Reggie Smith HOF?

[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.

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?

Kingman didn't have 500 hr. Only 442.

If you did just ADD 58 HR to his career, keeping everything else the same, it would put his OPS probably over .800 and OPS+ over 120.

[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?

Kong Kong only had 442 HR's

[rockondlouie]

From Brock's Hall of Fame page:

He was baseball’s most dangerous player for more than a decade, pressuring opponents with speed and daring on the basepaths.

Brock was recognized as one of baseball’s most complete – and clutch – players of the 20th Century.

Brock was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1985 in his first year of eligibility, becoming just the 20th player elected in his first year on the ballot.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/brock-lou

All that, and he compiled one of the best career World Series performances of all time, which without these contributions the Cardinals would not have won 2 WS in the 60's: 21 games - .391/.424/.655/1.079, 34 hits, 16 runs, 7 doubles, 2 triples, 4 homers, 13 RBI, 14 SB, 57 TB.

Yep

I hit Basil up above w/that too:
21 WS GP
4 HR
13 RBI
16 Runs
14 SB's
.391 .424 .655 1.079

[ScotchMIrish]

Saw him hit a home run in St Louis. Unfortunately it was for the dodgers. That was a bad trade for the Cardinals.

[Ike Hammett]

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!

If Reggie Smith put up those numbers today he would definitely be a hall of famer. He played in a way different era. I would call it the pre Tommy John surgery era. The pitching today is just so much different, even guys that are average today are bringing Nolan Ryan type stuff every game and the bullpens are coming with Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Rollie fingers type stuff after Nolan throws 6 innings. I know it might appear nuts but Graceffo is bringing Gossage type stuff, what Helsley is bringing is stuff Smith ever saw.

Probably not a hall of famer. A very underrated and forgotten by history guy though.

[thetank2]

When you went to the ballpark in the 1970s you went to see Lou Brock. We didn't go to see Reggie Smith hit 24 HRs a year. Brock was famous for what he brought to the game for several years.

[12xu]

From Brock's Hall of Fame page:

He was baseball’s most dangerous player for more than a decade, pressuring opponents with speed and daring on the basepaths.

Brock was recognized as one of baseball’s most complete – and clutch – players of the 20th Century.

Brock was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1985 in his first year of eligibility, becoming just the 20th player elected in his first year on the ballot.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/brock-lou

All that, and he compiled one of the best career World Series performances of all time, which without these contributions the Cardinals would not have won 2 WS in the 60's: 21 games - .391/.424/.655/1.079, 34 hits, 16 runs, 7 doubles, 2 triples, 4 homers, 13 RBI, 14 SB, 57 TB.

Yep

I hit Basil up above w/that too:
21 WS GP
4 HR
13 RBI
16 Runs
14 SB's
.391 .424 .655 1.079

Sorry, I missed that. Usually those who want to claim that Brock was less than HOF worthy are jealous cub fans, who know that if they would not have traded him to St. Louis, they might have been in the WS in 67-70.

[Monsieur De Treville]

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.

I don know...Slaughter, like a lot of guys, lost 3 prime, pre-age 30 seasons to war service. Without the war, he's a no-brainer HOF player. One thing I love about Slaughter...1,018 BB with 518 strikeouts! Wow!!!!

[The Nard]

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?

Kingman didn't have 500 hr. Only 442.

If you did just ADD 58 HR to his career, keeping everything else the same, it would put his OPS probably over .800 and OPS+ over 120.

Mea culpa. Thought he had over 500.

[Monsieur De Treville]

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???

Did you read what I wrote?

I did NOT advocate Smith for the HOF. I asked a question.

[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???

Did you read what I wrote?

I did NOT advocate Smith for the HOF. I asked a question.

Did you read what I wrote? I simply asked a question as well.

[Monsieur De Treville]

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???

Did you read what I wrote?

I did NOT advocate Smith for the HOF. I asked a question.

Did you read what I wrote? I simply asked a question as well.

You asked and I'll quote, "You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too?".

The question clearly indicates that you believe I want to put Smith in the Hall of Fame. You clearly felt I was advocating Smith for the HOF. Just own your mistake.

[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???

Did you read what I wrote?

I did NOT advocate Smith for the HOF. I asked a question.

Did you read what I wrote? I simply asked a question as well.

You asked and I'll quote, "You wanna put Fred Lynn, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill and Brian Giles in too?".

The question clearly indicates that you believe I want to put Smith in the Hall of Fame. You clearly felt I was advocating Smith for the HOF. Just own your mistake.

No it doesn't. Check that fragile ego of yours. It was just a question to engage discussion. But continue with the persecution complex if you must.

[jcgmoi]

Offered for your consideration. These are the stats that bbref presents when you use their comparison tool so if you don't like them you'll have to find your own. Also, any errors are mine since c/p with proper formatting is difficult on this platform so I had to hand-enter.

Lou on the left, Reggie on the right.

Code: Select all

45.3         WAR          64.6   
 2616         G           1987 
 11240        PA          8051 
 3023         H           2020 
 149          HR           314 
 900         RBI          1092   
 938          SB           137  
 .293         BA          .287 
 .343        OBP          .366 
 .410        SLG          .489  
 .753        OPS          .855   
 109         OPS+         137

Reggie looks good, really good. Lou has the SB totals and the great advantage of longevity--30 percent more games, 40 percent more PAs. At age 40 he logged 400 PAs while Reggie didn't make that mark after he was 33 and was done at 37.

What doesn't show up on the list is Lou's World Series numbers which are unworldly. The really amazing thing is, he kept improving. Every WS he performed at a higher level.

Reggie was no post-season slouch. Remember, as a 22 yo Boston OF he hit two bombs against the Cards. Still, his star paled next to Lou's.

But that's OK. It's still called the Hall of Fame, and Lou was famous for his SBs and his WS performance as well as his general excellence over many years on championship teams. I don't think it diminishes him at all to note that Reggie Smith was a hell of a player in his own right.

[ecleme22]

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?

Kingman didn't have 500 hr. Only 442.

If you did just ADD 58 HR to his career, keeping everything else the same, it would put his OPS probably over .800 and OPS+ over 120.

Mea culpa. Thought he had over 500.

All good.

Yeah every non-roids player w 500 hr is in the HOF.

[ecleme22]

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.

And when you achieve milestones, you get rewarded.

And his CS% wasnt egregious for the time and his contemporaries.

And, you’re a dolt.

I watched Brock his entire Cardinal career. He brought an excitement to the game, and it rubbed off on his teammates. Anyone who doesn't think Brock was one of the all-time greats must not have saw him play.

Here's the thing about Brock:

When you reevaluate his stats today, rbirules has a point in that Brock wasn't the most full-fledged elite player of his time.

When you look at all the HOFers, Brock is in the bottom 3rd. But that's okay, in my opinion.

Here is Brock, from age 31 to 40, from 1970-1979

BA/ OBP/ OPS
1970 .304 / .361 / .783
1971 .313 / .385 / .810
1972 .311 / .359 / .752
1973 .297 /.364 / .762
1974 .306 / .368 / .749
1975 .309 / .359 / .758
1976 .301 / .344 / .738
1977 .272 / .317 / .670
1978 .221/ .263 / .514 (only 92 games.
1979 .304 / .342 / .739


So, ladies and gentlemen, these are Brock's 'accumulating' years. These are the year he 'accumulated' his stats which eventually lead to a HOF nod.

In 8 of those years, his BA is .297 or above and OBP is .342 or above. I would dare to say in the six years from 1970 to 1975, his OBP is well above .360.

Brock was simply producing and producing and producing. That's why he has 3,023 hits and 938 SB. It's not like he was a broken baseball player for his last 5 years that baarrrely made it to 3K hits. He earned it.

So Brock has a low WAR? So Brock doesn't have a striking OPS+.

He put in the work. No scrubs get 3000 hits. No scrubs get 900 SB.

So while Brock may be in the bottom 3rd of HOFers, HE IS a HOFer for a reason.

Thanks.