SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2020 Hall of Fame - Miller, Simmons in, (+Jeter, Walker)
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2020 12:03:08 GMT -5
Why in the name of my Great Aunt Gertrude would you start an analysis of Rolen's offensive production in 2002? From his debut through 2001 he hit .285/.375/.508, scoring 481 runs and driving in 493. That's like comparing Wade Boggs to some dude starting in 1988. A little bit of misunderstanding here - he was just using those years because those were the only years DRS covered in Rolen's career and he wanted to line up the comparison of offensive numbers with Ramirez for the same years. Then I showed him that Rolen was much better than Ramirez over these years, despite the fact that the date range excludes several of Rolen's best seasons but does cover almost all of Ramirez' best seasons, and then he threw up his hands and said we might as well put Aramis Ramirez in the Hall of Fame as well. (He also suggested Buddy Bell and Graig Nettles, and frankly, those guys have pretty interesting cases - especially Nettles.) ADD: I am officially on the Nettles for the Hall train (thanks, manfred)! Most of those guys were one-dimensional sluggers. McGriff is borderline but I'd definitely vote in Edmonds, Evans, and Jones. Nettles has a higher fWAR total than all of them (65.7) except Jones (67.0).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2020 12:26:10 GMT -5
Why in the name of my Great Aunt Gertrude would you start an analysis of Rolen's offensive production in 2002? From his debut through 2001 he hit .285/.375/.508, scoring 481 runs and driving in 493. That's like comparing Wade Boggs to some dude starting in 1988. A little bit of misunderstanding here - he was just using those years because those were the only years DRS covered in Rolen's career and he wanted to line up the comparison of offensive numbers with Ramirez for the same years. Then I showed him that Rolen was much better than Ramirez over these years, despite the fact that the date range excludes several of Rolen's best seasons but does cover almost all of Ramirez' best seasons, and then he threw up his hands and said we might as well put Aramis Ramirez in the Hall of Fame as well. (He also suggested Buddy Bell and Graig Nettles, and frankly, those guys have pretty interesting cases - especially Nettles.) Surprised that he's doing that sarcastically given they have more than the magical 2000 hits total.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 13:07:18 GMT -5
A little bit of misunderstanding here - he was just using those years because those were the only years DRS covered in Rolen's career and he wanted to line up the comparison of offensive numbers with Ramirez for the same years. Then I showed him that Rolen was much better than Ramirez over these years, despite the fact that the date range excludes several of Rolen's best seasons but does cover almost all of Ramirez' best seasons, and then he threw up his hands and said we might as well put Aramis Ramirez in the Hall of Fame as well. (He also suggested Buddy Bell and Graig Nettles, and frankly, those guys have pretty interesting cases - especially Nettles.) Surprised that he's doing that sarcastically given they have more than the magical 2000 hits total. I’m surprised you call it sarcasm when Buddy Bell has almost the same WAR, higher dWAR (2x as many seasons in the dWAR top-10), and comparable career stats to Rolen.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2020 13:50:33 GMT -5
Surprised that he's doing that sarcastically given they have more than the magical 2000 hits total. I’m surprised you call it sarcasm when Buddy Bell has almost the same WAR, higher dWAR (2x as many seasons in the dWAR top-10), and comparable career stats to Rolen. Like I said, Buddy Bell has an interesting case. But Rolen was quite a bit better offensively. Bell: .279/.341/.406 Rolen: .281/.364/.490 That's why Rolen has a 13% higher fWAR total in about 400 fewer games. But maybe I am taking your "if Rolen gets in then other, demonstrably worse, players should also get in" form of argument too literally.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 14:06:32 GMT -5
I’m surprised you call it sarcasm when Buddy Bell has almost the same WAR, higher dWAR (2x as many seasons in the dWAR top-10), and comparable career stats to Rolen. Like I said, Buddy Bell has an interesting case. But Rolen was quite a bit better offensively. Bell: .279/.341/.406 Rolen: .281/.364/.490 That's why Rolen has a 13% higher fWAR total in about 400 fewer games. But maybe I am taking your "if Rolen gets in then other, demonstrably worse, players should also get in" form of argument too literally. My point is every time a guy at the bottom margin gets in, the margin goes down. If Rolen is in,say, it does strengthen Bell’s case From nil to hmmmm.... Rolen was more spectacular, So his best 3 offensive seasons blow Bell out. But Bell had more good years, resulting on a far hit total, nearly the same WAR, more top defensive seasons etc. He was also a top defensive player far longer, if defense is a compensation for his lack of power. I am not saying I’d take Bell for his best over Rolen, of course. I am saying I prefer a Hall of guys where the comps are clearly other Hall guys — a whole tier above good but not great. As I’ve said repeatedly, Rolen had about 3 true stud seasons. Now, if he had more very good years, I’d be more in favor. But he was a brief star, a decent length of very good, and not an exceedingly long of decent. Edit: to head off attacks, I do NOT think Bell, Nettles et al. Zshould be in. If Rolen is in, I think it harder to say no.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2020 15:11:35 GMT -5
Like I said, Buddy Bell has an interesting case. But Rolen was quite a bit better offensively. Bell: .279/.341/.406 Rolen: .281/.364/.490 That's why Rolen has a 13% higher fWAR total in about 400 fewer games. But maybe I am taking your "if Rolen gets in then other, demonstrably worse, players should also get in" form of argument too literally. My point is every time a guy at the bottom margin gets in, the margin goes down. If Rolen is in,say, it does strengthen Bell’s case From nil to hmmmm.... Rolen was more spectacular, So his best 3 offensive seasons blow Bell out. But Bell had more good years, resulting on a far hit total, nearly the same WAR, more top defensive seasons etc. He was also a top defensive player far longer, if defense is a compensation for his lack of power. I am not saying I’d take Bell for his best over Rolen, of course. I am saying I prefer a Hall of guys where the comps are clearly other Hall guys — a whole tier above good but not great. As I’ve said repeatedly, Rolen had about 3 true stud seasons. Now, if he had more very good years, I’d be more in favor. But he was a brief star, a decent length of very good, and not an exceedingly long of decent. Edit: to head off attacks, I do NOT think Bell, Nettles et al. Zshould be in. If Rolen is in, I think it harder to say no. "We can't let in a marginal case like Jeter because then a guy who's almost as good like Rolen will get in." Personally, I'm a big Hall guy - I don't see how the institution suffers simply by letting in a few more of the 1-2% best players of all time, which is what all of the guys under discussion are; in fact I think it helps tell the story of the game, makes the fans happy, and honors more of the guys who are 1000x better at what they did than probably any of us are in our own line of work. But of course some folks are for a small Hall, and that's fine. And you can be a small Hall person and also be a stat-head, or a big Hall person who takes an old-school approach. But let's take WAR as a proxy for stuff that statistically-minded people care about - i.e., on-base skills and defense are given more consideration than they are by old school types. By fWAR, Scott Rolen is the 61st best position player of all time. (Jeter is 48th, Nettles is 86th, and Bell is 110th, fwiw.) That should be good enough for the Hall, no? Surely at least that many players deserve to be in the HoF? So we're just back to the question of how much you value stuff like OBP and defense.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 15:28:01 GMT -5
My point is every time a guy at the bottom margin gets in, the margin goes down. If Rolen is in,say, it does strengthen Bell’s case From nil to hmmmm.... Rolen was more spectacular, So his best 3 offensive seasons blow Bell out. But Bell had more good years, resulting on a far hit total, nearly the same WAR, more top defensive seasons etc. He was also a top defensive player far longer, if defense is a compensation for his lack of power. I am not saying I’d take Bell for his best over Rolen, of course. I am saying I prefer a Hall of guys where the comps are clearly other Hall guys — a whole tier above good but not great. As I’ve said repeatedly, Rolen had about 3 true stud seasons. Now, if he had more very good years, I’d be more in favor. But he was a brief star, a decent length of very good, and not an exceedingly long of decent. Edit: to head off attacks, I do NOT think Bell, Nettles et al. Zshould be in. If Rolen is in, I think it harder to say no. "We can't let in a marginal case like Jeter because then a guy who's almost as good like Rolen will get in." Personally, I'm a big Hall guy - I don't see how the institution suffers simply by letting in a few more of the 1-2% best players of all time, which is what all of the guys under discussion are; in fact I think it helps tell the story of the game, makes the fans happy, and honors more of the guys who are 1000x better at what they did than probably any of us are in our own line of work. But of course some folks are for a small Hall, and that's fine. And you can be a small Hall person and also be a stat-head, or a big Hall person who takes an old-school approach. But let's take WAR as a proxy for stuff that statistically-minded people care about - i.e., on-base skills and defense are given more consideration than they are by old school types. By fWAR, Scott Rolen is the 61st best position player of all time. (Jeter is 48th, Nettles is 86th, and Bell is 110th, fwiw.) That should be good enough for the Hall, no? Surely at least that many players deserve to be in the HoF? So we're just back to the question of how much you value stuff like OBP and defense. But the problem with that is it is privileging contemporary style of play, and minimizing reward for what asked of players in older days. As I’ve said before about pitchers, for example, you cannot compare k/9 today to pre-Billy Martin A’s, for example. A guy who won’t be pitching innings 6-9 can go about his game differently. I just saw Andrew Cashner described as a “workhorse” for averaging 157 innings a season. That might be half a season for guys in the old days. Different. But also tough to compare. I love Pedro, but if he were throwing 280 innings a season, he’d be a very different guy. As for hitters, we agree on-base matters. But walks were not as common before — nor, for that matter were strikeouts. Why don’t we punish guys for absurd strikeout numbers? They certainly did in the older days. George Brett walked 100 times once. Do you think he could’t have walked more if it were a priority? My point is, judging on current style of play, it is not terribly surprising contemporary players do especially well. How do the pitchers do historically if we value complete games and innings, for example? Or hitters if strikeouts are a serious penalty? These are just examples, of course.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2020 15:33:09 GMT -5
Surprised that he's doing that sarcastically given they have more than the magical 2000 hits total. I’m surprised you call it sarcasm when Buddy Bell has almost the same WAR, higher dWAR (2x as many seasons in the dWAR top-10), and comparable career stats to Rolen. Yeah, you've made several sarcastic comments like "ok, you've convinced me, elect everyone to the HOF", which is obviously sarcastic, including when you said Bell and Nettles. It should not be sarcastic, because they are both far more deserving than the ridiculous examples you've come up with like Nomar and Aramis Ramirez.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2020 15:36:41 GMT -5
"We can't let in a marginal case like Jeter because then a guy who's almost as good like Rolen will get in." Personally, I'm a big Hall guy - I don't see how the institution suffers simply by letting in a few more of the 1-2% best players of all time, which is what all of the guys under discussion are; in fact I think it helps tell the story of the game, makes the fans happy, and honors more of the guys who are 1000x better at what they did than probably any of us are in our own line of work. But of course some folks are for a small Hall, and that's fine. And you can be a small Hall person and also be a stat-head, or a big Hall person who takes an old-school approach. But let's take WAR as a proxy for stuff that statistically-minded people care about - i.e., on-base skills and defense are given more consideration than they are by old school types. By fWAR, Scott Rolen is the 61st best position player of all time. (Jeter is 48th, Nettles is 86th, and Bell is 110th, fwiw.) That should be good enough for the Hall, no? Surely at least that many players deserve to be in the HoF? So we're just back to the question of how much you value stuff like OBP and defense. But the problem with that is it is privileging contemporary style of play, and minimizing reward for what asked of players in older days. As I’ve said before about pitchers, for example, you cannot compare k/9 today to pre-Billy Martin A’s, for example. A guy who won’t be pitching innings 6-9 can go about his game differently. I just saw Andrew Cashner described as a “workhorse” for averaging 157 innings a season. That might be half a season for guys in the old days. Different. But also tough to compare. I love Pedro, but if he were throwing 280 innings a season, he’d be a very different guy. As for hitters, we agree on-base matters. But walks were not as common before — nor, for that matter were strikeouts. Why don’t we punish guys for absurd strikeout numbers? They certainly did in the older days. George Brett walked 100 times once. Do you think he could’t have walked more if it were a priority? My point is, judging on current style of play, it is not terribly surprising contemporary players do especially well. How do the pitchers do historically if we value complete games and innings, for example? Or hitters if strikeouts are a serious penalty? These are just examples, of course. Yeah, wRC+ and OPS+ are adjusted by year also, so you actually can compare two guys 50 years apart.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 26, 2020 16:47:04 GMT -5
"We can't let in a marginal case like Jeter because then a guy who's almost as good like Rolen will get in." Personally, I'm a big Hall guy - I don't see how the institution suffers simply by letting in a few more of the 1-2% best players of all time, which is what all of the guys under discussion are; in fact I think it helps tell the story of the game, makes the fans happy, and honors more of the guys who are 1000x better at what they did than probably any of us are in our own line of work. But of course some folks are for a small Hall, and that's fine. And you can be a small Hall person and also be a stat-head, or a big Hall person who takes an old-school approach. But let's take WAR as a proxy for stuff that statistically-minded people care about - i.e., on-base skills and defense are given more consideration than they are by old school types. By fWAR, Scott Rolen is the 61st best position player of all time. (Jeter is 48th, Nettles is 86th, and Bell is 110th, fwiw.) That should be good enough for the Hall, no? Surely at least that many players deserve to be in the HoF? So we're just back to the question of how much you value stuff like OBP and defense. But the problem with that is it is privileging contemporary style of play, and minimizing reward for what asked of players in older days. As I’ve said before about pitchers, for example, you cannot compare k/9 today to pre-Billy Martin A’s, for example. A guy who won’t be pitching innings 6-9 can go about his game differently. I just saw Andrew Cashner described as a “workhorse” for averaging 157 innings a season. That might be half a season for guys in the old days. Different. But also tough to compare. I love Pedro, but if he were throwing 280 innings a season, he’d be a very different guy. As for hitters, we agree on-base matters. But walks were not as common before — nor, for that matter were strikeouts. Why don’t we punish guys for absurd strikeout numbers? They certainly did in the older days. George Brett walked 100 times once. Do you think he could’t have walked more if it were a priority? My point is, judging on current style of play, it is not terribly surprising contemporary players do especially well. How do the pitchers do historically if we value complete games and innings, for example? Or hitters if strikeouts are a serious penalty? These are just examples, of course. I agree with the point that guys should be compared in the context of the era they played in. So yeah, you can't just take K/9 rates as an absolute value when the league average is so much higher than it used to be. Likewise, if a guy like Nettles hit 390 homers in the 70s and 80s, that's more impressive than if he had done it in the steroid era. (This doesn't really apply to walk rates, though, which have more or less been steady since the 1920s.) But like jimed pointed out, that's one of the good things about these stats! wRC+ and WAR, etc., tell you how much value they added relative to the time that they played. And at any rate, Rolen and Walker were playing in an era that was more aware of the value of OBP, yet you want to judge them by their number of hits. You're judging them by old-timey standards, even though they played into the 21st century - just the thing that you're saying we shouldn't do!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 17:12:05 GMT -5
But the problem with that is it is privileging contemporary style of play, and minimizing reward for what asked of players in older days. As I’ve said before about pitchers, for example, you cannot compare k/9 today to pre-Billy Martin A’s, for example. A guy who won’t be pitching innings 6-9 can go about his game differently. I just saw Andrew Cashner described as a “workhorse” for averaging 157 innings a season. That might be half a season for guys in the old days. Different. But also tough to compare. I love Pedro, but if he were throwing 280 innings a season, he’d be a very different guy. As for hitters, we agree on-base matters. But walks were not as common before — nor, for that matter were strikeouts. Why don’t we punish guys for absurd strikeout numbers? They certainly did in the older days. George Brett walked 100 times once. Do you think he could’t have walked more if it were a priority? My point is, judging on current style of play, it is not terribly surprising contemporary players do especially well. How do the pitchers do historically if we value complete games and innings, for example? Or hitters if strikeouts are a serious penalty? These are just examples, of course. I agree with the point that guys should be compared in the context of the era they played in. So yeah, you can't just take K/9 rates as an absolute value when the league average is so much higher than it used to be. Likewise, if a guy like Nettles hit 390 homers in the 70s and 80s, that's more impressive than if he had done it in the steroid era. (This doesn't really apply to walk rates, though, which have more or less been steady since the 1920s.) But like jimed pointed out, that's one of the good things about these stats! wRC+ and WAR, etc., tell you how much value they added relative to the time that they played. And at any rate, Rolen and Walker were playing in an era that was more aware of the value of OBP, yet you want to judge them by their number of hits. You're judging them by old-timey standards, even though they played into the 21st century - just the thing that you're saying we shouldn't do! That is fair.... but I am not as hard line on hits as you make it seem. Jeter’s hit count? Beyond arguments. When a guy is 6th all-time in a fundamental element of the game, you just engrave the plaque. 3,000+ hits remains an extraordinary, automatic accomplishment. The other thing about hits is it is shorthand for sustained quality play. My objection to Rolen’s hit total is not merely that it is low... it is that it is low in part because he had a career in which he missed a bunch of games and had only 3 really great seasons. Can I support a guy with low totals? Yes. If he is a transcendent player for a solid chunk of time. Can I support a guy with a long career of decent numbers who has a few really strong years? Yes. He falls in the cracks of those two. One majestic season, a few more rather good ones, some good ones, and simply not enough time to add to that. As far as I can gather, he led the league any category at all once: dWAR in that majestic 2004. Otherwise.... nada. Over 130 OPS+ 3 times. So it is hard to make the case for a dominant stretch. That is why the counting numbers become — in combination — damning. So hits are not just hits, they are shorthand (one form of it) for sustained quality. Conversely, while Buddy Bell is 8th all-time amongst thirdbasemen in hits, ahead of major HOFers like Eddie Matthews and Mike Schmidt, (and.... of the top-10, when Beltre gets in, he’ll be the only one who played after 1900 not in), I don’t think his hit total means he should be in. If I were just emphasizing hits, I probably would.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2020 17:17:13 GMT -5
manfred's head will explode when it's pointed out that Rolen has more career WAR than Paul Monitor.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 17:42:28 GMT -5
manfred's head will explode when it's pointed out that Rolen has more career WAR than Paul Monitor. I actually don’t get your point... is it that Rolen was as good as Molitor? Obviously Molitor’s best seasons were excellent. And he sustained valuable play far longer than Rolen. People have said they look at WAR as part of the picture. If you say Rolen is Molitor’s equal because of his WAR without noting the difference in their offense — both cumulatively and by season — that belies that approach. Molitor led the league in runs three times, hits three times, stole a ton of bases, is 31st all time in runs created, etc etc. He had 225 hits at age 39 to finish strong, collecting enough hits to be top-10 all time. And was WS MVP. So if Rolen’s career WAR is meant to represent him as the better player, well, add this to the flaw category.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2020 17:44:10 GMT -5
manfred's head will explode when it's pointed out that Rolen has more career WAR than Paul Monitor. I actually don’t get your point... is it that Rolen was as good as Molitor? Obviously Molitor’s best seasons were excellent. And he sustained valuable play far longer than Rolen. People have said they look at WAR as part of the picture. If you say Rolen is Molitor’s equal because of his WAR without noting the difference in their offense — both cumulatively and by season — that belies that approach. Molitor led the league in runs three times, hits three times, stole a ton of bases, is 31st all time in runs created, etc etc. He had 225 hits at age 39 to finish strong, collecting enough hits to be top-10 all time. And was WS MVP. So if Rolen’s career WAR is meant to represent him as the better player, well, add this to the flaw category. They each had a career 122 wRC+. And Molitor was a bad defender, which you've made clear that you don't put any value in. The reason why they are close in total WAR is because of Molitor's much better longevity and Rolen's far superior defense.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2020 18:27:09 GMT -5
I actually don’t get your point... is it that Rolen was as good as Molitor? Obviously Molitor’s best seasons were excellent. And he sustained valuable play far longer than Rolen. People have said they look at WAR as part of the picture. If you say Rolen is Molitor’s equal because of his WAR without noting the difference in their offense — both cumulatively and by season — that belies that approach. Molitor led the league in runs three times, hits three times, stole a ton of bases, is 31st all time in runs created, etc etc. He had 225 hits at age 39 to finish strong, collecting enough hits to be top-10 all time. And was WS MVP. So if Rolen’s career WAR is meant to represent him as the better player, well, add this to the flaw category. They each had a career 122 wRC+. And Molitor was a bad defender, which you've made clear that you don't put any value in. The reason why they are close in total WAR is because of Molitor's much better longevity and Rolen's far superior defense. I never said I put no value in it. I don’t think it is the difference maker for a third baseman, though. Do I take it you are arguing Rolen is as Hall-worthy as Molitor? I very much value longevity when it remains productive. One can only be of value when one is on the field. That said, guys who linger and pad deserve skepticism. So there has to be a balance: how great were your best years? How good were the rest? Edit: it feels funny to be utterly on the defensive when I join the 90% who didn’t vote for Rolen on the first ballot and now the 85% who did vote for Molitor. It seems my positions are not exactly some form of insanity.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 27, 2020 16:11:51 GMT -5
They each had a career 122 wRC+. And Molitor was a bad defender, which you've made clear that you don't put any value in. The reason why they are close in total WAR is because of Molitor's much better longevity and Rolen's far superior defense. I never said I put no value in it. I don’t think it is the difference maker for a third baseman, though. Do I take it you are arguing Rolen is as Hall-worthy as Molitor? I very much value longevity when it remains productive. One can only be of value when one is on the field. That said, guys who linger and pad deserve skepticism. So there has to be a balance: how great were your best years? How good were the rest? Edit: it feels funny to be utterly on the defensive when I join the 90% who didn’t vote for Rolen on the first ballot and now the 85% who did vote for Molitor. It seems my positions are not exactly some form of insanity. Rolen at his peak was hugely better than Molitor. If you just want to willfully ignore the huge amount of evidence, both objective and subjective, that he added inner-circle great defense to his excellent hitting, you won't see that. Below is a set of incomplete peak comps (not docking anyone for PED use), but here's the short version:
Scott Rolen at his peak was Willie McCovey or Miguel Cabrera good.
Paul Molitor at his peak was Will Clark or Mark Teixiera good.
Peak Comps For Scott Rolen:
Pete Rose Bobby Grich Larry Walker HOF Luke Appling HOF Billy Hamilton HOF Willie McCovey HOF Miguel Cabrera Carlos Beltran Sammy Sosa Monte Ward HOF David Wright Jason Giambi Evan Longoria Nomar Garciaparra
For Paul Molitor:
Dwight Evans Lou Whitaker Fred Clarke HOF Willie Keeler HOF Dave Winfield HOF Zack Wheat HOF Fred McGriff Bobby Doerr HOF Willie Davis Chet Lemon Will Clark Joe Sewell HOF Heinie Groh Bob Johnson Tony Lazzeri HOF Stan Hack Kirby Puckett HOF Bobby Veach Nellie Fox HOF Mark Teixeira Bill Bradley Jack Fournier Matt Holliday George Burns Wally Berger Eddie Stanky Willie Wilson Felipe Alou
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2020 16:36:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 27, 2020 20:19:45 GMT -5
I never said I put no value in it. I don’t think it is the difference maker for a third baseman, though. Do I take it you are arguing Rolen is as Hall-worthy as Molitor? I very much value longevity when it remains productive. One can only be of value when one is on the field. That said, guys who linger and pad deserve skepticism. So there has to be a balance: how great were your best years? How good were the rest? Edit: it feels funny to be utterly on the defensive when I join the 90% who didn’t vote for Rolen on the first ballot and now the 85% who did vote for Molitor. It seems my positions are not exactly some form of insanity. Rolen at his peak was hugely better than Molitor. If you just want to willfully ignore the huge amount of evidence, both objective and subjective, that he added inner-circle great defense to his excellent hitting, you won't see that. Below is a set of incomplete peak comps (not docking anyone for PED use), but here's the short version:
Scott Rolen at his peak was Willie McCovey or Miguel Cabrera good.
Paul Molitor at his peak was Will Clark or Mark Teixiera good.
Peak Comps For Scott Rolen:
Pete Rose Bobby Grich Larry Walker HOF Luke Appling HOF Billy Hamilton HOF Willie McCovey HOF Miguel Cabrera Carlos Beltran Sammy Sosa Monte Ward HOF David Wright Jason Giambi Evan Longoria Nomar Garciaparra
For Paul Molitor:
Dwight Evans Lou Whitaker Fred Clarke HOF Willie Keeler HOF Dave Winfield HOF Zack Wheat HOF Fred McGriff Bobby Doerr HOF Willie Davis Chet Lemon Will Clark Joe Sewell HOF Heinie Groh Bob Johnson Tony Lazzeri HOF Stan Hack Kirby Puckett HOF Bobby Veach Nellie Fox HOF Mark Teixeira Bill Bradley Jack Fournier Matt Holliday George Burns Wally Berger Eddie Stanky Willie Wilson Felipe Alou
Those are comps if one basically judges only on WAR and defensive perception. By some markers, for example, Nettles and Bell were better defensively than Rolen. About equal in WAR. Aren’t they the best comps? But you would have to ignore a lot. Rolen finished top-10 in adjusted OPS+ 2 times. Cabrera: 11. Cabrera’s career OPS+ is higher than every season but one in Rolen’s career. Cabrera will end with nearly 50% more hits at a significantly higher average and OPS. He was a hitting machine. Was he a bad defender? Yes, but not so bad in his prime that it dramatically undercut his insane value. In the end, it is aesthetic. To me, a guy with zero black ink is hard to make a case for as being one of the best players ever. If you are not the best at something while you are active, then why be with best ever? If you aren’t close to career leaders in major stats either? That’s an issue. Combined? Nope. Edit: and c’mon with Willie Wilson. I think he is under appreciated, and his four years from 1979 on were excellent, but if one judges by very short peaks, things get really dicey. But I’d grant that WW 1979-1980 had a better two year span than Rolen ever did. That is not even an argument against Rolen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 28, 2020 7:10:56 GMT -5
And once again, you ignore the butcher Cabrera is/was on defense.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2020 8:10:40 GMT -5
But you would have to ignore a lot. Rolen finished top-10 in adjusted OPS+ 2 times. Cabrera: 11. Cabrera’s career OPS+ is higher than every season but one in Rolen’s career. Cabrera will end with nearly 50% more hits at a significantly higher average and OPS. He was a hitting machine. Was he a bad defender? Yes, but not so bad in his prime that it dramatically undercut his insane value. Of course it undercut his value. That's like saying if you make $1000 a week, and I steal $200 of that every week, I'm not really stealing because you're still coming out of the deal with $800. The only way you can make this argument is with these absolutely tortured interpretations of defensive value, where somehow Rolen's defense doesn't count for anything because he was a third baseman, or a couple other guys might have been a little better, or because we can't account for every single run he ever saved with absolute certainty, or because some other player was HOF worthy despite having a bad glove. None of that stuff matters! It's plain as day that he was a great defender and equally obvious that elite defense is valuable. You'd rather undermine the bedrock concepts of baseball -- the idea that defense has value --- than just admit that you underrated Rolen a little bit. And once again, you ignore the butcher Cabrera is/was on defense. Doesn't count! His team didn't lose every game because of his glove so it's not important!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2020 9:59:11 GMT -5
But you would have to ignore a lot. Rolen finished top-10 in adjusted OPS+ 2 times. Cabrera: 11. Cabrera’s career OPS+ is higher than every season but one in Rolen’s career. Cabrera will end with nearly 50% more hits at a significantly higher average and OPS. He was a hitting machine. Was he a bad defender? Yes, but not so bad in his prime that it dramatically undercut his insane value. Of course it undercut his value. That's like saying if you make $1000 a week, and I steal $200 of that every week, I'm not really stealing because you're still coming out of the deal with $800. The only way you can make this argument is with these absolutely tortured interpretations of defensive value, where somehow Rolen's defense doesn't count for anything because he was a third baseman, or a couple other guys might have been a little better, or because we can't account for every single run he ever saved with absolute certainty, or because some other player was HOF worthy despite having a bad glove. None of that stuff matters! It's plain as day that he was a great defender and equally obvious that elite defense is valuable. You'd rather undermine the bedrock concepts of baseball -- the idea that defense has value --- than just admit that you underrated Rolen a little bit. And once again, you ignore the butcher Cabrera is/was on defense. Doesn't count! His team didn't lose every game because of his glove so it's not important! Your ad absurdum arguments are revealing: first, your money example ignores my use of the word “dramatically.” I understand when one number is smaller than the other. We are simply disagreeing on what values to fill in the equation x-y=z — and in fact, your latter argument, though meant derisively, is actually a good one in theory: is a bad fielder bad if bad fielding has no consequence? Now I am taking it to the extreme... I am certain no bad fielder has managed that. But if you are arguing that what matters is abstraction over results, then we definitely disagree. And as many times as I say it, here we go again: this is pointless. We are different HOF voters. I am a small hall guy who believes you should demonstrate some reasonable balance of peak brilliance and longevity. The scale can slide... a guy who plays a long time at a good level might have a bit lower a peak; and I accept the Koufax precedent of very short career with insane peak. If you accomplish something glorious that few players manage, it is certainly a bonus. If any pitcher ever wins 300 games again, he’s in. Wins might not “matter,” but there has never been a bad 300-game winner. You finish 6th all-time in hits, lead the league multiple times, win a WS MVP etc? You don’t deserve to be compared to a guy with fewer than 2/3 your hits, who never led the league in anything, who sniffed at MVP once.... Jeter might have been a bad defensive player (though that is a bit harsh in his prime), but it seems to have done little to keep him from amassing rings. So, back to your second argument, I’d say, yes, a Yankee fan would say his defense didn’t matter because they kept on winning. Edit: the other problem, as I’ve said, is the Rolen case opens the door far wider. If him, why not Mattingly and Keith Hernandez? Two of the best defensive first basemen of all time... Hernandez may be the best — with comparable offensive numbers. Mattingly obviously had a far better peak, and Hernandez had better individual seasons. Heck, Olerud was a great defensive player and had better offensive numbers. But I don’t see any of the three as even close to Hall-worthy.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 28, 2020 11:55:46 GMT -5
Of course it undercut his value. That's like saying if you make $1000 a week, and I steal $200 of that every week, I'm not really stealing because you're still coming out of the deal with $800. The only way you can make this argument is with these absolutely tortured interpretations of defensive value, where somehow Rolen's defense doesn't count for anything because he was a third baseman, or a couple other guys might have been a little better, or because we can't account for every single run he ever saved with absolute certainty, or because some other player was HOF worthy despite having a bad glove. None of that stuff matters! It's plain as day that he was a great defender and equally obvious that elite defense is valuable. You'd rather undermine the bedrock concepts of baseball -- the idea that defense has value --- than just admit that you underrated Rolen a little bit. Doesn't count! His team didn't lose every game because of his glove so it's not important! Edit: the other problem, as I’ve said, is the Rolen case opens the door far wider. If him, why not Mattingly and Keith Hernandez? Two of the best defensive first basemen of all time... Hernandez may be the best — with comparable offensive numbers. Mattingly obviously had a far better peak, and Hernandez had better individual seasons. Heck, Olerud was a great defensive player and had better offensive numbers. But I don’t see any of the three as even close to Hall-worthy. You. Keep. Doing. This. "If Rolen gets in, what's to stop some worse player from also getting in?" Hernandez had 10 fewer fWAR. Olerud had 12 fewer. Mattingly had 20 fewer! These comps aren't even close! You want to make the small Hall case - I disagree with that, but I get it, and that's not unreasonable as far as it goes. But the way to show that Rolen would actually be lowering the bar would not be to point to other, worse players who don't deserve to get in - it would be to point to other, better players who don't deserve to be in! So - honest question - who would you consider better than Rolen who doesn't deserve to get in? ADD: I mean, I guess the answer is that you think these guys were better than Rolen, despite their being considerably worse by the standards the rest of us are looking at. You just don't accept those standards in the first place. But still, I'm curious: are there players with a higher WAR total than Rolen that you believe shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2020 12:15:44 GMT -5
Edit: the other problem, as I’ve said, is the Rolen case opens the door far wider. If him, why not Mattingly and Keith Hernandez? Two of the best defensive first basemen of all time... Hernandez may be the best — with comparable offensive numbers. Mattingly obviously had a far better peak, and Hernandez had better individual seasons. Heck, Olerud was a great defensive player and had better offensive numbers. But I don’t see any of the three as even close to Hall-worthy. You. Keep. Doing. This. "If Rolen gets in, what's to stop some worse player from also getting in?" Hernandez had 10 fewer fWAR. Olerud had 12 fewer. Mattingly had 20 fewer! These comps aren't even close! You want to make the small Hall case - I disagree with that, but I get it, and that's not unreasonable as far as it goes. But the way to show that Rolen would actually be lowering the bar would not be to point to other, worse players who don't deserve to get in - it would be to point to other, better players who don't deserve to be in! So - honest question - who would you consider better than Rolen who doesn't deserve to get in? ADD: I mean, I guess the answer is that you think these guys were better than Rolen, despite their being considerably worse by the standards the rest of us are looking at. You just don't accept those standards in the first place. But still, I'm curious: are there players with a higher WAR total than Rolen that you believe shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Fair question, and obviously very hard to answer in brief, so... glancing only at MVP votes from Rolen’s best season, I’d say Torii Hunter was better, doesn’t deserve in. I’d say Edmonds was better, but doesn’t deserve it. Abreu was probably better, doesn’t deserve it. I’d say Lance Berkman was better, but he doesn’t deserve it. Those are just going on cursory glance. Edit: I didn’t see your WAR edit. It is interesting, because when I look at the list I admit there are only a few with higher WARs I’d object to, or even debate. But Rolen is at almost the exact cut line where suddenly the number explodes. Rolen is at about 70. Go to about 68, starting with Kenny Lofton, and I’d say we hit the area where people are more likely than not a “no.” Which means we are back to saying the same thing... by WAR I see Rolen as a floor. There are guys lower in WAR with far more impressive other indicators — someone like Biggio, for example. Or Gwynn, who is obviously light years better than Rolen but bafflingly lower in WAR. He probably didn’t walk as much as he should have.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 28, 2020 12:45:57 GMT -5
You. Keep. Doing. This. "If Rolen gets in, what's to stop some worse player from also getting in?" Hernandez had 10 fewer fWAR. Olerud had 12 fewer. Mattingly had 20 fewer! These comps aren't even close! You want to make the small Hall case - I disagree with that, but I get it, and that's not unreasonable as far as it goes. But the way to show that Rolen would actually be lowering the bar would not be to point to other, worse players who don't deserve to get in - it would be to point to other, better players who don't deserve to be in! So - honest question - who would you consider better than Rolen who doesn't deserve to get in? ADD: I mean, I guess the answer is that you think these guys were better than Rolen, despite their being considerably worse by the standards the rest of us are looking at. You just don't accept those standards in the first place. But still, I'm curious: are there players with a higher WAR total than Rolen that you believe shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Fair question, and obviously very hard to answer in brief, so... glancing only at MVP votes from Rolen’s best season, I’d say Torii Hunter was better, doesn’t deserve in. I’d say Edmonds was better, but doesn’t deserve it. Abreu was probably better, doesn’t deserve it. I’d say Lance Berkman was better, but he doesn’t deserve it. Those are just going on cursory glance. Edit: I didn’t see your WAR edit. It is interesting, because when I look at the list I admit there are only a few with higher WARs I’d object to, or even debate. But Rolen is at almost the exact cut line where suddenly the number explodes. Rolen is at about 70. Go to about 68, starting with Kenny Lofton, and I’d say we hit the area where people are more likely than not a “no.” Which means we are back to saying the same thing... by WAR I see Rolen as a floor. There are guys lower in WAR with far more impressive other indicators — someone like Biggio, for example. Or Gwynn, who is obviously light years better than Rolen but bafflingly lower in WAR. How on earth is Torii Hunter better than Rolen? How about Carlton Fisk? Does he deserve to be in? It's hard to come up with criteria by which he's better than Rolen. Would you have voted in Ozzie Smith? Barry Larkin? Willie McCovey? Harman Killebrew? (If you'd have voted for any of these, you'd be "lowering the bar" more than a Rolen induction would, from a WAR perspective. (As always, WAR is not the be-all, end-all; it's just shorthand for a certain set of considerations.)) At any rate, like I say I'm a big Hall person myself. But it seems like even a small Hall voter would want to include as least some of the guys in the 60-70 WAR range. On the other hand, even I probably wouldn't vote for everyone above 60. (Maybe everyone above 65 though...) ADD: Robinson Cano might be an interesting case for you. He has 2570 hits and four years left on his contract. It's possible to imagine him scraping out another 430 hits in four seasons to get to 3000, even while he puts up negative WAR and ends up at like 55. (He's at 57 now.) Should he be a Hall of Famer? He'd have hits and longevity on his side, but he'd only get there by being replacement-level or worse for the last several years of his career (which is often what "longevity" amounts to).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2020 13:13:53 GMT -5
Fair question, and obviously very hard to answer in brief, so... glancing only at MVP votes from Rolen’s best season, I’d say Torii Hunter was better, doesn’t deserve in. I’d say Edmonds was better, but doesn’t deserve it. Abreu was probably better, doesn’t deserve it. I’d say Lance Berkman was better, but he doesn’t deserve it. Those are just going on cursory glance. Edit: I didn’t see your WAR edit. It is interesting, because when I look at the list I admit there are only a few with higher WARs I’d object to, or even debate. But Rolen is at almost the exact cut line where suddenly the number explodes. Rolen is at about 70. Go to about 68, starting with Kenny Lofton, and I’d say we hit the area where people are more likely than not a “no.” Which means we are back to saying the same thing... by WAR I see Rolen as a floor. There are guys lower in WAR with far more impressive other indicators — someone like Biggio, for example. Or Gwynn, who is obviously light years better than Rolen but bafflingly lower in WAR. How on earth is Torii Hunter better than Rolen? How about Carlton Fisk? Does he deserve to be in? It's hard to come up with criteria by which he's better than Rolen. Would you have voted in Ozzie Smith? Barry Larkin? Willie McCovey? Harman Killebrew? (If you'd have voted for any of these, you'd be "lowering the bar" more than a Rolen induction would, from a WAR perspective. (As always, WAR is not the be-all, end-all; it's just shorthand for a certain set of considerations.)) At any rate, like I say I'm a big Hall person myself. But it seems like even a small Hall voter would want to include as least some of the guys in the 60-70 WAR range. On the other hand, even I probably wouldn't vote for everyone above 60. (Maybe everyone above 65 though...) ADD: Robinson Cano might be an interesting case for you. He has 2570 hits and four years left on his contract. It's possible to imagine him scraping out another 430 hits in four seasons to get to 3000, even while he puts up negative WAR and ends up at like 55. (He's at 57 now.) Should he be a Hall of Famer? He'd have hits and longevity on his side, but he'd only get there by being replacement-level or worse for the last several years of his career (which is often what "longevity" amounts to). Ooo... these are good, hard questions. Fun. Ok, first let me say I tend to be agnostic on guys who played before my time. Or just kind of let it go. I agree though... Killebrew is a conundrum. Obviously he rode his home run totals, but I am not convinced otherwise. Still, long time ago. And he was obviously spectacular in a number of seasons. Overall... shrug. Dunno. I’ll say the same for McCovey. Before my time. Better numbers and flash than Rolen, to be sure. For more recent guys... I am definitely in the Ozzie was way overrated camp and would be perfectly happy with him not being in the Hall. Great defensive player, generally couldn’t hit his ass with two hands. Larkin is another meh for me. I am not worked up he is in, but it is squeaker. Fisk was a catcher, at least for a while, so I think he’s in. I mean, you put up career numbers like that having caught a long time? In. I’d likely vote for Mauer for the same reason. Cano is still playing. He probably gets in. But he is a good comp to Rolen. He was a good glove in his prime, and he has much better offensive statistics, with more to come. If he retired now, I am not a certain yes, but a likely yes. But he is definitely better than Rolen. Has better accumulation and a better prime (he had a 5 year stretch where he was top-6 in MVP every year and averaged 7.3 WAR). Edit: Cano also will be interesting to see. You say he’ll be replacement level, but it was only two years ago he was over 3 WAR in half a season. He could make debate moot with one or two more good seasons.
|
|
|