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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[todeen]

Rolen was important for the Reds circa 2010. We needed him, and I was happy we got him. Here's an article written upon his release.

https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...-reds.amp.html

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[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.

[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.

[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.

[todeen]

I have no problem with Rolen being in the HOF. With writers refusing to vote for cheaters, that leaves most of my childhood greats out of the hall. So players like McGriff, Rolen, Andruw Jones, and other hall of very good take their place. Their numbers wouldn't look so bad if the cheaters weren't inflating the offense.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[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.

[nolemmings]

Much ado about little. Who was paid more by Philly the two years I cited? By that measure, Scott was the better deal, as he cost a little more than 1/3 what they paid Rico. Different contracts, different stages of their careers. But if talent is measured by price paid, then it seems they considered Rico much more talented, those two years anyway.

[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.

[abothebear]

Just in case there is some confusion about my comment above, I did not mean it as a shot at anyone for bringing up Brogna or Lieberthal. I truly do enjoy that line of discussion.

But I don't see the relevance to the HOF of how a player ranks on his own team. Earl Combs was the seventh best player on the 27 Yankees. Good arguments against his HOF-ness can be made, but why would the excellence of his teammates be a mark against him?

I moved back to St. Louis in 2004, so I was able to watch or listen to almost every game of Rolen's in St. Louis from '04 to his unfortunate exile to Toronto. And I will argue the merits of Jim Edmonds all day too, but I think it is difficult to compare the two and say who was better than the other (and as I said, irrelevant to their respective HOF cases). Their positions are both demanding, but very different, and the style in which they played was very different. But from watching or listening to most games, if I had to choose, I think that Rolen's game and importance to the team would probably be harder to replace than Edmonds'. Not a knock against Edmonds - he was absolutely amazing during those seasons. One key reason, besides his defense, was that the offense he provided in the clean-up role came with minimal strikeouts. His tough and dangerous at-bats were a key factor in making that middle-of-the-order juggernaut run. It is harder to imagine these days when most power hitters strike out 25-30% of the time, but not-striking out in the middle of the order keeps the RBIs and Runs-scored falling like rain for everybody. Edmonds earned his numbers, but he was blessed to have two hitters in front of him that gave him a wealth of opportunity. All that is to say, Claiming Edmonds was better than Rolen on Rolen's own team is more complicated and debatable than it might seem based on some of the stats and MVP votes.

[packs]

The digs against Rolen don't really add up so it's not surprising no one wants to challenge each one on an individual basis. It is very easy to understand why Rolen was elected to the HOF. He is ranked as the 10th best third baseman of all time.

The other names mentioned:

Bobby Abreu - 21st best right fielder
Jim Edmonds - 15th best centerfielder
David Wright - 26th best third baseman

Whatever stat or single season you point to, nothing changes Rolen's status amongst his position and he was a better player at his position than David Wirght, Bobby Abreu or Jim Edmonds, which probably explains why he's in the HOF and they aren't.

[packs]

Double post

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

The digs against Rolen don't really add up so it's not surprising no one wants to challenge each one on an individual basis. It is very easy to understand why Rolen was elected to the HOF. He is ranked as the 10th best third baseman of all time.

The other names mentioned:

Bobby Abreu - 21st best right fielder
Jim Edmonds - 15th best centerfielder
David Wright - 26th best third baseman

Whatever stat or single season you point to, nothing changes Rolen's status amongst his position and he was a better player at his position than David Wirght, Bobby Abreu or Jim Edmonds, which probably explains why he's in the HOF and they aren't.

WAR is a tool and you are using it to say one player is absolutely better than another player. Rick Reuschel is the 37th ranked pitcher, higher than Jim Palmer, John Smoltz, Bob Feller, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, and Whitey Ford.

Does anyone really think Reuschel is better than all of those HOFers?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Jim65

WAR is a tool and you are using it to say one player is absolutely better than another player. Rick Reuschel is the 37th ranked pitcher, higher than Jim Palmer, John Smoltz, Bob Feller, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, and Whitey Ford.

Does anyone really think Reuschel is better than all of those HOFers?

No, I'm not. I used his positional ranking to demonstrate what makes him a HOFer over others who ranked far lower in their positional rankings. I chose three specific names that were mentioned and showed their positional ranks verses Rolen's.

I think unlike you I am looking at Rolen as a third baseman among third basemen and considering his candidacy at his position.

I don't think WAR is particularly useful when it comes to pitchers and I wouldn't cite the stat in discussing them. I would look at ERA+, and I think you'll find Reuschel has a lower ERA+ than anyone on your list.

[nolemmings]

The problem that sometimes arises in these threads is people picking and choosing what part of an argument they want to make and then disregarding the rest–sometimes innocently because they did not read every post or overlooked something said. My arguments against Scott Rolen were not based solely on the fact that I did not think he was even the best player on his team, although I do hold that belief. I quoted an article that led off with the reasons why he does not belong in the HOF, the first of which is that he did not finish in the top 10 in any meaningful category. That is extremely telling to me, and I have reiterated it, with no response that I have seen. While there were legitimate arguments as to whether Rolen was indeed the best on his team a time or two and that I was comparing apples to oranges, no one seems to rebut the fact that Rolen was not dominant and arguably not even superlative in any category.

A player’s ranking on his own team obviously does not by itself determine greatness, as pointed out and exemplified by Lou Gehrig and others. I understand that, in fact, I even stated that Graig Nettles is a better third baseman than Rolen, and most times Nettles was not even the second best player on his team. A quick comparison of the two is enlightening, in my opinion, but please understand that I do not necessarily consider Nettles a HOFer either, I merely point out his numbers and stress that he didn’t get more than about 8% of the HOF vote and dropped off the ballot early, yet Rolen, well, you know.

I will first admit that in looking at Rolen’s stats closely on Baseball Reference and not deferring to the author I had quoted, he did in fact finish in the top 10 in RBI twice, in runs scored twice, and OBP once, although never leading in anything. Graig Nettles once led the league in Home Runs, and finished in the top 10 five times. He matched Rolen’s two-time finishes in runs scored and one appearance on the leader board for OBP while three times making it there in RBI. Other similar measurements between the two players were roughly equal, although it should be remembered that Nettles hit 390 HR. As for advanced metrics, the two were nearly identical, but Nettles ranks just ahead of Rolen both in offensive WAR and defensive WAR. Yet Nettles never got a sniff at the HOF, and Rolen soon will be enshrined.

I acknowledge that I was a fan of Puff and was/am indifferent at best about Rolen. But I stand by my first statement on the subject in post #145– Scott Rolen: “Excellent player, borderline great, that's it IMO”.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

No, I'm not. I used his positional ranking to demonstrate what makes him a HOFer over others who ranked far lower in their positional rankings. I chose three specific names that were mentioned and showed their positional ranks verses Rolen's.

I think unlike you I am looking at Rolen as a third baseman among third basemen and considering his candidacy at his position.

I don't think WAR is particularly useful when it comes to pitchers and I wouldn't cite the stat in discussing them. I would look at ERA+, and I think you'll find Reuschel has a lower ERA+ than anyone on your list.

I never mentioned Rolen, you have no idea how I view him.

Ok, since you value ERA+ for pitchers, Johan Santana has a higher ERA+ 136 than, Randy Johnson 135, Greg Maddux 132, Sandy Koufax 131, Bob Gibson 127, Tom Seaver 127, Jim Palmer 125, and Nolan Ryan 112. Johan Santana must have been better than those HOFers, no?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I never mentioned Rolen, you have no idea how I view him.

Ok, since you value ERA+ for pitchers, Johan Santana has a higher ERA+ 136 than, Randy Johnson 135, Greg Maddux 132, Sandy Koufax 131, Bob Gibson 127, Tom Seaver 127, Jim Palmer 125, and Nolan Ryan 112. Johan Santana must have been better than those HOFers, no?

You started talking about Rick Rueschel while in a discussion about Scott Rolen, so I guess I was wrong to think you weren't looking at him as a third baseman amongst third basemen?

I also think you've erred in choosing Johan Santana to make your point about ERA+. Santana won 2 Cy Youngs, three ERA titles and the pitching Triple Crown. That is the resume of a HOFer, he just had the misfortune of frequently being injured. What are you trying to say about him? I feel like we're getting back into Lou Gehrig wasn't the best player on his team territory.

[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.

[RCMcKenzie]

Check out the JAWS stat for 3rd basemen. Rolen is 10th, everyone ahead of him is in the HOF except Beltre, 4th, who will make it. Nerttles is now the highest ranked not in the hall, at 12th, so, Rolen is in, so Nettles should go in. After Nettles you have Boyer, Bell, etc. Cey is 25th. Should Cey get in after these guys?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Jim65

WAR is a tool and you are using it to say one player is absolutely better than another player. Rick Reuschel is the 37th ranked pitcher, higher than Jim Palmer, John Smoltz, Bob Feller, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, and Whitey Ford.

Does anyone really think Reuschel is better than all of those HOFers?

All I know is I suddenly feel the desire start buying Rick Reuschel cards, especially the 1977 Topps card that also features his fellow flabby brother Paul.

Brian

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I never mentioned Rolen, you have no idea how I view him.

Ok, since you value ERA+ for pitchers, Johan Santana has a higher ERA+ 136 than, Randy Johnson 135, Greg Maddux 132, Sandy Koufax 131, Bob Gibson 127, Tom Seaver 127, Jim Palmer 125, and Nolan Ryan 112. Johan Santana must have been better than those HOFers, no?

Johan Santana was a beast. Watched him pitch many times in the old Metrodome.

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

All I know is I suddenly feel the desire start buying Rick Reuschel cards, especially the 1977 Topps card that also features his fellow flabby brother Paul.

Brian

Rick started out his minor league career here in the little town I live in. He went 9-2 in 1970 in a ballpark not too far from my house.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

You started talking about Rick Rueschel while in a discussion about Scott Rolen, so I guess I was wrong to think you weren't looking at him as a third baseman amongst third basemen?

I mentioned Reuschel to show that WAR is not absolute, its just a tool. Having a higher WAR does not make a player better than another player, there are too many other stats to use just 1.