Bobby Abreu is Indian Bob Johnson, and Johnny Damon is Joe Vosmik.

Or vice versa.

Welcome to the Hall of the Very Good, fellas. Mr. Lankford will show you around.

Barring steroid revelations, 3,000 hits will be Damon's Golden Ticket.

Abreu will require some SABR-help.

MORE PROOF THAT THE YANKEES HAD HOF AT EVERY POSITION!

MORE PROOF THAT THE YANKEES HAD HOF AT EVERY POSITION!

Well, to be fair, Johnny Damon probably has a better HOF-case than Melky Cabrera and Nick Swisher (although they are both younger than him).

As to the question, Abreu is closer to deserving to be in the Hall (but would fall short to me), but Damon probably has a better chance of being elected, since the only way either of them is getting elected is to do something that normally makes one think that the player who does that is a Hall of Famer. And the only such thing either of them has a chance at doing is Damon getting 3,000 hits. But, (a) I still don't think he'll do that (there's a reason why 3,000 hits = automatic HOFer, it's damn hard to do), and (b) even if he does, I think he's still only borderline at best.

I never would have guessed that Abreu has stolen almost as many bases as Damon.

I never would have guessed that Johnny Damon is older than Bobby Abreu.

I never would have guessed that Abreu has stolen almost as many bases as Damon.

Abreu had some superb seasons in Philadelphia, but the team wasn't all that good most of the time and tended to be overlooked. Damon, in Boston, never had that problem.

If Damon made 3,000 he would be, by far, the worst hitter to get there.

Lou Brock isn't that much better (109 to 105 OPS+) though I guess his prime argument is better (117 OPS+ from '64 to '74), Damon's best stretch is 109 from '99 to '09, those three below-average years really hurt).

In 2001 Abreu was 16th in MVP voting, between Matt Morris and Brian Jordan.
In 2005 he was 14th, tied with Chad Cordero.
In 2007 he was 17th, just behind Orlando Cabrera and Torii Hunter.

He must be the only guy to have gotten SOME MVP votes in six different seasons, but never more than 21.0 "vote points". Three third place votes alone would get someone more points than that.

Probably he'll get a couple sixth place votes yet again this season.

Abreu is speedy for a guy with an ass that big.

Abreu is the better candidate at this stage, however with those numbers so far they'll be getting into the hall the same way as the rest of us...by purchasing a ticket.

Welcome to the Hall of the Very Good

Will Clark, Dwight Evans, Darrel Evans, Dave Parker and Dave Stieb also send their condolences....(yep, the list could go on, but that's the best I can do whilst at work off the top of my head)

Abreu is clearly the greatest player ever to be traded straight up for Kevin Stocker.

OPS+ by age:



I think it might be possible to draw the "HOF / HOVG" line between those two guys.

they'll be getting into the hall the same way as the rest of us...by purchasing a ticket.

I have seen that statement hundreds of times about various players, and it makes me wonder, would a former major leaguer who dropped by Cooperstown actually have to stand in line at the ticket booth?

Oh, I think so. But are players whose teams don't go to the playoffs really required to spend the entire month of October playing golf?

I never would have guessed that Abreu has stolen almost as many bases as Damon.

That surprised me too, Tom.

Abreu's HOF case is once again one that hinges on the question of whether more teams in the major leagues should equate to more players in the Hall of Fame.

Oh, I think so. But are players whose teams don't go to the playoffs really required to spend the entire month of October playing golf?

Some of them are compelled to spend the month watching the playoffs on their couches (maybe Barcaloungers).

Of course, both are already ahead of Jim Rice, Abreu easily. His 2002-04 are better than Rice's 1977-79 (maybe Rice's best argument), never mind if you look at, say, best six year period or total career value.

Damon vs. Rice is closer, depending on how much you like peak value, but unless Damon craters in 2010, he'll easily have the better career of the two.

Damon is not a HoFer without 3000 hits, and then it'll still be questionable on the merits, though it's probably better than 50/50 he'd get in if he gets there. Actually - Damon seems like the perfect type of candidate for the veterans committee - famous, very good but never great, long career, won a WS, played on some memorable teams. Abreu....I don't know. Jim Rice is not a good measuring stick for what constitutes a HoFer. And if Tim Raines isn't getting in...well...

Johnny, welcome to the WTF Hall of Fame. Pete Rose will sh ... ok, bad example.

Oh, I think so. But are players whose teams don't go to the playoffs really required to spend the entire month of October playing golf?

Some of them are compelled to spend the month watching the playoffs on their couches (maybe Barcaloungers).

I have to say, neither of these Octobers sound too bad, except I'm not sure what I'd watch the rest of the day if I were on the Barca.

[Abreu] must be the only guy to have gotten SOME MVP votes in six different seasons, but never more than 21.0 "vote points". Three third place votes alone would get someone more points than that.

This interests me as a thought-problem of what kind of player would have repeatedly been on the tail-end of the ballot, but never at the top . . . Seems like hitters, starters and closers could all be candidates . . .

Rusty Staub did it on 6 ballots and then on his 7th exceeded the arbitrary 21, as Abreu probably will.

Nolan Ryan appeared on 7 without ever exceeding 25.

Both players have been All-Stars just twice.

What's the fewest number of All-Star selections for a HOFer (excluding those who played most of their careers before 1933)?

I think closers could consistently get a few closer-loving voters to support them without ever being a major candidate.

Mariano Rivera: 12th, 25th, 14th, 11th, 27th, 9th, 9th, 26th
Trevor Hoffman: 22nd, 7th, 28th, 17th, 10th
John Wetteland: 22nd, 24th, 19th, 16th
Lee Smith: 18th, 21st, 8th, 14th
Randy Myers: 16th, 17th, 21st, 4th
Hoyt Wilhem: 4th, 15th, 21st, 19th
Tom Henke: 20th, 13th, 22nd
Jeff Reardon: 20th, 11th, 15th
Dan Quisenberry: 8th, 9th, 6th, 3rd, 11th
Bruce Sutter: 7th, 20th, 7th, 8th, 5th, 6th
Jonathan Papelbon: never a single vote

What's the fewest number of All-Star selections for a HOFer (excluding those who played most of their careers before 1933)?

Yount had 3. I don't know if that's the fewest.

edit: I think it is. I couldn't find any other HOFer who played in the ASG era with fewer than 5.

"Will Clark, Dwight Evans, Darrel Evans, Dave Parker and Dave Stieb also send their condolences.."

All but Parker enjoy Hall of Merit electee status, fwiw (in the "filling out slots we took away from terribly crony HOF selections" vein)

Yount had 3. I don't know if that's the fewest.

edit: I think it is. I couldn't find any other HOFer who played in the ASG era with fewer than 5.

Ferguson Jenkins also had only 3 (1967, 1971, 1972).

Ferguson Jenkins also had only 3 (1967, 1971, 1972).

Holy crap. I didn't even bother checking him, as I could have sworn that he was a regular fixture in the ASG when I was growing up. I would have sworn that he had 5+. Shows to go you that you can't rely on memory

By the time these gents are eligible, Bert will have lowered the All-Star selection bar to 2.

Thanks. It's hard for me to see a lot of HOF support for Damon, who hasn't really been considered elite during his career. As noted Blyleven also only had 2, but most of the other (rightly or wrongly) borderline candidates have more: Clark (6), Dwight Evans (3), Darrell Evans (2), Parker (7), Stieb (7), Raines (7), Trammell (6), Whitaker (5), Rice (8).

As a digression, I also note that Yount won an MVP in a year when he wasn't an All-Star. That doesn't seem to be as rare as I would have thought. Morneau (2008), Rollins (2007), Chipper Jones (1999) Juan Gonzalez (1996) have also done that in the recent past.

None of the above, but Abreu is so much better than Damon it's just stupid. The OPS+ numbers are pretty devastating.

Win Shares-- Abreu 312 in 13 years, Damon 276 in 15 years. Average--Abreu 24, Damon 18.4. ≥20--Abreu 12, Damon 7.

276 WS puts Damon just behind Minnie Minoso and George Burns and, yeah, Jim Rice, and Heinie Manush and Bob Johnson, and just ahead of George Foster and Bobby Veach and Augie Galan.

312 puts Abreu within a dozen or so of Enos Slaughter, Dave Parker, Bobby Bonds, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Jack Clark, Sam Rice, Harold Baines, Harry Hooper.

HoF voters don't pay much attention to MVP voting, but they know if a player "feels" like a HoFer or not, and a HoFer "feels" a lot like a guy who could get into the top 3-5 in MVP voting at his best.

Oh, wait 'til Omar goes in with 3 ASGs and a .01 award-share.

His 2002-04 are better than Rice's 1977-79 (maybe Rice's best argument), never mind if you look at, say, best six year period or total career value.

Well that depends, doesn't it?

Rice finished higher up on the leaderboards in important categories during that stretch than Abreu has.

There's not just "average" to look at when adjusting for years but the ease at which well above average stats were posted during those years and it just seems like it was just easier to post big numbers in the NL in 2001 than the AL in 1978.

Oh, wait 'til Omar goes in with 3 ASGs and a .01 award-share.

The modern-day Rabbit Maranville.

B-Ref's sortable batting stats make it easy. Monte Irvin had just two in his half a career, but that comes with an asterisk of course. Jenkins and Yount had three, Don Sutton had four.

Well, Abreu was engaged to a former Miss Universe (who cheated on him on a Spanish reality TV show), and Damon got married to a pretty damn good looking woman who has not cheated on him (on a TV show, at least).

Lou Brock isn't that much better (109 to 105 OPS+) though I guess his prime argument is better (117 OPS+ from '64 to '74), Damon's best stretch is 109 from '99 to '09, those three below-average years really hurt).

Context - Brock didn't exactly play in an offense-happy era either.

But it never occurred to me to consider either a HOF, and it certainly never occurred to me that Damon had over 2,000 hits either!

Here's a vaguely related question that I've neither the memory nor the data-sorting skills to answer:

Has anybody won an MVP in a year in which they didn't make the ASG?

Furthermore, if that has happened (and I imagine it must), is there anybody with more MVPs than ASG appearances?

Has anybody won an MVP in a year in which they didn't make the ASG?

Furthermore, if that has happened (and I imagine it must), is there anybody with more MVPs than ASG appearances?

There have been plenty of the former (some mentioned above by andeux)

As for part 2: Kirk Gibson 1 MVP-0 ASGs.

Well, to be fair, Johnny Damon probably has a better HOF-case than Melky Cabrera and Nick Swisher (although they are both younger than him).

Well, Damon's career up to age 24 was actually pretty darn similar to Cabrera's career to date, in fact, if we look at WARP3, then Cabrera's at 7.7 already where as Damon after age 24 was 5.5 (not saying that Cabrera's the next HOFer, but guys who get full time jobs in there very early 20s have a obvious advantage in count stats )

Anyway

WARP3

Damon: 53.8
Abreu: 62.2

Damon's actually already above guys like Rice / Puckett / Brock, and from a count stats perspective he seems more likely to make it than Abreu. unfortunately for Bobby, his greatest value is tied up in a awesome walk rate and great gap power and solid average. but walks are basically igonored by the HOF votes, while average only matters if it's siginifcantly above .300 and people only look at HRs. none of these are favorable to his style.


From a voting prospective, Damon's more likely to make it espically if he crawls to 3000, while Bobby would need a lot more sabr oriented voters in to have a good chance.

Lou Brock isn't that much better (109 to 105 OPS+) though I guess his prime argument is better (117 OPS+ from '64 to '74), Damon's best stretch is 109 from '99 to '09, those three below-average years really hurt).

Lou Brock had 3000 hits, the all-time stolen base record until Rickey came along, and extremely good World Series performance. Those are the reasons he's in the HOF, not anything to do with OPS+. If a player's chief argument is that his career and peak OPS+ are similar to Brock's, that's a pretty good argument he's not a deserving HOF candidate.

I have to say, neither of these Octobers sound too bad, except I'm not sure what I'd watch the rest of the day if I were on the Barca.

That doesn't make any sense. Everybody knows there's only one October.

All but Parker enjoy Hall of Merit electee status, fwiw (in the "filling out slots we took away from terribly crony HOF selections" vein)

I was always a bit surprised with the lack of support for Parker. Thought he'd do better than Rice, anyway.

Lou Brock had 3000 hits, the all-time stolen base record until Rickey came along, and extremely good World Series performance. Those are the reasons he's in the HOF, not anything to do with OPS+. If a player's chief argument is that his career and peak OPS+ are similar to Brock's, that's a pretty good argument he's not a deserving HOF candidate.

Damon has a chance at 3,000 hits and 2,000 runs.

2,000 runs would be top 10 all time.

It would also probably be only the 3rd best of his "generation" -- AROD, Jeter. AROD's run-scoring has been completely un-noticed as far as I know -- I never noticed it until now. He's at 1683! He's already got more runs scored than Griffey or Sheffield (and Jeter). If he makes it through his entire contract, he should pass Rickey with room to spare. He should be top 20 after next year, with an outside shot of passing Ted Williams. He may be top 10 in 2 years.

Golly gee, there's a lot of run-scoring these days.

helps to have an endless string of 800+ OPS guys batting behind you. and driving your self in 500+ times.

Still, A-rod's base running is underrated. he runs very well for a gigantic hulk.

I love reading very many stat analysts. I've learned to appreciate many players of the present and past due to Bill James and his progeny.

I decided some time ago that expressing strong feelings about the horrible flawed HoF electoral process was almost as stupid as getting angry at the lazy, old-school "sportswriter" selections.

Lou Brock absolutely deserves to be in the HoF. Tony Perez, not so much (and he was great) but it's nice. Minoso not being there might bother me if I had any respect for those voting - which I don't. Etc.
However, the place is called the "Hall of Fame" and not "The Hall of Great Stats". The people who want things like OPS to DETERMINE what is important in baseball might as well cheer on high-performing companies in the financial pages, since they never seem to care, finally, about the game on the field and the stories the players and managers create for the fans.
In short, to anyone here or elsewhere who uses ONLY stats - most especially to run down a player: F--K YOU!!!

It's called the Hall of Fame because being placed there makes you famous, not the other way around.

I'm not saying it's exactly a shocker that AROD's scored a lot ... but I wouldn't have thought he'd be ahead of Jeter. In fact, AROD has scored more runs through age 33 than anyone in history (Foxx, Gehrig, Ott, Aaron).

And just to make it clear, he's only 612 behind Rickey. AROD could pass him around age 39-40. Of course even Aaron scored only 655 post-33 so maybe AROD's got a tougher road than I think.

Abreu is one of the most underrated players of all time as far as I'm concerned. Not that this is all that germane to the discussion, but he was the first Latin player to walk 100 times in a season (unless you count Edgar, who was born in NY). He's had 8 season of 100 walks. He's had two 30-30 seasons, and seven straight 20-20 (eight overall). Obviously he's got a way to go before being an HOF member, but there are many, many inferior players in the Hall.

If Abreu can squeeze out say... 2-3 more seasons approximating last year, right or wrong -- he'd be on my ballot.... but I'm easily dazzled by very good for a long time.

the place is called the "Hall of Fame" and not "The Hall of Great Stats". The people who want things like OPS to DETERMINE what is important in baseball might as well cheer on high-performing companies in the financial pages, since they never seem to care, finally, about the game on the field and the stories the players and managers create for the fans.

It's called the Hall of Fame because being placed there makes you famous, not the other way around.

Walt, we've had several threads on this. What you're saying is not always true for line-straddling candidates. Outsized personality one way or the other often shoves a Dean or an Allen either over or under the line, with the statistical rationalizations being just that---rationalizations for minds that were made up long ago, and with often but a cursory glance at the record book.

This isn't to say that statistics don't form the core basis for the selections, but until the great (or dreaded) day arrives when HoF selections are done by a computer, there are always going to be choices that are driven by an infinite number of intangible factors, some relevant and some not. And among those factors, pre-existing fame (as framed by personality) is sometimes going to be the deciding one.

ARod at age 35 will likely crack the top 10 in career runs scored. He only needs 206 in 2 years to do this.

1. R Henderson 2295
2. Ty Cobb ..... 2246
3. Barry Bonds 2227
4T Hank Aaron 2174
4T Babe Ruth . 2174
6. Pete Rose . 2165
7. Willie Mays. 2062
8. Cap Anson. 1996
9. Stan Musial 1949
10. Lou Gehrig 1888

but he was the first Latin player to walk 100 times in a season (unless you count Edgar, who was born in NY).

That's not true. Ozzie Guillen walked 112 times in the 1985-1990 season.

but he was the first Latin player to walk 100 times in a season (unless you count Edgar, who was born in NY).

Or Danny Tartabull, who was born in Puerto Rico, but spent a lot of his youth in the USA.

Damon has a chance at 3,000 hits and 2,000 runs.

2,000 runs would be top 10 all time.

Damon has been helped enormously by leading off for great hitting teams. Not only does he get the obvious benefit of hitting in front of great sluggers, but a lot of his teams have been top-to-bottom high OBP teams, so that the lineup often turned over an extra time. I'd bet he has one of the highest all-time plate appearances per game numbers for his career. He's also a very good on-base guy and an outstanding base runner and extremely durable, but the team context is a big part of the difference between his numbers and those of guys like Abreu (who also has usually hit lower in the lineup).

but he was the first Latin player to walk 100 times in a season (unless you count Edgar, who was born in NY).

Or Danny Tartabull, who was born in Puerto Rico, but spent a lot of his youth in the mainland USA.

Damon has a chance at 3,000 hits and 2,000 runs.

2,000 runs would be top 10 all time.

Damon has been helped enormously by leading off for great hitting teams. Not only does he get the obvious benefit of hitting in front of great sluggers, but a lot of his teams have been top-to-bottom high OBP teams, so that the lineup often turned over an extra time. I'd bet he has one of the highest all-time plate appearances per game numbers for his career. He's also a very good on-base guy and an outstanding base runner and extremely durable, but the team context is a big part of the difference between his numbers and those of guys like Abreu (who also has usually hit lower in the lineup).

Parker made his own bed and it was lined with coke and Ho Hos.

Jonathan Papelbon: never a single vote

I'm kind of shocked at this a bit-other closers have shown up on the MVP tally in recent years (Putz, Nathan, Fruit Bat of course, Lidge last year, Jose Valverde of all people), not all of them with just a smattering of low-end votes either. Yet Paps has a career ERA which is still lower than 2, tons of K's and saves...just weird that nobody ever dropped so much as a 10 spot on him.

just weird that nobody ever dropped so much as a 10 spot on him.

IMO, it's more weird that any of these guys actually got top ten MVP votes, rather than Papelbon not getting one.

Brock was famous, he had the single season and career SB records, he had 3000 hits, he was seen by the MSM and the casual fan as being a far better and effective player than he was.

"deserve" why does he deserve to be in, and a *better* player like Brett Butler is SOL? (I'm not saying Butler should be in), why does Brock "deserve" to be in?
Brock was a LF, he wasn't even a very good LF, despite his speed, Butler was a good defensive CF..

I know, it's not the Hall of OPS, but 32 non-HOF LFs (50%+ games ), have 6000+ PAs and a higher career OPS+ than Brock.

The majority of those 32 were better fielders than Brock.

Why does Brock "deserve" to be in, and not Minnie Minoso? Or Tim Raines, or Jose Cruz?
25 non-HOF Centerfielders (nearly all of whom had more defensive value than Brock) had 6000+ PAs and a higher career OPS+ than Brock, why is Brock deserving and not Lofton? Wynn? Cedeno? Pinson? Dom Dimaggio?

What does it mean that someone "deserves" to go in?

Can't use OPS+? Lou Brock is in BECAUSE of NUMBERS, he's in because of 118 and 3000- that's why he is in, that's why he was uber-famous while playing- no one really saw him as a HOFer until he posted that 118- that's a number, and it is not nearly as relevant as his OPS+

He's not in because he "deserved" to be in, he's in because he was wildly overrated, and he was wildy overrated because he was a one dimensional player who reached some arbitrary milestones.

In short, to anyone here or elsewhere who uses ONLY stats - most especially to run down a player: F--K YOU!!!

Commissar pinball says TO THE WALL WITH YOU, BASEMENT DWELLERS!

who reached some arbitrary milestones.

Not really. Had he not reached 3,000 hits but still had the all-time stolen base record, he still would have gone in. It wasn't an arbitrary milestone he reached, it was that his total was simply higher than anyone else who ever played the game, both for a single-season and a career (at least when he retired).

He was in primarily because he was perceived as doing one important (though overvalued) skill better than anyone who ever played the game. And I'm OK with that.

I've said before, I think the fact that with Brock, both the HoF and the HoM voters got it right.

#19, having brooded on this for some time put me down for "no". More teams should not equal more HOF selections. And I know this means some guys left out will be better than the guys who are already in.

I'm not a militant on this and I expect in practice I'll end up supporting a few extras.

Still my basic position comes down to top X rather than top Y%.

IMO, it's more weird that any of these guys actually got top ten MVP votes, rather than Papelbon not getting one.

Papelbon has always had multiple teammates who were clearly better players. Plus, his team finished in 3rd place in his rookie year where he had the sub-1.00 ERA. In 2007, the only one where his team won the division, Ortiz was 4th, Lowell was 5th, and Beckett had a great year, too. Putz had a better year, at least in terms of ERA and saves. It would be hard to vote for Papelbon ahead of his more talented teammates, or ahead of the better closer on a team that was surprisingly good that year. Then there were other obvious guys to put on the ballot, too.

JP:

That's a bit unfair. Brock was a great postseason performer. I think everyone here understands how that impacts the thinking of writers, public, etc.

Folks then may have been using the wrong criteria but Lou Brock was viewed as the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time when he retired. That's "deserving".*

But I didn't say fame doesn't play a part in HoF voting. I objected to the idiotic argument that "it's the Hall of Fame, it's meant for famous people."

And the conceptual difference between the HoM and the HoF isn't merit vs. "fame". It's that the HoM explicitly considers only on-field accomplishment while the HoF has the character clause and the impact on the game clause.

*I wouldn't vote for him because I don't consider "leadoff hitter" to be a position and that lineup spot doesn't matter an awful lot (it has marginal impact).

Tell me when this gets ridiculous:

Tony Solaita was born in American Samoa, but spent a lot of his youth in the USA.

Or Danny Tartabull, who was born in Puerto Rico, but spent a lot of his youth in the USA.

Charlie Hough was born in Hawaii but spent a lot of his youth in the USA.

Maury Wills was born in DC, but spent a lot of his youth in the USA.

That's a bit unfair. Brock was a great postseason performer. I think everyone here understands how that impacts the thinking of writers, public, etc.

So was Bert Blyleven, hasn't helped him.

Folks then may have been using the wrong criteria but Lou Brock was viewed as the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time when he retired. That's "deserving".*

But he wasn't not even when he retired, not by along shot.

Earl Webb had 67 doubles one year, that is at least as important as Brock's 118 (I know, it is not perceived as such, but that's my point).

Putting Brock in for having the career SB record when he retired is like putting Jesse Orosco in.
Putting Brock in for having the single season SB record when he retired is like putting Mike Marshall in.

Plus, what really annoys me, was Brock's reaction to Henderson breaking his career Sb record (I didn't see his reaction to when Henderson broke the single season mark), he was clearly annoyed (at Henderson), and said something to the effect of, well big deal, I had 3000 hits, come back and talk to me when he gets 3000 hits- as a Henderson fan, that elevated Brock in my mind from someone who was merely overrated to a near Garvey...

I know, it's not the Hall of OPS, but 32 non-HOF LFs (50%+ games ), have 6000+ PAs and a higher career OPS+ than Brock

what is so special about 6000 plate appearances? I can't think of one player with 6000 plate appearances that I would consider for the hof, heck Pujols just recently passed 6000 and I'm not sure he has had a long enough career to really qualify(ok he has and we are talking about a massive high end guy in that case)

I have no problem with saying Brock doesn't go in, but this 6000 plate appearances should never be used as a qualifier for borderline players, when you are talking 110 or so ops+ you need to have an actual career of note.

Putting Brock in for having the career SB record when he retired is like putting Jesse Orosco in.
Putting Brock in for having the single season SB record when he retired is like putting Mike Marshall in.

not even comparable, saves are still relatively new stat, stolen bases has been a big part of the game for 100+ years. I agree that it's over valued, but comparing saves as a stat to steals is an intentional misleading point.

Plus, what really annoys me, was Brock's reaction to Henderson breaking his career Sb record (I didn't see his reaction to when Henderson broke the single season mark), he was clearly annoyed (at Henderson), and said something to the effect of, well big deal, I had 3000 hits, come back and talk to me when he gets 3000 hits- as a Henderson fan, that elevated Brock in my mind from someone who was merely overrated to a near Garvey...

You mean the fact that Brock showed up for the game to watch him break the record and shake his hand at the time, to have Henderson go "today I'm the greatest of all time...." and somehow Brock is the bad guy in this scenario?

not even comparable, saves are still relatively new stat, stolen bases has been a big part of the game for 100+ years. I agree that it's over valued, but comparing saves as a stat to steals is an intentional misleading point.

1: No it wouldn't be misleading even if I was talking about the saves record.

2: Orosoco has the career games pitched record, and Marshall the single season mark.
BOTH records are IMHO as valuable as Brock's SB records- that was my point.

The media acted like it was Ruth's HR record going down, I mean oh come on. For those who don't remember it, the hype around Brock taking down Cobb's career SB record was absurd, the media acted as if it was the second most important record ever (after Aaron taking down Ruth)- ignoring the fact that Rose was starting to become a serious threat to a FAR more important record held by Cobb. The unstated (actually stated by some) assumption was that an "important" career record was, well something only an inner circle HOFer would/could hold. Now even Brock fanboys could see he wasn't inner circle, but at the same time he sailed in 1st ballot.

You mean the fact that Brock showed up for the game to watch him break the record and shake his hand at the time, to have Henderson go "today I'm the greatest of all time...." and somehow Brock is the bad guy in this scenario?

I just saw Brock's interview, if RH really did go, "I am the greatest" in Brock's face* before Brock was interviewed, ok then I could see Brock's attitude.

*Unfortunately yes I could see RH doing that, or more exactly I could see him saying, "Ricky is the Greatest"

2: Orosoco has the career games pitched record, and Marshall the single season mark.
BOTH records are IMHO as valuable as Brock's SB records- that was my point.

The media acted like it was Ruth's HR record going down, I mean oh come on. For those who don't remember it, the hype around Brock taking down Cobb's career SB record was absurd, the media acted as if it was the second most important record ever (after Aaron taking down Ruth)- ignoring the fact that Rose was starting to become a serious threat to a FAR more important record held by Cobb. The unstated (actually stated by some) assumption was that an "important" career record was, well something only an inner circle HOFer would/could hold. Now even Brock fanboys could see he wasn't inner circle, but at the same time he sailed in 1st ballot.

I think you may be missing Walt's point, though. Walt's argument, I think (if not, this would be MY argument), is that the Hall of Fame voters who voted for Lou Brock did so because they thought he was that good a player. If you were to ask a BBWAA voter who voted for Brock way back when and didn't vote for Raines more recently (if any such voters exist), they would say that they did so because they believed (and probably still believe) that Lou Brock was a better baseball player than Tim Raines. Not that he held two significant records or achieved an arbitrary base-10 milestone. They would view those things as indicators of how and why Brock was a better player.

Now, said voters would be wrong, no doubt. But they elected Brock and not Raines, not because they were evaluating "Fame" instead of "Merit" but because they were judging "Merit" based on different (inferior*) criteria.

* - the one exception is that I think too many sabermetric-inclined fans are too dismissive of postseason performance, which is a very large feather in Lou Brock's cap. Because of this, I think he's probably under-rated a bit over at the Hall of Merit, although probably not enough so that he should actually be elected there.

what is so special about 6000 plate appearances?

fair enough.

46 non-HOf OFs have 7500+ PAs and an OPS+ of 120 or more (Brocks was 109)
14 non-HOF OFs have 9000+ PAs and an OPS+ of 120 or more
10 non-HOF OFs have 10,000+ PAs and an OPS+ of 110 or more

BUT HE WAS FAMOUS!!!!!
So was Keith Hernandez

54 non-HOF players have 8000+ PAs and an OPS+ of 120 or more
and BROCK was not an SS or C, he wasn't a gold glove CF, he was an LF, at best an average LF.

Why do I not think Brock is a "deserving" HOFer?
There are too many players more "deserving" of being enshrined, who are not in, and will never get in, on talent he's not even borderline.
He's in because he owned the equivalent of a freak show stat, period.

Walt's argument, I think (if not, this would be MY argument), is that the Hall of Fame voters who voted for Lou Brock did so because they thought he was that good a player.

Yes they did, and they were wrong.

If you were to ask a BBWAA voter who voted for Brock... they would tell that they did so because they believed (and probably still believe) that Lou Brock was a better baseball player ... Not that he held two significant records or achieved an arbitrary base-10 milestone.

Holding those records was a major reason for that belief.

Before 1974, when he stole 118, he was not seen as a superduperstar (not outside of STL anyway)
He was seen as a very good player, he got more MVP votes than merited- that record changed perceptions, then came the career mark and his Biggio style death march to 3000 (ok, he was half decent his last year, but was pretty bad for 2 years before that).

3 post seasons 92 PAs
Blyleven pitched 47 post season innings, 5-1 2.47, I don't see ANY mainstream HOF voter giving him credit for that.

Career postseason OPS leaders:

I know, it's not the Hall of OPS, but 32 non-HOF LFs (50%+ games ), have 6000+ PAs and a higher career OPS+ than Brock.

[snip]

25 non-HOF Centerfielders (nearly all of whom had more defensive value than Brock) had 6000+ PAs and a higher career OPS+ than Brock

When I read this, I started to wonder if Brock had some kind of short career.

Lou Brock had 11,235 PA

You want to compare him to someone, compare him to someone with a real career. 6,000 PA is barely 10 years.

Or better yet, found your own Hall of SUPER-VORPY-GOODNESS.

Brock tore it up in 2 WS and was good in a third, leading to 2 rings. He broke stolen base records and batted out 3,000 hits. Those are the kind of things that get you in the Hall of Fame, and always have.

If that disqualifies him from your Hall of SUPER-VORPY-GOODNESS, I think he can live with it.

Why do I not think Brock is a "deserving" HOFer?

Because you don't have a good understanding of the HOF?

Because you harbor a grudge against Brock?

Because, although you claim to be so aware of the history, you apparently weren't even aware of Ricky's "I am the Greatest" homage to Ali on the day he broke the record?

3 post seasons 92 PAs

Not "post seasons". World Series. It was done a little differently back then.

46 non-HOf OFs have 7500+ PAs and an OPS+ of 120 or more (Brocks was 109)
14 non-HOF OFs have 9000+ PAs and an OPS+ of 120 or more
10 non-HOF OFs have 10,000+ PAs and an OPS+ of 110 or more

that last line is the one you should be paying most attention too, Brock is one of the weakest hof selections of all time(not Jim Rice weak, but definately in the bottom 1/5th of hofers) he's a career choice, he gets props for his other skills(baserunning and post season heroics) and contrary to your opinion, he was seen as better than just a good player as shown by his decent mvp votes which you for some reason used as evidence that he wasn't seen as a star.

the stolen base record happened because the commissioners office request Lou Brock to try for it to bring excitement back to the game, and the commissioner wanted it to be a name player that is already revered in baseball instead of one of the up and coming youngsters. This isn't a guy who is only famous in St Louis.

again, I agree that he is a weak pick and agree with the hall of merits decision not to include him.