Current HOF election results
 

Looks like Scott Rolen and maybe Todd Helton .... Billy Wagner and Andruw Jones not quite...
Beltran's getting docked for his role in Astros cheating.

http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

The unpublished values tend to lower the percentages some, but I agree that Helton appears to be trending well, with Helton having a shot.

I actually think Beltran's showing is pretty good. If you make 50%+ your first year, you're kind of on the first track.

I am not seeing the case for Andruw Jones at all. Unless you want to admit Delgado, Gallaraga, and god knows who else. Yes, I know he could play center field.

I know it is of little actual consequence, but I miss the days when a solid player like J.J. Hardy would get a handful of votes. I though it was a nice recognition for a player who was a couple of time all star and had a nice career to get a few votes. My guess it was usually the hometown writers. Just seems sort of mean to see the zero %

Todd Helton has made a very nice jump from last year. Makes me happy, I have a good number of his cards autographed when he was in Colorado Springs.

Question I have to the group is who is the best TPG when it comes to autographed cards?

Butch

It looks like right now that no one will make it because Helton and Rolen aren't picking up enough new votes to make up their difference from last year. Check the percentage of ballots counted vs the number of new votes from last year and what they need. Neither is trending high enough.

That's a shame for Rolen, because his combined defense/offense makes him a better than some first ballot HOF'ers.

I could care less about Helton making it. I have no respect for any drunken drivers, especially not habitual offenders like him. Cooperstown only has one traffic light, so if he does eventually make it, be careful of the road if you go to his ceremony.

By the time we’re done keeping out and kicking out everyone who has done something negative or somebody doesn’t like because they don’t suit X narrative, we will have a plaque of Christy Mathewson in an otherwise empty building.

So let's then realize that Matty will get lonesome, and we restore about 40-50 of the best of the others.

I'm just glad that in the first 8 posts there has not been a single, ridiculous reference to the frickin' theoretical stat of WAR. Thank the Lord above (below?)!!!! The players being mentioned are people whose entire careers we basically all witnessed first hand, so we each know who we truly feel are Hall-worthy based on actually watching them play, yes?

Agree. I vote for both Todd and Scott. Screw that war junk.

I STILL believe Todd was screwed out of ROY just because the voters were enamored with Kerry Wood at the time. Ugh….. I’ll take a HOF selection for a nice compensation.

Peter -- As you suggest, Andruw's "case" is largely about the fielding as a CF. The claim is that he was in the Willie Mays category as a CF before he got heavy and then couldn't/didn't stick around to run up his hitting stats to 500 HRs or even 2000 Hits. He got to the majors as a fleet teenage prodigy and was DHing by his 30's

I find the fielding stats kind of hard to digest but he put together a run (with Gold Gloves from 1998-2007) that was historically great.

There are plenty of lesser offensive players in the HOF because of their fielding excellence -- middle infield and catchers. I think he rates highest of all outfielders in lifetime DWAR (defensive WAR)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...f_career.shtml

and scores second all-time for all fielders in something called "Total Zone Runs" which is another combined fielding metric.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...f_career.shtml

SORRY ABOUT THE WAR STATS --- didn't see Darren's post or Butch's post until I finished mine -;(

Of course that's not to say that defensive excellence means that they should be in the HOF.


--- He has a son ("Druw") who is listed as a top prospect -- he too plays CF.

Jones 111 OPS+ really make his bat not look so good. He played in a high run environment in which his offense is not nearly as good as people think when looking at his homers.

I’m not sure there is a defense first outfielder in the hall. Harry Hooper? Hooper is probably his closest type in the Hall. Defensive star in his day, 114 OPS+, some decent raw hitting totals.

He wouldn’t be a horrific choice, don’t think he would be a great one. But it has little to do with actual performance anymore.

I hear you. But .254 BA yikes, and as you pointed out that's without much of a tail off.

It’s all good, no need to apologize.

Ashburn? I guess not, his hitting totals look better than I remembered. Just no power.

Ashburn’s OPS+ is similar, but that’s because OBP and SLG are not on the same school and OPS heavily weighs slugging. Ashburn had a lot of league leads in offense and was well known as one of the very best top of the order guys. He is over the average HOFer in black and gray ink that counts only his bat, while Jones (HR/RBI once each, during his great season) and Hooper (nothing) are far below. I think Ashburn was batting average first, defense second in the public eye, but such a thing is very difficult to quantify exactly. Probably why the consensus today seems to be split on Jones, Hooper is a bad but not horrific pick, and Ashburn a lower tier but deserving HOFer. I think in this case I agree with what seems to be the general consensus.

Yes, at a Willie Mays level. But also agree he's not hall-worthy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Baseball has been about stats for oh, about 150 years now, and WAR is one of the best.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Why is Sheffield getting a better vote percentage than his fellow 'roiders...

A-Rod
Manny
McGwire
Sosa
Palmeiro
Bonds
Clemens

Do they think he was really better than those guys, or do they somehow consider him less of a "user"? Or is it something else?

WAR is just a way to measure what a player did, in a way that helps you answer certain sorts of questions. It's a tool. Like any tool, it's useful for some things, and not for others.

For what it's worth, Rolen measures up very well by WAR. On the career list he's one spot above Ed Delahanty and exactly tied with Carlos Beltran. Which also feels about right to me.

The thing that bothers me about this years' voting is the Billy Wagner love. Yes, he struck out a lot of guys, but in his entire career he pitched only 903 innings. Of course, that's because he was a relief pitcher, but it's going to be very hard to be as valuable to your team as a HOF-level starting pitcher if you're only pitching 70 innings a year.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...fair-free-pass

Gary Sheffield
5 OF 6
With 509 career home runs to his name, it's not necessarily surprising to attach Gary Sheffield's name to the list of steroid users in the game of baseball. With that said, it is shocking that his name is not grouped with the likes of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Ken Caminiti.

After all, Sheffield trained with Bonds during the 2001-02 offseason and received PEDs directly from the hands of one of the most notorious steroid users in the game.

Four years removed from baseball, Sheffield will be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2015. When the ballot comes around, will the BBWAA consider his admission of using a testosterone-based steroid supplied to him by BALCO?

Sheffield came clean about his use of "the cream", as well as pill forms of steroids, that he received from Bonds in a Sports Illustrated piece quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle in 2004.

"(Bonds) said, 'I got guys here, they can get your urine and blood and prescribe a vitamin specifically for your blood type and what your body needs.' And that's what I did."

Sheffield called his 2002 season (the season following his steroid use) his "worst year ever." He hit .307 with 25 home runs and 84 RBI. He dwarfed those numbers in 2003, batting .330 and slugging 39 home runs while driving in 132 runs.

You be the judge.

Ozzie Smith

Outfielder.

Try again.

Centerfielder extraordinaire Cesar Geronimo had a career batting average of .258, and he is in the Hall of Fame*


* The Reds Hall of Fame

He's the best closer not named Mariano Rivera. I don't like closers in the Hall but it's a real position (now) and Wagner was absolutely elite at it for 15 years.

Since there is usually a drop off between the ballots made public before the official results are announced and the ones made public later or never made public, it looks like it will be very close for Rolen and Helton. My guess is that Helton doesn't make it this year, and Rolen will either get in or miss by a few votes.

Except in the playoffs, which kills him for me. 10.03 ERA in the biggest games of his career and a WHIP close to 2. He melted down in practically every playoff series he was ever in.

Rolen missed by 47 votes last year. While he is trending well with the few first-time voters, he has only picked up eight votes from people who didn't vote for him last year, with 35.8% of the votes accounted for right now. That pace is going to need to get a lot higher soon, otherwise we are looking at him missing by about 20-25 votes.

As I said, the first-time voters help, but they also add to the amount of votes he needs to get in, so their help is minimal. He needs more of the people who don't release their ballots online to switch to him. He only received 34% of the votes with the people who didn't release their ballots at all last year, and that group is about 20% of the voters. Public voters had him at 69%, though it also went down with the people who waited to release their ballots until after the results are announced.

I have no problem seeing Scott Rolen and Todd Helton in the HOF and hopefully the expected droppoff percentage wise will not be to much and will get them in.

I am not a fan of Billy Wagner getting in

I am neutral regarding Andrew Jones

I would like to see Sheffield In

Beltran I am on the fence about he deserves to be in but the Scandal with Houston is an issue

I would love to see Jeff Kent to get in

A big +1 and Amen!

Is it just me? The people we're talking about here SEEM mighty weak to be talking about HOF. Unless I'm missing something, these people were good ballplayers. Is that what the HOF is, the Hall of Good? Do you really see these guys up there with Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc.?

I don't think Scott Rolen is a weak HOFer. He's ranked as the 10th best third baseman of all time and the 9 guys ahead of him are all in the HOF (with Beltre being a lock).

Yes. Do you really not see these guys up there with the likes of Lindstrom, Kell, Marquard, Maranville, Aparicio, Ferrell, et al.?

Well, that's a hard one, because all I know of the fellows you mentioned is what I have read. And depending on what you read, they come off sounding better than their peers. It wasn't me who elected them. I saw Rolen, Wagner, Jones, et al, and to me they aren't HOFers, not even close, and same goes for Biggio, Morris, Baines, etc., already in. Good, but not HOF. To me. If you see things differently that's fine. Obviously, sooner or later someone will be going in. So be it.

What do you mean not even close though? Who was better than Rolen in his time? I would say nobody. What else does a third baseman have to do to get into the Hall? He won 8 gold gloves, he won a title, and he's 10th all time in WAR at the position.

There are 9 guys ahead of him, one of which is Paul Molitor, who played less than 800 games at the position. All 9 players ahead of him are in the HOF or in the case of Beltre, are a lock to get in.

How is he not even close? Even the guy directly behind him is in the HOF (Edgar Martinez).

The HOF has never been limited to truly elite, all time starting lineup type players. So that's a false comparison.

True. When the Hall opened, after the first few inaugural classes, they let in a whole mess of "lesser-quality" guys simply to fill the place. I guess nobody was going to buy tickets to a museum with only 12 incomparables in it.

WAR, what is it good for?

Sorry, I had to...

I always had a soft spot for Sheffield since his time with the Yankees.

Elite offensive player when healthy, though his defensive metrics absolutely slaughter his overall value.

Same Rookie card year as Craig Jefferies, with similar hype. Only difference in collector interest, was Jefferies was coming up in the New York market, and Sheffield the Milwaukee market, so Jefferies was held in slightly higher regard by weekend warrior speculators at the time.

Bombed his first few years in Milwaukee. Written off as a bust before he turned his career around.

Absolutely fantastic Walk to Strikeout ratio. I think people forgot what a great hitter he was.

Missed lots of games due to injury, and still racked up some impressive lifetime counting numbers.

Sheff was an ornery guy, and not always gracious with the press, but he did always come off as up-front, genuine and honest...even when it didn't put him in the best light.

As you mentioned, he "came clean", regarding his steroid experiences. How many other players can you say that for, outside of Jose Canseco (who I believe was up front about it for different reasons)?

Nobody ever got the sense from him, he was ever hiding anything, because he was so "matter of fact" about everything.

And don't forget the Frank Frisch-led veterans committee, which gave us Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Dave Bancroft, Ross Youngs, Waite Hoyt, Harry Hooper, Rube Marquard, Earle Combs and High Pockets Kelly.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I hope that the voters keep only his on-field activities in mind when voting. No one is perfect and what happens off the field should have zero effect on HOF voting. Its not the "Perfect Human Being" HOF.

By the numbers and compared those already inducted, Scott Rolen is clearly a Hall of Famer. It's not even close. Pie Traynor was once considered the greatest third baseman who ever lived. So was Jimmy Collins. Would you really rather have either one of those guys on your team instead of Rolen?

Many fans simply misunderstand what a Hall of Fame third baseman looks like. There are few third sackers history who had a great glove to go along with hitting for power and average, like Rolen. As a result, there are far fewer third baseman inducted in Cooperstown than any other position, including executives who never played the game (17 third baseman vs. 40 executives). I see this as an indictment that the Hall of Fame is as much of a good old boys club as it is an institution that truly honors the best who ever played the game.

Been said many times, but always funny, now I have Edwin Starr on the mental audio. Perhaps one of the worst songs of all time, but great in its awfulness. Good god, y'all!!

Someone's gotta give that a +1. (Edit... Of course Peter beat me to it.)

As for Rolen, I see him as borderline. And I do believe Pie Traynor was more highly regarded (in his time) than Rolen ever was. Excellent 3rd Baseman though.

Let's let Lou Gehrig keep Matty company, so he doesn't get too lonely in that big Hall.

Seems pretty harsh to me.

So you are calling for the removal of Carlton Fisk, Tony LaRussa and other HOFers who have been convicted of DUIs?

Helton was the best fielding first baseman I ever saw. His hitting reflexes were incredible. Also a very nice man, although an introvert.

Edited to add:

Tiger Woods, Mike Tyson and Michael Phelps should all be removed from their respective Hall of Fames under the proposed standard.

This is when the wheels started to come off. The Veterans committee, while certainly responsible for some good, destroyed any opportunity we had at a "Small Hall."

Many questionable choices throughout the years. Not much we can do about it though.

Guess you never watched Wagner in the postseason.

He is also melted down in big regular season games as well.

10.03 postseason ERA. Yeah yeah small sample size I can hear it now.

Yep, his 11 whole innings of postseason play were pretty awful. Doesn't change his regular season dominance.

Career 1.70 ERA in September & October.

If we pick out 11.2 inning sample sizes, I can make anyone look like an all-time great or a terrible player.

A reasonable argument against Billy Wagner is that he pitched barely 900 innings.

The innings pitched is a big factor against modern relievers (and likely will be for starters going forward), but even bigger than that, in my view, is that closers can easily be replaced, and often are. Would anyone argue that a team’s top two or three starters wouldn’t succeed if the only had to pitch one inning and would likely only have to use their two best pitches? So each team has at least two guys that could do the job as good or better. The only reason they aren’t is because they are too good to be a closer, and their skills are needed in a more valuable spot. I don’t know how voters vote modern closers in as best in the game when they are likely not even the best on their own team. Furthermore, in recent years, the Wins star has lost some of its shine, with voters realizing that there is only so much a pitcher can do to get a win, that how a game ends is often outside of the starter’s control. Assigning the W is affected by circumstance and does not always reflect the pitcher’s performance (good or bad). The Save stat is just as circumstantial. Blown Saves makes more sense as a stat that measures performance, but what I am getting at is if you take the S numbers away, no one would give a second look to a pitcher that averaged less than 90 innings per year, no matter how great his other stats were. End rant.

Some Billy Wagner Fun Facts (from the George Will Opening Day quiz from 2022):

1) Wagner has the lowest WHIP among pitchers with at least 900 innings in the live-ball era. (0.998 — fewer base runners than innings)

2) Wagner has allowed the fewest hits per nine innings since 1900 among pitchers with at least 900 innings. (5.99)

3) Wagner has the best strikeout rate per nine innings in MLB history among pitchers with 900 or more innings. (11.92)

4) Wagner is the only pitcher of the live-ball era, with a minimum of 750 innings pitched, against whom hitters batted below .200. (.187)

I certainly don't mean to disparage Wagner or upset those who believe he is HOF worthy. But I thought this "rant" was very pertinent and well stated (with regard to closers in general).

With the exception of very few, I just don't believe "closers" belong in the Hall. Perhaps because I'm getting old, it seems like an artificially created position that could be filled by a number of individuals on a given team, who are capable of pitching one good inning. And to me, the biggest annoyance in baseball is when a starter or middle reliever is still on fire, but the manager mindlessly/mechanically goes to the closer in the 9th inning, only to have him blow the game.

All true, but, Wagner in his career pitched 903 innings over 853 game appearances. In other words, he barely had to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, didn't have to worry about pitch counts, getting tired, or the like. Didn't have to be concerned with batters seeing him a second, or even third time in the same game, and so on. Take any great starting pitcher in the history of baseball, and tell them they only need to pitch one inning at a time, and see how good they would be. Those are great stats, but they are also virtually meaningless in the context of comparing them to how most MLB pitchers were used, especially those back in the earlier days. Can you imagine a Bob Feller or Walter Johnson if they only were asked to face batters for one inning every time they pitched? Relief/closer stats should never be compared and brought up in regard to starting pitchers, They are two entirely different positions and situations. At least they were more so until modern baseball has starting pitchers barely going over 6 innings anymore it seems. Managers today tend to leave starters in just long enough to qualify for the win, and then seem to go to their bullpens as fast as they can in many cases. You want to talk about stats that should have an asterisk next to them, just look at all these stats you listed for Wagner. Now if you were to more accurately state his standing for these stats compared to just closers/relief pitchers, then I think you are being much more fair and accurate. And even someone like Dennis Eckersley, who was both a very successful starter and relief/closing pitcher, his stats should be split, and the starter and closer numbers presented as completely separate records/statistics for him IMO. Just another failure on the part of statisticians and other so-called baseball historians to give proper credit, and accurately account for and reflect the very different contexts that existed throughout the different eras, and over the entire history, of baseball. Instead, they seem to have developed and follow a system and metrics based more on the modern game of baseball, and how it is played, allowing an extreme and unfair bias to exist in the manner and way things are often measured and compared, all seemingly more overall tilted for and towards the modern players.

And here's another fact I don't think statisticians and historians properly account for or take into consideration either. Ever notice how teams tend to only bring in their closers if they're leading the game at the end? Starting pitchers don't know if the other team's batters are going to have a good day at the plate or not. They have to face them if they end up being hot or cold that particular day. But if a closer typically only gets brought in when his team is ahead, that tends to indicate that the opposing batters maybe weren't having such a hot day at the plate after all. Think about that, because I don't think modern statisticians ever have, or have effectively figured out how to properly measure and reflect how what looks like to me as an absolutely positive built-in bias just for closers, is accounted for when comparing them to all other pitchers.

To maybe put it into and look at it in another way or from another perspective, how do you think a team's starting ace pitcher's stats would look if they were only started against teams with losing records, over the entire season? Food for thought.

Bob,

I think Wagner is a borderline HOF member. But he is one of the best closers ever.

Please keep in mind that Net54 is not your personal blog, and as such, it would be great to keep your posts to maybe 150 words or less.

Also, the likelihood that anyone will read one of your "paragraphs" that is more than 5 sentences (let alone a dozen) is low.

So if you don't want your "thoroughness" to go to waste, you might want to make a New Years resolution to make your posts much shorter.

Bob,

Keep doing what you do. I enjoy reading every word in your posts.

He said he has no respect for drunk drivers, no where did he say Helton isn't a HOFer or that others should be removed from the HOF.

You might feel Helton is a nice man but the fact is that he's a convicted criminal who's lucky he never killed anyone.

I feel that should have no bearing on his HOF voting, since the HOF is already full of drug smugglers, wife beaters, racists, cheaters, etc.

Charles,

I wasn't putting you down at all. Wagner does have great stats, but people tend to not realize, or think, about various things when they compare and talk about players and their performances.

And thanks for being the forum police. If you don't like my posts, there is a feature called "Ignore" that you can use. I find that most people that don't like what I say is often due to the fact they don't want to like or agree with me, but can't really argue or legitimately put me down because what I'm saying isn't wrong.

Limiting posts to quick statements is exactly what all the trolls want, So they don't have to actually answer real questions, and can just keep saying, "I'm right and you're wrong", over and over. And counting contractions as one word, I'm only at 143. Happy now!

Thanks,

A lot of people don't like me because I don't just shoot out fluff posts like many do. No context, no real facts or "meat", if you will. They don't want to take the time to think, or possibly realize there are other ways to look at things. It can bother them that maybe what they thought all along was not necessarily the right or correct thing after all. People often don't like it when you tell them things they don't necessarily want to hear or believe, and blaming the messenger is real easy. And with nothing really being said in short posts, because they are short, the trolls and naysayers love it because it often makes their ability to go after what others said in those short posts so much easier. Only 138 words, happy Charles?

Holy crap?? Really? Not you position to limit others peoples comments regardless of length. Dang, don't like it? Too long?, just don't read it and move on with things.

Butch Turner

Keep on, keeping on Bob. Regardless of, ummm, things.

B.T.

Bob, I appreciate you humoring me. I think you have a lot of great things to say, I just can't read them most of the time because they are too long. Usually I just skip the real long ones, but when you are quoting me, sometimes I feel the need to respond. Would love to be able to read more of your posts.

Have a good one.

Also, for the record, I don't blog on Net54, just occasionally post my thinking or views, like everyone else on here, including you. Go look up the actual definition of "blog". Meanwhile, we actually have some threads, and some great one's mind you, started and continued by members on Net54, like GeoPoto on Washington DC baseball, or CarltonHendricks on Carlton World. Those would be much more akin to a type of blog than anything I've ever posted. I'll keep an eye on those other threads now to see your forthcoming posts putting them down for possibly using Net54 as a personal blog also. Or is that blog comment something you came up with just to put me down? Only 126 words this time Charles. Happy?

Okay, got it.

I think your posts are great. Except the ones on taxes because like politics and religion you aren't going to change anyones opinions on how they will/should do it no matter what you post.:D

Oh, one last under 150 word post before I go out to shovel the sidewalk so the elementary school kids next door can get home safely. Thank you for recommending your uninvited New Year's Resolution that I should follow, even though it sounds like more of a something that YOU want, not me. So, if you can take the liberty to advise me, I would assume it is only fair that I can do the same for you, right? I would suggest you should make a resolution to discontinue having the attention span of a goldfish. That way, you might actually be able to have a more open mind and learn and experience things you otherwise seem to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from. Just a thought, and only 133 words this time.

Much appreciated Bob. Good luck with the shoveling.

The funny thing though Ben is that those tax posts aren't trying to change anyone's mind about anything. Just pass along facts and what people need to be aware of. If they choose to not listen and think I'm full of $hit, that is alright. I figure there are at least a few people who can appreciate and maybe benefit from what I've been posting. I've had clients for 40-50 years paying me for the kind of information I have been posting on this forum for free. If what I've posted has helped even one person, I'm happy. And I've communicated with and helped various Net54 members privately, so I know for a fact I've already helped more than one. And to again make Charles happy, only 130 words.

Just an fyi, I have read some of your tax posts and found them very useful. Even when they are over 150 words:)

Thank you for posting those

See Charles, that is a very funny thing about tax stuff, it is often detailed, yet can be very unspecific, and can cover so many multiple situations and circumstances, that to be helpful and accurate for people, you can't be short and quick, like you may want in your posts that you read. The multitude of exceptions, variables, circumstances and other external factors make it impossible to give real short, simple answers much of the time.

The actual Internal Revenue Code is quite long and detailed, yet is in many cases almost worthless, unless you also have access to the accompanying Treasury Regulations, which is way bigger than the IRC and explains what the IRC doesn't. My posts about other topics are no different, you get both the IRC and the Regulations type of detail in them, so there is less doubt or question as to what I'm saying.

By the way, I don't need anyone's thanks. And if you don't want to read my posts, and have an open mind and maybe learn something new now and then, or how to possibly look at things in a different way than you may not have considered or thought of before, then just put me and others like me on Ignore.

I will continue to post using full and complete sentences, with proper English and punctuation to the extent possible, and always try to fully explain my points, and then back them up with as much logical, factual, and sensical info as I can. And I'm not apologizing if it makes some of my posts go over 150 words, but if that is viewed as somehow wrong in other's minds, then I'm beginning to wonder who it is that actually has a real problem!!!

And this post's exactly 150 words.

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

Don't forget about that stellar .281 batting average.:rolleyes:

Yeah, can't have him lowering the bar. If he gets in, before long guys with 1588 hits and zero power like Phil Rizzuto will get in. Oh wait...

His innings were so low because he was so awful in just about every playoff series he was in. He was the reason the Mets didn't win the World Series in 2006.

There are not very many 3B in the Hall. I looked at all the HOFers, and cut out those who played less than 50% of their career games at 3B (Molitor/Martinez), and those who played 3B but were elected as managers or Negro League players (McGraw/McKenchie/Wilson/Judy Johnson; their raw totals will skew things heavily because of the low game count. If counted, Rolen would get a lift).

That leaves only 13 on the list. Baker, Boggs, Brett, Collins, Jones, Kell, Lindstorm, Matthews, Robinson, Santo, Schmidt, Traynor, White.

Out of these 13, the average number of hits is 2,359. Rolen would rank 9th.

The average batting average is .297, partially weighted by the two guys who played when the league hit around .297. Rolen would rank 10th, ahead of Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews and Brooks Robinson, clearly poor hall of famers.

Rolen is not an exciting hall of fame candidate, his stats are largely buttressed by WAR's love of the modern game and that there are not many very good third basemen in baseballs history as compared to other positions. But even if these chosen stats were a magic barrier, Rolen is hardly a lowering of quality. Shall we kick out Schmidt for falling even below Rolen here? Schmidt is 8th in hits and tied for dead last in average.

Hall debates are really fun when the arguments made for and against a candidate are both reasonable arguments. That Rolen is some large lowering of the bar setting the hall into irrelevancy because of his hit count that is better than many HOFers and that Wagner should be kept out over an 11 inning sample size are not reasonable arguments.

I would not vote for Wagner. I would probably vote for Rolen, considering him lower tier but deserving.