Current HOF election results

[FrankWakefield]

The first Cardinal I saw playing 3rd base was Ken Boyer. As a young kid I remember reading Guardian of the Hot Corner. Boyer was on the cover, in color... I was maybe 10 years old and had no idea what the Hot Corner was, but I knew Boyer played 3rd base. I still have that book. Somewhere. My point is that I've seen a bunch of people play 3rd base for the Cardinals. 60 years of Cardinal third basemen. And I remember them. I fondly remember Ken Reitz, who'd be hitting .340 in May (until the annual nose dive to .270 come summer), fielding everything in sight, and throwing ropes to first base. I liked Terry Pendleton, Ken Oberkfel, Joe Torre... I liked Todd Ziele at third, and Richie Allen did more than swing a bat, he could field and throw that long toss across the diamond. At present, the Cardinals have about the best third baseman in the game, Nolan Arenado.

Rolen was a good Cardinal the moment he spoke after the trade that landed him in St. Louis. My recollection was that he grew up in or near Evansville, IN, that's in the southern part of Indiana, across the Ohio River is Kentucky. I'd drive through Evansville on the way to St. Louis, if it was by car. Scott Rolen, moist eyed, declared that as a kid, he grew up a Cardinals fan; he dreamed of playing for the Cardinals when he grew up.

As a Cardinal, Rolen motivated his team-mates. He was a smart, solid ballplayer. He was dependable in the postseason for the Cardinals. He was a hitter who could dependably drive in runs and advance runners.

I'm ok with his election and pending induction. It's not undeserved. I recognize that Todd Helton seems deserving, too. I hope he gets in. Still, if I could sway the electorate, educate them, I'd urge them to vote in Ed Reulbach.

David Wright was a good 3rd baseman. If you look at how a player was for a career, Rolen was the better of the two. If you don't think so, look at all the numbers. Rolen hit a bit better, with fewer strikeouts. Rolen's last two seasons in Cincy hurt his averages a bit.

Mike Schmidt could crush a baseball. He walked a lot, not from a good eye, but from pitchers getting to the next batter. Schmidt struck out often. And he was a good fielder. But his batting average wasn't stellar. I don't deem him a great HOF third baseman. (I'm thinking of Joe Torre's batting title as a Cardinal third baseman at the moment, smiling.) George Kell was a great HOF third baseman. So was Brooks Robinson, and Pie Traynor. As was Boggs, Brett, and Santo. And I'll add Eddie Mathews, Chipper Jones, and even John McGraw.

David Wright? Come on now...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree with Frank. It's an underrepresented position and Rolen was a very good 3B both defensively and offensively. Elite all time great, no, but that's not the standard.

[G1911]

I have a hard time seeing a reasonable and logically consistent argument that Rolens election is somehow wrong and egregious. He comes out awfully high on 3B all time. The Hall standard is not the top 20% of its members.

[molenick]

I agree with Frank that Rolen deserves to be in, but I would respectfully disagree with Mike Schmidt not being a great HOFer and George Kell being one. I will take Schmidt and his 548 HRs, 3 MVPS, 8 HR titles, .908 OPS, ten gold gloves, and 106.8 WAR (first among third basemen) over George Kell and his...well, anything except his .306 batting average and ability not to strike out (WAR ranks him around 50th at third, which at least puts him ahead of Traynor). I would also take Mickey Mantle over Lloyd Waner and Johnny Bench over Ernie Lombardi. There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Mike Schmidt could crush a baseball. He walked a lot, not from a good eye, but from pitchers getting to the next batter. Schmidt struck out often. And he was a good fielder. But his batting average wasn't stellar. I don't deem him a great HOF third baseman. (I'm thinking of Joe Torre's batting title as a Cardinal third baseman at the moment, smiling.) George Kell was a great HOF third baseman. So was Brooks Robinson, and Pie Traynor. As was Boggs, Brett, and Santo. And I'll add Eddie Mathews, Chipper Jones, and even John McGraw.

.

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by molenick

There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

I don't think anyone would argue that there is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals. But some might argue the implication that these two items were the sum of Kell's case. Being 6th all-time in fielding percentage among 3b with over 10000 innings isn't nothing. Six top 20 MVP seasons (three top 10) and ten-time all-star is pretty good.

But I have to say, I sure would enjoy today's game a lot more if more players only struck out in 4% of their at-bats. Maybe batting average and low-strikeout totals should be enough to be a great HOFer.

I didn't see Kell play, so I am not going to argue if he is a great HOFer or not. But he is one of my favorites and a player whose cards I try to collect because I grew up listening to him do the TV broadcasts for the Tigers along with Al Kaline. Those guys were great.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by abothebear

I don't think anyone would argue that there is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals. But some might argue the implication that these two items were the sum of Kell's case. Being 6th all-time in fielding percentage among 3b with over 10000 innings isn't nothing. Six top 20 MVP seasons (three top 10) and ten-time all-star is pretty good.

But I have to say, I sure would enjoy today's game a lot more if more players only struck out in 4% of their at-bats. Maybe batting average and low-strikeout totals should be enough to be a great HOFer.

I didn't see Kell play, so I am not going to argue if he is a great HOFer or not. But he is one of my favorites and a player whose cards I try to collect because I grew up listening to him do the TV broadcasts for the Tigers along with Al Kaline. Those guys were great.

Well, the HOF argument is all opinion colored by fandom colored by what stats should be most important colored by likability colored by personal memories, so everyone views it differently. In some sense it is a silly discussion for that reason. And yet, we love to argue about the HOF!

I did not mean to diminish George Kell and it's unfortunate that these arguments always come down to comparisons. I was just taking issue with the opinion that Mike Schmidt was not a "great HOF third baseman" (whatever that means) because of his low batting average and high strikeouts while George Kell was given as an example of one using that criteria.

I was basing my argument on stats I thought were more relevant but others may value higher BA and a lower strikeout rate more. I think I will stay out of these arguments from now on because if it is controversial to say that Mike Schmidt was a great HOFer in comparison to George Kell then I guess there's nothing we all can agree on.

[darwinbulldog]

Claiming that Mike Schmidt was not a great Hall of Fame 3rd baseman is tantamount to claiming that Willie Mays was not a great Hall of Fame centerfielder.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Claiming that Mike Schmidt was not a great Hall of Fame 3rd baseman is tantamount to claiming that Willie Mays was not a great Hall of Fame centerfielder.

I don’t know, he’s no George Kell!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by molenick

I agree with Frank that Rolen deserves to be in, but I would respectfully disagree with Mike Schmidt not being a great HOFer and George Kell being one. I will take Schmidt and his 548 HRs, 3 MVPS, 8 HR titles, .908 OPS, ten gold gloves, and 106.8 WAR (first among third basemen) over George Kell and his...well, anything except his .306 batting average and ability not to strike out (WAR ranks him around 50th at third, which at least puts him ahead of Traynor). I would also take Mickey Mantle over Lloyd Waner and Johnny Bench over Ernie Lombardi. There is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals.

I agree with you. I'm not sure how Mike Schmidt could be considered anything other than a great third baseman and HoFer. Kell may have had a higher batting average, but Schmidt still had a higher OBP thanks to walking close to 100 times a year. In his later years, Schmidt also learned to become a better hitter and saw his strikeout totals go down in his last few seasons. He also was an MVP at age 36 while Kell was retired at age 34.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

The first Cardinal I saw playing 3rd base was Ken Boyer. As a young kid I remember reading Guardian of the Hot Corner. Boyer was on the cover, in color... I was maybe 10 years old and had no idea what the Hot Corner was, but I knew Boyer played 3rd base. I still have that book. Somewhere. My point is that I've seen a bunch of people play 3rd base for the Cardinals. 60 years of Cardinal third basemen. And I remember them. I fondly remember Ken Reitz, who'd be hitting .340 in May (until the annual nose dive to .270 come summer), fielding everything in sight, and throwing ropes to first base. I liked Terry Pendleton, Ken Oberkfel, Joe Torre... I liked Todd Ziele at third, and Richie Allen did more than swing a bat, he could field and throw that long toss across the diamond. At present, the Cardinals have about the best third baseman in the game, Nolan Arenado.

Rolen was a good Cardinal the moment he spoke after the trade that landed him in St. Louis. My recollection was that he grew up in or near Evansville, IN, that's in the southern part of Indiana, across the Ohio River is Kentucky. I'd drive through Evansville on the way to St. Louis, if it was by car. Scott Rolen, moist eyed, declared that as a kid, he grew up a Cardinals fan; he dreamed of playing for the Cardinals when he grew up.

As a Cardinal, Rolen motivated his team-mates. He was a smart, solid ballplayer. He was dependable in the postseason for the Cardinals. He was a hitter who could dependably drive in runs and advance runners.

I'm ok with his election and pending induction. It's not undeserved. I recognize that Todd Helton seems deserving, too. I hope he gets in. Still, if I could sway the electorate, educate them, I'd urge them to vote in Ed Reulbach.

David Wright was a good 3rd baseman. If you look at how a player was for a career, Rolen was the better of the two. If you don't think so, look at all the numbers. Rolen hit a bit better, with fewer strikeouts. Rolen's last two seasons in Cincy hurt his averages a bit.

Mike Schmidt could crush a baseball. He walked a lot, not from a good eye, but from pitchers getting to the next batter. Schmidt struck out often. And he was a good fielder. But his batting average wasn't stellar. I don't deem him a great HOF third baseman. (I'm thinking of Joe Torre's batting title as a Cardinal third baseman at the moment, smiling.) George Kell was a great HOF third baseman. So was Brooks Robinson, and Pie Traynor. As was Boggs, Brett, and Santo. And I'll add Eddie Mathews, Chipper Jones, and even John McGraw.

David Wright? Come on now...

David Wright was a better offensive player than Rolen. Wright has the edge at OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS plus. Wright also played in much tougher home ballparks than Rolen. I can only imagine what Wright's lifetime stats would be if he played his home games in Philly for 5-6 years while in his prime. In addition, Wright had far more speed and stole nearly 200 bases before his back gave out. Just a note about Rolen's All-Star appearances, while he is tied with Wright at 7, two of his selections were highly questionable and were basically gifts - see 2005 and 2011.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tod41

David Wright was a better offensive player than Rolen. Wright has the edge at OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS plus. Wright also played in much tougher home ballparks than Rolen. I can only imagine what Wright's lifetime stats would be if he played his home games in Philly for 5-6 years while in his prime. In addition, Wright had far more speed and stole nearly 200 bases before his back gave out. Just a note about Rolen's All-Star appearances, while he is tied with Wright at 7, two of his selections were highly questionable and were basically gifts - see 2005 and 2011.

Come on, now. No, he wasn't. David Wright didn't hit more than 300 homers, he didn't score more than 1,000 runs, he didn't drive in more than 1,000 runs, he never had an OPS over 1.000 in any individual season and he only won 2 Gold Gloves, a very pedestrian number.

He's not going to get into the HOF on his offensive stats, so he was not a better offensive player than Rolen and it doesn't seem like he was seen as the defender Rolen was either.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by packs

Come on, now. No, he wasn't. David Wright didn't hit more than 300 homers, he didn't score more than 1,000 runs, he didn't drive in more than 1,000 runs, he never had an OPS over 1.000 in any individual season and he only won 2 Gold Gloves, a very pedestrian number.

He's not going to get into the HOF on his offensive stats, so he was not a better offensive player than Rolen and it doesn't seem like he was seen as the defender Rolen was either.

You are posting complier stats - not the mark of a dominant player. As to Rolen's one 1007 OPS season, You are cherry picking stats. Careerwise Wright had 5 900 OPS seasons to Rolen's 4. As I said earlier, I do not believe either player belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tod41

You are posting complier stats - not the mark of a dominant player. As to Rolen's one 1007 OPS season, You are cherry picking stats. Careerwise Wright had 5 900 OPS seasons to Rolen's 4. As I said earlier, I do not believe either player belongs in the Hall of Fame.

How was Rolen "compiling"? Aside from his rookie season, a lost season in 2005, and his final two seasons in the majors, he never played less than 100 games. To be a compiled you have to hang around to hit milestones that were out of reach during your natural career. Rolen didn't do that. There is no 300 homer milestone. It's just what happened.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by tod41

David Wright was a better offensive player than Rolen. Wright has the edge at OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS plus. Wright also played in much tougher home ballparks than Rolen. I can only imagine what Wright's lifetime stats would be if he played his home games in Philly for 5-6 years while in his prime. In addition, Wright had far more speed and stole nearly 200 bases before his back gave out. Just a note about Rolen's All-Star appearances, while he is tied with Wright at 7, two of his selections were highly questionable and were basically gifts - see 2005 and 2011.

When Rolen played for the Phillies, they were playing at Veterans Stadium not Citizens Bank Park, and from what I remember, the Vet was a fairly neutral park for hitters and pitchers. OPS+ adjusts for ballpark so Wright apparently does still get an increase there since they each averaged 25 HRs and 3 triples per 162 games while Rolen had 41 doubles per 162 games compared to 40 doubles per 162 for Wright (remarkably close actually) and Wright also did have a higher BA and OPS (although only 7 more walks per 162 games than Rolen). SLG was almost even for them - .491 to .490 with Wright just ahead.

Of course, if Wright had played another 450 games like Rolen did, it's possible (likely?) that as he aged, his above stats would have decreased as he declined with age. Since he had injuries that caused him to retire by age 33 (except for 2 games at age 35), his rate stats aren't hurt as much by that even though his total numbers (I guess what you would call compiler stats) are. Rolen also had injuries but played until 37 with a number of his later years pulling down his overall rate stats.

When they played, both were considered to be potential future HoFers. Unfortunately for Wright (like Mattingly and many others), injuries shortened his career to the point where many people don't think he was around long enough and had a high enough peak (like Koufax) to deserver to be a HoFer now. We'll see next year what the BBWAA voters think.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When Rolen played for the Phillies, they were playing at Veterans Stadium not Citizens Bank Park, and from what I remember, the Vet was a fairly neutral park for hitters and pitchers. OPS+ adjusts for ballpark so Wright apparently does still get an increase there since they each averaged 25 HRs and 3 triples per 162 games while Rolen had 41 doubles per 162 games compared to 40 doubles per 162 for Wright (remarkably close actually) and Wright also did have a higher BA and OPS (although only 7 more walks per 162 games than Rolen). SLG was almost even for them - .491 to .490 with Wright just ahead.

Of course, if Wright had played another 450 games like Rolen did, it's possible (likely?) that as he aged, his above stats would have decreased as he declined with age. Since he had injuries that caused him to retire by age 33 (except for 2 games at age 35), his rate stats aren't hurt as much by that even though his total numbers (I guess what you would call compiler stats) are. Rolen also had injuries but played until 37 with a number of his later years pulling down his overall rate stats.

When they played, both were considered to be potential future HoFers. Unfortunately for Wright (like Mattingly and many others), injuries shortened his career to the point where many people don't think he was around long enough and had a high enough peak (like Koufax) to deserver to be a HoFer now. We'll see next year what the BBWAA voters think.

The Vet was a much better hitter's park than Shea. Citifield when it first opened was a nightmare for hitters.

[packs]

Neither Wright nor Rolen were going to get in on bat alone. Rolen is in due to a combination of bat and glove that Wright didn't have.

[nolemmings]

Here are some excerpts from an article written about Rolen and his HOF chances when he first became eligible, with which I agree although some of it I did not know (such as his ROY award)

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...ing-malcontent

What is most striking about Scott Rolen’s baseball reference page is not the shiny career batting average, the nice on-base percentage, or the bevy of GGs (gold gloves). What is most striking about Rolen’s baseball-reference page is the simple fact that he never led the league in anything. Ever. Over the course of 17 years, Scott Rolen always played at best, second-fiddle to someone else in literally every statistical category listed.

Not only did Rolen never lead the league in any one stat, he was rarely the best player on his own team! Over a 17-year career, Rolen led his own team in bWAR only three times. Despite a seemingly strong .281 career batting average, and ten years of 20+ homers, Rolen never finished in the top ten in hits, home runs, or batting average ---- a testament to the powerhouse offensive environment in which he played. His only top ten finishes in any statistic at all are one each in walks, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage; he finished in the top ten in OPS+ only twice in 17 years and managed to finish in the top ten in bWAR only four times. Hardly exemplary.

Rolen won the Rookie of the Year Award in 1997, though even this was more coincidence and fortuitous timing than anything else. In his would-be rookie season of 1996 he finished one at-bat short of disqualifying for rookie status after being hit by a pitch in mid-September. He spent the rest of the year recuperating and resetting his rookie status in 1997.
. . .
Scott Rolen ended his postseason career with a .220/.302/.376 slash line, including going hitless in both the 2004 NLDS and World Series. His greatest chance of distinction was in the 2006 NLCS, but Endy Chavez ended that dream with an amazing catch; today, the batter is barely remembered.

With this context, it is unsurprising that management and ownership never viewed Rolen as a franchise player. In fact, for interpersonal reasons, Rolen was viewed as the complete opposite of a franchise cornerstone, since it’s impossible to build around a team around a roster piece who can’t get along with any of his bosses.

The story goes on to describe his relationship with managers and management, and while acknowledging that this is hardly a disqualifier for the HOF, may serve as another reason why most who saw him play did not consider him as passing the "eye-test" for the hall.

[packs]

I don't understand that assessment. Who was better than him on the Phillies? Bobby Abreu? By the time he goes to Cardinals he's on the same team as Albert Pujols, so I don't really see the heft of that assessment either.

[D. Bergin]

Lou Gehrig was rarely the best player on his team.....so there's that.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand that assessment. Who was better than him on the Phillies? Bobby Abreu? By the time he goes to Cardinals he's on the same team as Albert Pujols, so I don't really see the heft of that assessment either.

Depending on the year, he was outperformed by Abreu and Lieberthal on the Phils, and approached by the likes of Rico Brogna. On the Cardinals, leaving out Pujols, he was still less impactful than Jim Edmunds in all but one year.

[G1911]

Rico Brogna never once had an OPS+ that was even league when he was a Phillie. What year was Brogna approaching Rolen?

OPS+ for every year they played on the Phillies:

1997:
Rolen: 121 (ROY winner)
Brogna: 88

1998:
Rolen: 139
Brogna: 97

1999:
Rolen: 120
Brogna: 95

2000:
Rolen: 129
Brogna: 69 (Dumped part way into the year because he sucked)




Career WAR
Mike Schmidt: 106.8
Scott Rolen: 70.1
George Kell: 37.6
Rico Brogna: -1.1

I'm not sure that I could make up a hotter take than the absurdities people are posting in this thread. The disconnect between narrative and the numbers is just astonishing for some of these. These are dry jokes, right? We're not just completely making crap up, right?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Rico Brogna never once had an OPS+ that was even league when he was a Phillie. What year was Brogna approaching Rolen?

OPS+ for every year they played on the Phillies:

1997:
Rolen: 121 (ROY winner)
Brogna: 88

1998:
Rolen: 139
Brogna: 97

1999:
Rolen: 120
Brogna: 95

2000:
Rolen: 129
Brogna: 69 (Dumped part way into the year because he sucked)




Career WAR
Mike Schmidt: 106.8
Scott Rolen: 70.1
George Kell: 37.6
Rico Brogna: -1.1

I'm not sure that I could make up a hotter take than the absurdities people are posting in this thread. The disconnect between narrative and the numbers is just astonishing for some of these. These are dry jokes, right? We're not just completely making crap up, right?

I don't think Mike Lieberthal was ever that close to Rolen either except maybe in 1999. Bobby Abreu had a number of years when he was as good or better than Rolen on the Phillies, but he's a borderline HoFer as well so that's not too surprising.

[BioCRN]

There's better than him not in the Hall. There's worse than him in the Hall.

Being nice and available to the media has always been a huge help to these kind of guys and he got that cred. It helped a lot.

I'm not surprised he was elected to the Hall and if he wasn't I would be surprised if a Vet's Committee didn't put him in years later independent of what sports writers may think of him.