Reggie Smith HOF?

[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.

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

I brought up Slaughter because he's in the HOF, played primarily RF, and Smith is a better player than him.

[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.

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.

Smith played SIX (6) games at 2nd base and FIFTEEN (15) at 3rd base.

Murphy won FIVE Gold Gloves playing CF, Smith ONE in RF.

Murphy won TWO NL MVP awards, Smith none.

I'll bet you a cold one RBI's that Murphy gets into the Hall before Smith.

[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

I brought up Slaughter because he's in the HOF, played primarily RF, and Smith is a better player than him.

Maybe, maybe not.

Slaughter
10 time all star

More Hits, Runs, Doubles, Triples and RBI's than Smith.

Five Top 10 MVP finishes.

[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

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

King Kong only hit 442 HR's

[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.

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).

If you get to 500 HR or 3000, you're not an accumulator.

What a dumb post.

[Talkin' Baseball]

Interesting conversation. This really represents the best of what the forum can be. Interesting topic, relevant responses, good comps.
Highly underrated player. Largely forgotten. In my book, maybe just shy of hall of fame- but I could be persuaded. Looking at the stats, he's better than I remembered. Thanks for the topic.

[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.

Smith played SIX (6) games at 2nd base and FIFTEEN (15) at 3rd base.

Murphy won FIVE Gold Gloves playing CF, Smith ONE in RF.

Murphy won TWO NL MVP awards, Smith none.

I'll bet you a cold one RBI's that Murphy gets into the Hall before Smith.

Yes, both players played an insignificant number of games at "premium infield positions". 78 for Murphy at C, 21 for Smith at 2B/3B.

They played a similar number of games at 1b. They spent the bulk of their time in the OF and Murphy had a slightly higher split of time in center vs. corner spots. Smith was better in CF.

Gold gloves are "reputation" awards a lot of the time, you know this. Jeter won a GG. Palmiero won a GG at a position he barely played. I don't put a lot of stock in GGs, especially if the stats aren't at least in general agreement. Writers back then aren't watching every player in the league with any regularity, they see them for a few series each year.

You're much more likely to win that bet, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying HOF voters have historically been pretty bad voters, other than the obvious ones. Even recently many of the voters have refused to adapt to new and better information being available to them, which is even worse than those that simply didn't have it to begin with and did their best with what they had.

Smith is a borderline case for me based on his body of work. Murphy had higher peaks and is certainly much more known but isn't close to as good as Smith. Slaughter is a not even close candidate viewed through the lens of modern stats, just like Murphy.

[rbirules]

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

I brought up Slaughter because he's in the HOF, played primarily RF, and Smith is a better player than him.

Maybe, maybe not.

Slaughter
10 time all star

More Hits, Runs, Doubles, Triples and RBI's than Smith.

Five Top 10 MVP finishes.

Slaughter had about 1000 more PAs (8000 vs. 9000) so I would expect him to have better counting stats than Smith. That's why stats like BA were invented.

Slaughter played in a league with fewer teams. He was on a very good and well known team. That gets you recognition which leads to AS appearances and more MVP 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).

If you get to 500 HR or 3000, you're not an accumulator.

What a dumb post.

I see your reading comprehension hasn't gotten any better in time I've been away. "There are a few accumulators" (notably Lou Brock, Baines came up just short) that reached those milestones. Not every player that got there is an accumulator, most are all time greats.

[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.

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.

Smith played SIX (6) games at 2nd base and FIFTEEN (15) at 3rd base.

Murphy won FIVE Gold Gloves playing CF, Smith ONE in RF.

Murphy won TWO NL MVP awards, Smith none.

I'll bet you a cold one RBI's that Murphy gets into the Hall before Smith.

Yes, both players played an insignificant number of games at "premium infield positions". 78 for Murphy at C, 21 for Smith at 2B/3B.

They played a similar number of games at 1b. They spent the bulk of their time in the OF and Murphy had a slightly higher split of time in center vs. corner spots. Smith was better in CF.

Gold gloves are "reputation" awards a lot of the time, you know this. Jeter won a GG. Palmiero won a GG at a position he barely played. I don't put a lot of stock in GGs, especially if the stats aren't at least in general agreement. Writers back then aren't watching every player in the league with any regularity, they see them for a few series each year.

You're much more likely to win that bet, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying HOF voters have historically been pretty bad voters, other than the obvious ones. Even recently many of the voters have refused to adapt to new and better information being available to them, which is even worse than those that simply didn't have it to begin with and did their best with what they had.

Smith is a borderline case for me based on his body of work. Murphy had higher peaks and is certainly much more known but isn't close to as good as Smith. Slaughter is a not even close candidate viewed through the lens of modern stats, just like Murphy.

For the record I was a big fan of Smith (.291 .365 .493 .858) as a kid when he came to the Cardinals, thought trading him to the Dodgers was just plain stupid.

I think both Murphy and Smith are borderline Hall of Famers as well but remain in the Hall of Very Good.

And we're in 100% agreement on Hall voters being bad, I can name many players I would've never voted in too.

But 3,000 hits or 500 Home Runs is always going to get a player in unless they're tainted w/PED usage (even P. Rose may now get in w/his 4,000+ hits).

[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.

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).

If you get to 500 HR or 3000, you're not an accumulator.

What a dumb post.

I see your reading comprehension hasn't gotten any better in time I've been away. "There are a few accumulators" (notably Lou Brock, Baines came up just short) that reached those milestones. Not every player that got there is an accumulator, most are all time greats.

Brock had the most SBs all time, you dolt.

[rockondlouie]

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

I brought up Slaughter because he's in the HOF, played primarily RF, and Smith is a better player than him.

Maybe, maybe not.

Slaughter
10 time all star

More Hits, Runs, Doubles, Triples and RBI's than Smith.

Five Top 10 MVP finishes.

Slaughter had about 1000 more PAs (8000 vs. 9000) so I would expect him to have better counting stats than Smith. That's why stats like BA were invented.

Slaughter played in a league with fewer teams. He was on a very good and well known team. That gets you recognition which leads to AS appearances and more MVP consideration.

So you punish Slaughter for that?

Fewer teams = faced better players.

Smith played the bulk of his career for the Red Sox, Cardinals and Dodgers............pretty sure you get recognition playing for those MLB CROWN JEWEL franchises too.

[rbirules]

For the record I was a big fan of Smith (.291 .365 .493 .858) as a kid when he came to the Cardinals, thought trading him to the Dodgers was just plain stupid.

I think both Murphy and Smith are borderline Hall of Famers as well but remain in the Hall of Very Good.

And we're in 100% agreement on Hall voters being bad, I can name many players I would've never voted in too.

But 3,000 hits or 500 Home Runs is always going to get a player in unless they're tainted w/PED usage (even P. Rose may now get in w/his 4,000+ hits).

And to me that's an example of lazy or bad voting. In the vast majority of cases a player that reaches those milestones is in because they are very good, but it's not a guarantee. Just like players that are very good but barely missed those milestone who didn't get elected. That's all I'm saying about milestones.

[rbirules]

If you get to 500 HR or 3000, you're not an accumulator.

What a dumb post.

I see your reading comprehension hasn't gotten any better in time I've been away. "There are a few accumulators" (notably Lou Brock, Baines came up just short) that reached those milestones. Not every player that got there is an accumulator, most are all time greats.

Brock had the most SBs all time, you dolt.

He also had the most caught stealing all time, by some margin, I'll refrain from name calling. Reaching milestones comes with opportunity, and those opportunities have a cost (PAs, and outs). Brock stole a lot of bases and got a lot of hits. He used up a ton of outs to get that many hits and steal that many bases, but some want to just blissfully ignore those opportunity costs.

[jcgmoi]

Unless I've missed it, no one's mentioned what really stood out with Reggie, that he was a switch-hitter who had power from both sides. That's a rarity in any era. Think Ted Simmons as a CF/RF but hitting more HRs in 1600 fewer ABs.

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

I got the bit about StL worrying about losing him as FA from Smith's SABR bio. Other possible reasons for dumping him in exchange for the worst 200 ABs of Joe Ferguson's career could be racism, ignorance, or laziness, and we know no FO has ever been guilty of those.

[rockondlouie]

For the record I was a big fan of Smith (.291 .365 .493 .858) as a kid when he came to the Cardinals, thought trading him to the Dodgers was just plain stupid.

I think both Murphy and Smith are borderline Hall of Famers as well but remain in the Hall of Very Good.

And we're in 100% agreement on Hall voters being bad, I can name many players I would've never voted in too.

But 3,000 hits or 500 Home Runs is always going to get a player in unless they're tainted w/PED usage (even P. Rose may now get in w/his 4,000+ hits).

And to me that's an example of lazy or bad voting. In the vast majority of cases a player that reaches those milestones is in because they are very good, but it's not a guarantee. Just like players that are very good but barely missed those milestone who didn't get elected. That's all I'm saying about milestones.

Okay

But

-Name me ONE player with 3,000 hits (other than P. Rose) you don't think belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(And please don't say L. Brock and join the few national idiots who know nothing)

-Name me ONE player with 500 Home Runs (and no connection to PED's) you don't think belongs in the Hall of Fame.