Reggie Smith HOF?

[Quincy Varnish]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

[ecleme22]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

[Quincy Varnish]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

[Basil Shabazz]

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes. 3000+ hits, 1600+ runs and a .293 average over 19 years in MLB. 5 Top 10 MVPs as well.

Yes.

[rbirules]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes, Brock is the main example that comes to mind as a skeptical candidate when viewed through a modern baseball statistical lens. He reached 3,000 hits but took a ton of PAs/ABs to reach that threshold. He was a lead off hitter but wasn't exceptional at getting on base. He was famous because he was great at one aspect of the game (base running/stealing) but that aspect of the game doesn't create as much value as defense or hitting. He also played a non-premium position and wasn't particularly good at it.

Reached a famous milestone: check.
Record setter at an overrated skill: check.
Played great in highly visible games (WS): check.

Perfect recipe for being more famous than skilled.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh on a team icon that many on here got to see play and win for our collective favorite team. It gives me no pleasure to do this. And I don't blame voters at that time for not having more advanced tools to evaluate Brock (though he was known to be a poor defender).

The thread started by evaluating Reggie Smith, who was a very good player. Well, well above average hitter, productive for a long time (but opportunities decreased by injuries), and a good defender in RF and CF. He did everything other than steal bases better than Brock, and many others (Baines, Slaughter?).

[1_12_1968]

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

And these are numbers to be proud of. It is club level HOF. I wish this was still the standard for both honors

[Basil Shabazz]

Record setter at an overrated skill: check.

This is where opinions vary.

[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

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.

No sweat and we're in total agreement Brock was a superstar and slam dunk first ballot Hall of Famer!

[ecleme22]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes, Brock is the main example that comes to mind as a skeptical candidate when viewed through a modern baseball statistical lens. He reached 3,000 hits but took a ton of PAs/ABs to reach that threshold. He was a lead off hitter but wasn't exceptional at getting on base. He was famous because he was great at one aspect of the game (base running/stealing) but that aspect of the game doesn't create as much value as defense or hitting. He also played a non-premium position and wasn't particularly good at it.

Reached a famous milestone: check.
Record setter at an overrated skill: check.
Played great in highly visible games (WS): check.

Perfect recipe for being more famous than skilled.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh on a team icon that many on here got to see play and win for our collective favorite team. It gives me no pleasure to do this. And I don't blame voters at that time for not having more advanced tools to evaluate Brock (though he was known to be a poor defender).

The thread started by evaluating Reggie Smith, who was a very good player. Well, well above average hitter, productive for a long time (but opportunities decreased by injuries), and a good defender in RF and CF. He did everything other than steal bases better than Brock, and many others (Baines, Slaughter?).

The modern statistical lens has allowed us to reevaluate Brock's stats, yes. Agreed. Do they look worse in 2025 than they did in 1979? Yes.

BUT, just because they look worse doesn't mean Brock isn't worthy of the HOF.


For instance, Ozzie Guillen starting 154 games in 1989 with a .270 OBP. 47 of those starts were lead off. That's an example of "holy [shirt], that would never happen today!"

Conversely, Brock's stats still play today. Look at his stats most of the '70s. A .300ish BA, a .350+ OBP, steals bases. Yeah, it makes sense he would start 150 games at LO. Most of his seasons were solid and productive. This isn't some Vince Coleman 1986 .301 OBP situation... Brock had good stats almost every year.

Now is a starter with a .300 BA / .350 OBP / 50 SBs / .765 OPS / 115 OPS+ elite? No.

But if you do it for the majority of a 19 year career to rack up 3k hits? To me, that's elite. There is an elite aspect to longevity.

[rbirules]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes, Brock is the main example that comes to mind as a skeptical candidate when viewed through a modern baseball statistical lens. He reached 3,000 hits but took a ton of PAs/ABs to reach that threshold. He was a lead off hitter but wasn't exceptional at getting on base. He was famous because he was great at one aspect of the game (base running/stealing) but that aspect of the game doesn't create as much value as defense or hitting. He also played a non-premium position and wasn't particularly good at it.

Reached a famous milestone: check.
Record setter at an overrated skill: check.
Played great in highly visible games (WS): check.

Perfect recipe for being more famous than skilled.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh on a team icon that many on here got to see play and win for our collective favorite team. It gives me no pleasure to do this. And I don't blame voters at that time for not having more advanced tools to evaluate Brock (though he was known to be a poor defender).

The thread started by evaluating Reggie Smith, who was a very good player. Well, well above average hitter, productive for a long time (but opportunities decreased by injuries), and a good defender in RF and CF. He did everything other than steal bases better than Brock, and many others (Baines, Slaughter?).

The modern statistical lens has allowed us to reevaluate Brock's stats, yes. Agreed. Do they look worse in 2025 than they did in 1979? Yes.

BUT, just because they look worse doesn't mean Brock isn't worthy of the HOF.


For instance, Ozzie Guillen starting 154 games in 1989 with a .270 OBP. 47 of those starts were lead off. That's an example of "holy [shirt], that would never happen today!"

Conversely, Brock's stats still play today. Look at his stats most of the '70s. A .300ish BA, a .350+ OBP, steals bases. Yeah, it makes sense he would start 150 games at LO. Most of his seasons were solid and productive. This isn't some Vince Coleman 1986 .301 OBP situation... Brock had good stats almost every year.

Now is a starter with a .300 BA / .350 OBP / 50 SBs / .765 OPS / 115 OPS+ elite? No.

But if you do it for the majority of a 19 year career to rack up 3k hits? To me, that's elite. There is an elite aspect to longevity.

The bolded part is where opinions come into play. There are several players that aren't in the HOF that I feel are more worthy than Brock, or at least better players than Brock. Lou held a record that was prominent when he played, and reached a major milestone because he was able to hang around long enough, and be healthy in his career, I'm not shocked he was inducted. Availability, or longevity, is a very important ability.

[ecleme22]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes, Brock is the main example that comes to mind as a skeptical candidate when viewed through a modern baseball statistical lens. He reached 3,000 hits but took a ton of PAs/ABs to reach that threshold. He was a lead off hitter but wasn't exceptional at getting on base. He was famous because he was great at one aspect of the game (base running/stealing) but that aspect of the game doesn't create as much value as defense or hitting. He also played a non-premium position and wasn't particularly good at it.

Reached a famous milestone: check.
Record setter at an overrated skill: check.
Played great in highly visible games (WS): check.

Perfect recipe for being more famous than skilled.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh on a team icon that many on here got to see play and win for our collective favorite team. It gives me no pleasure to do this. And I don't blame voters at that time for not having more advanced tools to evaluate Brock (though he was known to be a poor defender).

The thread started by evaluating Reggie Smith, who was a very good player. Well, well above average hitter, productive for a long time (but opportunities decreased by injuries), and a good defender in RF and CF. He did everything other than steal bases better than Brock, and many others (Baines, Slaughter?).

The modern statistical lens has allowed us to reevaluate Brock's stats, yes. Agreed. Do they look worse in 2025 than they did in 1979? Yes.

BUT, just because they look worse doesn't mean Brock isn't worthy of the HOF.


For instance, Ozzie Guillen starting 154 games in 1989 with a .270 OBP. 47 of those starts were lead off. That's an example of "holy [shirt], that would never happen today!"

Conversely, Brock's stats still play today. Look at his stats most of the '70s. A .300ish BA, a .350+ OBP, steals bases. Yeah, it makes sense he would start 150 games at LO. Most of his seasons were solid and productive. This isn't some Vince Coleman 1986 .301 OBP situation... Brock had good stats almost every year.

Now is a starter with a .300 BA / .350 OBP / 50 SBs / .765 OPS / 115 OPS+ elite? No.

But if you do it for the majority of a 19 year career to rack up 3k hits? To me, that's elite. There is an elite aspect to longevity.

The bolded part is where opinions come into play. There are several players that aren't in the HOF that I feel are more worthy than Brock, or at least better players than Brock. Lou held a record that was prominent when he played, and reached a major milestone because he was able to hang around long enough, and be healthy in his career, I'm not shocked he was inducted. Availability, or longevity, is a very important ability.

If modern data has made, for example, Reggie Smith's stats look better today, than 40 years ago, then great. If they have made his stats look better than HOFer Lou Brock's stats, then great.

Then to me, the story is "Reggie Smith should be reconsidered for the HOF." The story shouldn't be "Lou Brock shouldn't be in the HOF since Reggie Smith isn't in the HOF."

[mariontt]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

He's 32 years old. I think he has 5-6 more high HR total seasons in him and could reach 500. From being non-tendered by the Cubs to the Hall of Fame. Wouldn't that be a great story!

[rbirules]

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).

Without the haze of steroids, what players with 3,000 hits or 500 HR are NOT HoF worthy?

Yes. +1.

Kyle Schwarber has 301 HR. If he sticks around long enough to hit 199 more HR, he's a HOFer in my book.

I still think in baseball, there are certain numbers that give you a ticket to Cooperstown.

I basically agree with rbis… that the 3000H/500HR milestones shouldn’t be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. But there just aren’t many (if any) examples of players in the HoF with those credentials that don’t belong. If there were any argument, it could be around Lou Brock (and very unpopular here).

So let’s suppose Brock didn’t compile 938 SB. Would he be hall worthy then?

Yes, Brock is the main example that comes to mind as a skeptical candidate when viewed through a modern baseball statistical lens. He reached 3,000 hits but took a ton of PAs/ABs to reach that threshold. He was a lead off hitter but wasn't exceptional at getting on base. He was famous because he was great at one aspect of the game (base running/stealing) but that aspect of the game doesn't create as much value as defense or hitting. He also played a non-premium position and wasn't particularly good at it.

Reached a famous milestone: check.
Record setter at an overrated skill: check.
Played great in highly visible games (WS): check.

Perfect recipe for being more famous than skilled.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh on a team icon that many on here got to see play and win for our collective favorite team. It gives me no pleasure to do this. And I don't blame voters at that time for not having more advanced tools to evaluate Brock (though he was known to be a poor defender).

The thread started by evaluating Reggie Smith, who was a very good player. Well, well above average hitter, productive for a long time (but opportunities decreased by injuries), and a good defender in RF and CF. He did everything other than steal bases better than Brock, and many others (Baines, Slaughter?).

The modern statistical lens has allowed us to reevaluate Brock's stats, yes. Agreed. Do they look worse in 2025 than they did in 1979? Yes.

BUT, just because they look worse doesn't mean Brock isn't worthy of the HOF.


For instance, Ozzie Guillen starting 154 games in 1989 with a .270 OBP. 47 of those starts were lead off. That's an example of "holy [shirt], that would never happen today!"

Conversely, Brock's stats still play today. Look at his stats most of the '70s. A .300ish BA, a .350+ OBP, steals bases. Yeah, it makes sense he would start 150 games at LO. Most of his seasons were solid and productive. This isn't some Vince Coleman 1986 .301 OBP situation... Brock had good stats almost every year.

Now is a starter with a .300 BA / .350 OBP / 50 SBs / .765 OPS / 115 OPS+ elite? No.

But if you do it for the majority of a 19 year career to rack up 3k hits? To me, that's elite. There is an elite aspect to longevity.

The bolded part is where opinions come into play. There are several players that aren't in the HOF that I feel are more worthy than Brock, or at least better players than Brock. Lou held a record that was prominent when he played, and reached a major milestone because he was able to hang around long enough, and be healthy in his career, I'm not shocked he was inducted. Availability, or longevity, is a very important ability.

If modern data has made, for example, Reggie Smith's stats look better today, than 40 years ago, then great. If they have made his stats look better than HOFer Lou Brock's stats, then great.

Then to me, the story is "Reggie Smith should be reconsidered for the HOF." The story shouldn't be "Lou Brock shouldn't be in the HOF since Reggie Smith isn't in the HOF."

I agree with the first two sentences, and I think Reggie Smith should be reconsidered in light of other recent selections (namely Baines).

I have not made the argument that Lou Brock shouldn't be in the hall of fame, regardless of Reggie Smith's status. I think in light of new metrics Brock would have been viewed much differently today than when he was voted in 40 years ago. I disagree that certain milestones are automatic enshrinement, even if most players with those milestones are worthy by better metrics. (Ex. Had Baines reached 3000 hits as a result of the strikes not happening my opinion of him not being HOF worthy wouldn't change.)

[rockondlouie]

Good read, really ups Brocks' career WAR


A Defense of Cardinals Hall of Famer Lou Brock
While Lou Brock had no problem getting elected to the Hall of Fame, there have been some criticisms of his overall value

By Craig Edwards@vivaelbirdos Nov 29, 2016, 9:00am EST

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-c ... ar-defense

Also didn't realize R. Smith only received only three votes in his only year on the BBWAA ballot, pitiful and reminds me of the same c r a p they did to T. Simmons.

Another good read:

Examining Hall of Fame case for Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers legend Reggie Smith
By Noah Yingling
Feb 19, 2022

https://calltothepen.com/2022/02/19/hal ... gie-smith/

[rbirules]

Good read, really ups Brocks' career WAR


A Defense of Cardinals Hall of Famer Lou Brock
While Lou Brock had no problem getting elected to the Hall of Fame, there have been some criticisms of his overall value

By Craig Edwards@vivaelbirdos Nov 29, 2016, 9:00am EST

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-c ... ar-defense

Also didn't realize R. Smith only received only three votes in his only year on the BBWAA ballot, pitiful and reminds me of the same c r a p they did to T. Simmons.

Another good read:

Examining Hall of Fame case for Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers legend Reggie Smith
By Noah Yingling
Feb 19, 2022

https://calltothepen.com/2022/02/19/hal ... gie-smith/

Thanks for the article about Lou! It already did exactly what I was thinking about digging into for Lou's stats. Namely, pre-2002 (I didn't know the cutoff) BsR is only wSB and excludes taking extra bases and not GIDP. I was going to estimate this for Lou.

Craig (the author) also smooths out Lou's defensive metrics. I understand the logic but that starts to get dicey. Lou wasn't a good defender, but again, probably not as bad as his mid to late career metrics paint him out to be. If these adjustments jump his career fWAR from 44 to 57, that takes him from not really close to borderline candidate. like I said reaching a huge milestone and being the leader in steals for a season and a career makes you famous. I have no problem with Lou's inclusion in the HOF. I think there's a lot of corner OFs that had better all around skills that aren't in the hall, but that's another discussion, like how this one started off about Reggie Smith. Kenny Lofton and Edmonds are two others, granted they were CFs.

[rockondlouie]

Good read, really ups Brocks' career WAR


A Defense of Cardinals Hall of Famer Lou Brock
While Lou Brock had no problem getting elected to the Hall of Fame, there have been some criticisms of his overall value

By Craig Edwards@vivaelbirdos Nov 29, 2016, 9:00am EST

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-c ... ar-defense

Also didn't realize R. Smith only received only three votes in his only year on the BBWAA ballot, pitiful and reminds me of the same c r a p they did to T. Simmons.

Another good read:

Examining Hall of Fame case for Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers legend Reggie Smith
By Noah Yingling
Feb 19, 2022

https://calltothepen.com/2022/02/19/hal ... gie-smith/

Thanks for the article about Lou! It already did exactly what I was thinking about digging into for Lou's stats. Namely, pre-2002 (I didn't know the cutoff) BsR is only wSB and excludes taking extra bases and not GIDP. I was going to estimate this for Lou.

Craig (the author) also smooths out Lou's defensive metrics. I understand the logic but that starts to get dicey. Lou wasn't a good defender, but again, probably not as bad as his mid to late career metrics paint him out to be. If these adjustments jump his career fWAR from 44 to 57, that takes him from not really close to borderline candidate. like I said reaching a huge milestone and being the leader in steals for a season and a career makes you famous. I have no problem with Lou's inclusion in the HOF. I think there's a lot of corner OFs that had better all around skills that aren't in the hall, but that's another discussion, like how this one started off about Reggie Smith. Kenny Lofton and Edmonds are two others, granted they were CFs.

Welcome

And along w/the milestone career achievements (3000 hits/NL SB career leader) I really think Brock's World Series heroics tipped him to easy Hall of Famer.

I had no idea Smith fell off the ballot in his first year, like I said earlier what a crock of c r a p just like they did to Simba.

I think Smith gets in one day soon, just like Teddy.

My biggest grip for YEARS was Simba and Dick Allen who were finally enshrined.

Smith, Lofton and Edmonds could/should follow.