 77, and completed 74. Smith played games at 2B and 3B.

Murphy had a below average range factor for CF. Smith played 808 games in CF, 1041 for Murphy, and had an above average range factor in CF.

Murphy played 850 games in corner OF spots, and Smith played 880 games in corner OF spots. Both played 1B 180-200 times. So they actually were very similar in what positions they played, and Smith graded out better in CF, using the best metric we have for that time period.

As for black ink, I stated Murphy had higher peaks. Smith was good for a lot longer.