Current HOF election results

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

Lieberthal was a stud in 1999; though the effort to paint him as somehow like Rolen is of course absurd. Lots of average starters have a single season in which they hit better than a HOF player. It’s just a cheap rhetorical trick to try and associate a candidate one doesn’t like with an average player.

At least Lieberthal was a meritous starter lol. The Brogna take is the silliest claim I’ve read since I heard George Kell is significantly better than Mike Schmidt.

Abreu was a greatly underrated star in the Minoso category, very very good at many things but not great enough at any one to get acclaim. I don’t think I’d vote him in, but he’s not far away.

I guess we better tell Lou Gehrig to take a hike for not being the best on his team…

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Lieberthal was a stud in 1999; though the effort to paint him as somehow like Rolen is of course absurd. Lots of average starters have a single season in which they hit better than a HOF player. It’s just a cheap rhetorical trick to try and associate a candidate one doesn’t like with an average player.

At least Lieberthal was a meritous starter lol. The Brogna take is the silliest claim I’ve read since I heard George Kell is significantly better than Mike Schmidt.

Abreu was a greatly underrated star in the Minoso category, very very good at many things but not great enough at any one to get acclaim. I don’t think I’d vote him in, but he’s not far away.

I guess we better tell Lou Gehrig to take a hike for not being the best on his team…

As a Phillies fan, I watched many of the games that Rico Brogna played in. It's been over 20 years, but I thought I remember him being decent for them. However, his numbers don't indicate that was entirely correct. Either way, I don't remember ever thinking he was as good or better than Scott Rolen was. I do seem to remember him being regarded as a good fielder at first base, but his dWAR is actually negative every season he played which is surprising.

[abothebear]

I am enjoying this thread immensely. I love that Rico Brogna and Mike Lieberthal have entered into it. This kind of conversation would never happen in any other sport. I hope we all can appreciate the glory of it.

Going into the 2006 postseason, Scott Rolen was struggling at the plate. I believe he aggregated the shoulder injury from the previous year and he was struggling to get around on the fastball, especially inside. In the postseason, you could see that opposing teams were well aware of this and were happy to work inside and get the out. But, as the postseason progressed, you could see Rolen getting closer and closer to getting around on it. He started by making poor contact for outs, then decent contact for outs, and toward the end of the NLCS you could tell he was almost there. But could he find his way in time to make a difference on the series. He did find it in time, just in time for the NLCS. And he probably should have won the WS MVP for what he was able to do against the Tigers. It was (for Cardinals fans rooting for Rolen, not for Mets fans) a very cool experience of seeing a batter’s journey to overcome a challenge being exploited by his opponents through the progression of at-bats. Conversely, Paul Goldschmidt was being exploited in a similar way this past postseason, and he didn’t show any progression. I am anxious about Spring Training. Will Goldy still be in a funk? Is it fixable, or is this the beginning of the end for the MVP?

[nolemmings]

I never said Brogna was as good as Rolen, and I did not compare WAR or OPS+. I said Rolen was the likes of Brogna, meaning they weren't jaw-droppingly different, yet it is understood that one was a journeyman and the other is now a HOFer. No one argues my main point that Edmonds was better than Rolen in St. L., never mind Pujols, Lieberthal had a better year at least one of the 5+ seasons Rolen was there and that Abreu was as good-- hell, Pat Burrell basically matched or exceeded his power numbers. Anyway, here is a comparison of Rolen/Brogna for 1998 and 1999, or 40% of the time Rolen played in Philly full time:

Rico--1998 BA= .265; 77 R 20 HR 104 RBI
Scott-1998 BA= .290; 120 R 31 HR 120 RBI

Rico--1999 BA= .278. 90R 24 HR 102 RBI
Scott--1999 BA= .290; 74R 26 HR 76 RBI

Does the difference pop out at you? Sure the first year is a noticeable difference, but HOF vs. average guy? Second year?-- whether Lieberthal, Abreu, Burrell or even Brogna, Rolen just didn't stand out as any kind of superstar-- EVEN ON THE PHILLIES. And then go ahead, start posting Edmonds numbers. Again, sorry, but Rolen's numbers are not that remarkable on the Cardinals even LEAVING OUT PUJOLS, never mind others in the league. Excellent, near great, yes, but HOF? (and I'm basically ignoring his last six years that gave us one productive season). Sorry, I find his inclusion a great big YAWN.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Rico--1999 BA= .278. 90R 24 HR 102 RBI
Scott--1999 BA= .290; 74R 26 HR 76 RBI

Yes, he sort of matched Rolen - in a year where Rolen missed 50 games.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I never said Brogna was as good as Rolen, and I did not compare WAR or OPS+.

You said he was "approached by" Brogna, i.e. they were similar. You did not compare WAR or OPS+ or use any statistic or metric, presumably because using data would not support the argument in any way. It's difficult to defend this spice take on factual grounds, of course you didn't cite one.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I said Rolen was the likes of Brogna, meaning they weren't jaw-droppingly different, yet it is understood that one was a journeyman and the other is now a HOFer.

They were jaw-droopingly different. Rolen was a great defensive 3B who consistently hit well over the league. Brogna was a 1B who was a worse hitter than the league average every single year in Philadelphia and finished with a value below a replacement level player for his career. Never was he a productive player.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No one argues my main point that Edmonds was better than Rolen in St. L., never mind Pujols, Lieberthal had a better year at least one of the 5+ seasons Rolen was there and that Abreu was as good-- hell, Pat Burrell basically matched or exceeded his power numbers.

Yes, because one claim is reasonable or at least technically correct (Lieberthal's best season is better than tons of selected seasons of HOFers, that's not how the Hall works as a career honor. Some of Lieberthal's years are better than some of Babe Ruth's years) and the other is obviously false BS.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Anyway, here is a comparison of Rolen/Brogna for 1998 and 1999, or 40% of the time Rolen played in Philly full time:

Rico--1998 BA= .265; 77 R 20 HR 104 RBI
Scott-1998 BA= .290; 120 R 31 HR 120 RBI

Rico--1999 BA= .278. 90R 24 HR 102 RBI
Scott--1999 BA= .290; 74R 26 HR 76 RBI

Does the difference pop out at you? Sure the first year is a noticeable difference, but HOF vs. average guy? Second year?-- whether Lieberthal, Abreu, Burrell or even Brogna, Rolen just didn't stand out as any kind of superstar-- EVEN ON THE PHILLIES.

Even in your cherry picked stats where you can use anything to defend the thesis, you selected 77 runs and 120 runs? That's not a difference that "pops out"? Really? You don't see how Rolen outperformed a guy who was below the league average at the plate? The 1999 pick is better, when you completely ignore the rates and cover up Rolen's injury and missed games, you can make them look similar. That's better, it can fly if somebody doesn't bother to look for themselves. Unfortunately, if one actually looks, one quickly sees the obvious difference and what you've done. In this season, Rolen's injury year and his worst as a Philie starter, he was 20% over the league bat. Brogna was 5% below. Good job covering up the time played. Brogna produced similar raw totals... with almost 200 extra plate appearances.

This is a silly rhetorical argument in its root form anyway; we can make Babe Ruth look bad by taking a random player in a weaker Ruth season and saying he was similar that year. It's obviously irrelevant, the Hall is a career honor and not a measure of a cherry picked worst season of a star and best season of a random. But it's extra stupid when the random player chosen was not even close in that year and it is just a fantasy you have.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

And then go ahead, start posting Edmonds numbers.

Why would I post Edmonds numbers? Edmonds was an excellent hitter, I think a bit better than Rolen at the plate. It is possible to be aware that A) Edmonds was a great hitter and B) Brogna was below the league average and was nowhere near Rolen in even a single season at the same time. How can you conflate cognizance of B with disagreement of A? Surely you are aware this is a terrible argument to make and a poor deflection.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Again, sorry, but Rolen's numbers are not that remarkable on the Cardinals even LEAVING OUT PUJOLS, never mind others in the league. Excellent, near great, yes, but HOF? (and I'm basically ignoring his last six years that gave us one productive season). Sorry, I find his inclusion a great big YAWN.

If you want to ignore his position, sure. This is a better argument than the one you actually chose to make that included blatantly false claims. You could make a rational argument against Rolen, he's a lower tier HOFer at best. There are many reasonable arguments against Rolen as he's a border guy. You don't need to invent complete fictions or lie.