Current HOF election results

[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.

[Seven]

Rolen played an extremely solid third base over a long period of time. He compiled numbers, that were good to very good. Rolen was essentially Buddy Bell, but with more power, In my humble opinion.

Do I think he is Hall of Fame worthy? I'm on the fence. Probably more of the Hall of Very Good, if there was such a thing. But the Hall of Fame has expanded, it stopped being a small Hall a long time ago. When we look at the numbers we see a guy that never led the league in any offensive category, but someone who was very good on defense.

Frankly I don't think McGriff belongs there either. But little we can do but debate about it.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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

True, but he pretty much exceeded Rolen, who only played only three full injury-free seasons in Philly, so it's hard to get a good sample size. Anyway, go ahead and use Brogna as a measuring stick and laugh at my bringing up his name but I'm still waiting on response to the rest of my points.

Keep telling me how this guy, who was not a whole lot better than Ron Cey and not as good as Graig Nettles, belongs in the HOF. Please start by telling me about any season when Rolen finished in the top 10 of any meaningful statistical category.

[FrankWakefield]

Golly... Rico who? To learn more about him, I looked at Baseball Reference.

And then I had a quick look a Rolen's BR page.

If anyone goes back to look... Look at some real numbers. The numbers near the bottom of the BR pages.


Please consider who knows about baseball....

Us fans, arm chair historians, we who never grew up (not entirely a bad thing)?

Baseball writers?

Sports Center pundits?

Or those in charge of MLB teams who are spending money for talent?

Rico's total MLB earnings 11.6 million
Scott Rolen's total MLB earnings 117 million

Do I hear "not fair"... ok 11.7 / 8 seasons = about 1.5 million a year

Need I do math for SR? 117 / 17 = 6.88 million a year.


I'm not saying that's a bright line determining factor for measuring MLB baseball talent... but it gives a bit of insight into what the Teams thought of the talent. And, beware of making salary comparisons from different eras. The playing years should be about similar.

As I think about the salary approach, who do you reckon was making the most money from 2016-2020. Or 2011-2015? Maybe 5 year spreads are too many. Maybe 4 year increments would be better. Or 3.

Who do you think made the most money from MLB between 1927-1930? An easy guess would be Babe Ruth. But I haven't researched that. Long term contracts, free agency, and such would negate a bit of any validity in the salary approach.

One last thought... maybe Rico had crap agents. Bingo! That was the problem. They left 100 million laying on the table, if only they'd known to try to get it.

[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.

[nolemmings]

I don’t lie, douchebag. The point was argued that Rolen was not even the best player on his team, and I was asked if I thought Abreu was better on the Phillies and was told it was unfair to talk about the Cardinals because of Pujols. I pointed that Abreu was as good (better) and others were comparable the time he was in Philly– that’s not cherry picking–that’s looking at the seasons he played there. And answering that same question, I pointed out that Rolen was not even as good as Edmonds on his own team during his time in St. Louis, regardless of Pujols. Am I wrong? If so, does that make me a liar?

If you insist on some sort of victory in my bringing up Brogna, go right ahead champ. Also feel free to convince yourself that Rolen had HOF stature even on his own teams, much less in comparison to the rest of the league. I disagree. Give me the analytics to discount, ignore or disregard the fact that Rolen never finished in the top 10 of any remarkable category.

[Vintagedeputy]

I’m happy that Rolen got in, and just to give you something different to look at here’s my 2002 Rolen game used & autographed bat. I believe that he used this bat with the Phillies and then changed his number over after the trade and before his new batch of Cardinal labeled bats arrived.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don’t lie, douchebag.

Then stop making claims of fact that are provable false, sir.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The point was argued that Rolen was not even the best player on his team, and I was asked if I thought Abreu was better on the Phillies and was told it was unfair to talk about the Cardinals because of Pujols. I pointed that Abreu was as good (better) and others were comparable the time he was in Philly– that’s not cherry picking–that’s looking at the seasons he played there. And answering that same question, I pointed out that Rolen was not even as good as Edmonds on his own team during his time in St. Louis, regardless of Pujols. Am I wrong? If so, does that make me a liar?

Pujols was better. Edmonds and Abreu had some years that are better than some of Rolen's years. That, of course, is not and never has been a standard for the Hall. Almost no player has been the best player on his team every year. How many HOFers have not had other HOF teammates? To say that Edmonds was better than Rolen some years is true, as I said above if you read, it's just irrelevant to the topic and an illogical standard created only for one player and used only for that player because it suits what you want.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If you insist on some sort of victory in my bringing up Brogna, go right ahead champ. Also feel free to convince yourself that Rolen had HOF stature even on his own teams, much less in comparison to the rest of the league. I disagree. Give me the analytics to discount, ignore or disregard the fact that Rolen never finished in the top 10 of any remarkable category.

It's not about victory, it's about actual fact. People who completely make up claims to fact that do not survive even a cursory check tend to get told that. Sucks.

Yogi Berra didn't lead the league much or at all either, and no one wants to keep him out. You could make a reasonable argument that he was never top of the league, but you don't need to lie and exaggerate in your claims to fact to do this - Rolen's ink is low.

But yet again, you have just made claims to fact that are completely false. "Give me the analytics to discount, ignore or disregard the fact that Rolen never finished in the top 10 of any remarkable category". This is completely and absolutely false, it is not a fact. Rolen did, in fact, finish in the top 10 in significant categories like slugging %, OPS+, on base %, dWAR, range factor, and many more. This information is publicly available and easily accessible to anyone here https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...olensc01.shtml in the Leaderboards section. Again, you are just completely making things up.

You can make a reasoned argument against Rolen, at best he's in the lower part of the Hall of the Fame. You don't need to keep lying to do it.