Reggie Smith HOF?

[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.

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 gripe for YEARS was Simba and Dick Allen who were finally enshrined.

Smith, Lofton and Edmonds could/should follow.

+1

[ecleme22]

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 gripe for YEARS was Simba and Dick Allen who were finally enshrined.

Smith, Lofton and Edmonds could/should follow.

+1

How is it that Brock could have over 3000 hits and Edmonds less than 2000? I know walks play a big part, with Edmonds having nearly twice the BB% as Brock through his career. But more than 1000 hits is a lot.

Edmonds was the better player. But he got dinged by the HOF, partially, because he didn't even have 2000 hits. Now I know Edmonds became eligible alongside a stacked number of other nominees, but the fact he didn't get 2000 hits made it easy to vote for others over him.

Conversely, Brock got to 3000 hits, a number that can't be achieved by a journeyman or scrub. A number that requires you to average 150 hits a year for 20 years, meaning, roughly, if you got 3000 hits, you were a solid, consistent, sometimes great baseball player for about 1/5 century.

Edmonds was the better player, but Brock was better in certain areas that I'm glad the HOF doesn't ignore.

Lastly, look at Brock's contemporaries. Better hitter than Campaneris, Wills, Lopes and Aparicio. He was NOT better than Pete Rose, but his running game and speed were much better. In the pre-Henderson/Raines era, Brock's productivity and longevity stood out.

[Red Bird Classic]

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.

There's a stat on Baseball Reference that makes separating the accumulators from high performance players easy.

WAA (Wins Above Average):
Baines: 1.8
Brock: 8.3
Murphy: 16.3
Slaughter: 24.3
Smith: 37.4

Just for context:
Edmonds: 35.0
Griffey (Jr.): 46.8
Edman (Tommy): 10.3


Plainly Brock and especially Baines were accumulators (slightly above average in terms of value).

Smith belongs in the Hall of the Very Good and would be better than dozens of HOFmers. Baines and Brock weren't even as valuable as Tommy Edman, who's a good player but hardly HOF material.

[Red Bird Classic]

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).

The issue, at least the one that RBI raised, is do they deserve to be in? Not are they likely to get in.

[Red Bird Classic]

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/

The Brock article illustrates the main problem with WAR: They use different methods and different data to calculate the value from different eras. I saw an analysis years ago where they calculated Jim Edmonds value using the same system they used for Willie Mays and players from before TV, and Edmonds ended up with ~70 WAR. Even BR once had Edmonds listed as having 67+WAR. Somehow they changed the formula and he lost 7 WAR?

They need to have different WARs for players from different eras. And if you want to compare players from different eras they should use a method where all the inputs are the same.