Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Al Rosen

Al Rosen

Eligible in 1962.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:26 PM | 32 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:30 PM (#1661289)
One of the great "what ifs" in baseball history.
   2. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:34 PM (#1661304)
So does anyone know if there's a case for any war or MLE credit for Rosen?
   3. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1661552)
I don't think he gets war credit Doc.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Rosen didn't play too much and wasn't terribly good during his early years. If he was to get war credit he woudl have to have somehow proven to us that he was an MLB caliber player prior to 1946. He started his career in 1947 I believe and was only a bit plaeyr for a few years.
   4. DavidFoss Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:46 PM (#1661574)
I believe and was only a bit plaeyr for a few years.

baseballlibary says that he was blocked behind Keltner for a few years, partly due to his poor glove.
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1661838)
Since Rosen didn't really make it in the bigs right away, I can't see a case for WWII credit. If anything he would have to be more of an Earl Averill and get MiL credit rather than ML XC.

He was a moneyball monster for a few years, but for a peak voter like me he is still below the top 30. He was no Ralph Kiner.
   6. Al Peterson Posted: October 04, 2005 at 05:45 PM (#1661901)
Rosen in 1947 was playing ball in the Texas League. Here is the info from the Texas League website:

Rosen, third baseman for the Oklahoma City Indians in 1947, had one of the finest individual seasons in league history. In his one season in the League, Rosen led in batting (.349), hits (1860, doubles (47), extra-base hits (83), RBI’s (141), total bases (330), slugging percentage (.619) and on-base percentage (.437). Among the outstanding single games during the year were a four double performance on April 16 and an eight RBI game on June 29. Rosen was elected as the player of the year following the 1947 season.
   7. Mark Donelson Posted: October 04, 2005 at 05:59 PM (#1661925)
I'll admit he's kind of the Dizzy Dean of hitters, but he has a lot less competition at 3B, still a very underrepresented position. This peak voter, at least, is very tempted.
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 07:18 PM (#1662190)
And there appears to be as much, if not more, reason for some MiL MLE XC as/than for the Earl of Dukes.
   9. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: October 04, 2005 at 08:05 PM (#1662298)
what was his 1946 adn 1948 like? I tend to only give credit to players after their first good year. However, 1947 does look like a monster.
   10. ronw Posted: October 04, 2005 at 08:24 PM (#1662375)
Seems similar hitting-wise to a Bill Joyce, but Rosen's "B" Win Shares fielding grade more than trumps Joyce's "F".
   11. TomH Posted: October 05, 2005 at 02:47 PM (#1663924)
Al Rosen - a great player for a while, but he looks like he has less of a case than Hughie Jennings.

He scored a grand total of 603 runs in his major league career. Not during the deadball era, either. Not because he was the wrong skin color. Because he only played long enough and well enough to score 603 runs.

His 1953 is a super, super season. But he's not gonna make my ballot.
   12. Mark Donelson Posted: October 05, 2005 at 03:57 PM (#1664113)
I agree that he has less of a case than Hughie, but since Hughie had been among my very top candidates on the ballot since I began voting, that's not a negative for me. And to an extreme peak voter like me, the lack of any career stats at all aren't a problem; four or five peak years are enough (see Dobie Moore, who, yes, is also better than Rosen), and he has that.

The key question for me is how much of a positional advantage I give Rosen for playing 3B, a position that's still underrepresented, and doing so passably, if you believe WS (or BP, which seems to say he was average overall). The answer will decide whether he's on my ballot or just off.
   13. Paul Wendt Posted: October 06, 2005 at 11:54 PM (#1667877)
there appears to be as much, if not more, reason for some MiL MLE XC as/than for the Earl of Dukes.

Ignoring evidence from the minor careers (still missing for Rosen 1948-1949), and ignoring Rosen's 1947-1949 tidbits in the majors, the cases are similar.

Averill steps in at age 26.11 and plays full time at his 10-year average: OPS+ 135 compared to 136; range factor also at his average margin above league average.

Rosen "steps in" (see below) at age 26.2 and plays full time not far below his 5-year average: OPS+ 144 compared to 151; range factor at league average, his personal norm.

Rosen's simple fielding record (bb-ref.com) is uneven with 1953 far outstanding on the good side.

There is a big qualitative difference in that Rosen didn't quite step in, for he played a few games for Cleveland 1947-1948 and a couple dozen in 1949. When he was in the minors, he wasn't there because his minor club chose to keep him but because major Cleveland, evidently in control, didn't choose to take him
--and in 1949, with Keltner a half-time player, didn't think he could do the job?
   14. OCF Posted: October 08, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1670948)
In my offensive system, Rosen's 1953 is a year at a level that mere mortals shouldn't reach. I mean, Mel Ott never had a year that good. On the other hand, Joe Torre did have a (hitting) year that was that good, and Torre played twice as many games as Rosen. Torre's eligibility is far in the future, and he may be a viable candidate - but hardly a slam dunk. And George Stone had an offensive year that was even better. I've never voted for George Stone. The problem is that Rosen has ~1000 games played, and if you're going to vote for a candidate with ~1000 games, why not John McGraw? (And I haven't been voting for McGraw.)

In the NBJHBA chapter on the 1940, Bill James refers to the minor leagues as "20% free, 80% slaves to the majors." This is en route from the 30%/70% he reports for the 1930's to the 5%/95% for the 1950's. It does appears in Rosen's case that the general talent-funneling structures were in place to bring him to the majors. That his team failed to play him, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, is not something I'm inclined to correct for. I'm not going to give Edgar Martinez any extra credit on the front end of his career just because the Mariners should have put him in the lineup a couple of years before they did. Talent evaluation, team behavior - it all falls under the heading of the breaks of the game.

And of course the primary reason Rosen's career is that short is that he just stopped hitting at about the age of 31 or 32.
   15. Mark Donelson Posted: October 10, 2005 at 05:40 AM (#1673846)
if you're going to vote for a candidate with ~1000 games, why not John McGraw?

Because McGraw didn't have quite the peak Rosen had, unless you make really massive adjustments (some are necessary, of course--just not that much, IMO).
   16. Paul Wendt Posted: October 10, 2005 at 03:14 PM (#1674131)
That his team failed to play him, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, is not something I'm inclined to correct for. . . . it all falls under the heading of the breaks of the game.

OCF's is one of many reasonable positions on "giving credit" for play --or even time spent-- outside the majors. Under what conditions?

That issue was secondary for me, meaning to focus on the quality of play --or even skill-- outside the majors.

For proper emphasis, my own first (unrevised) and last paragraphs should read something like this:

Ignoring evidence from the minor careers (still missing for Rosen 1948-1949), and ignoring Rosen's 1947-1949 tidbits in the majors, the cases are similar.
. . .
But Rosen's 1947-1949 tidbits in the majors, especially the 25 games in 1949, provide some counterevidence that doesn't exist for Averill. For what 25 games is worth, Rosen's 1949 mlb record indicates that he wasn't yet mature as a player.

The difference between Rosen's 144 rookie OPS+ and 153 OPS+ in his subsequent (only four) seasons as a regular provides a little more counterevidence.
   17. Paul Wendt Posted: October 10, 2005 at 03:16 PM (#1674143)
That his team failed to play him, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, is not something I'm inclined to correct for. . . . it all falls under the heading of the breaks of the game.

OCF's is one of many reasonable positions on "giving credit" for play --or even time spent-- outside the majors. Under what conditions?

That issue was secondary for me, meaning to focus on the quality of play --or even skill-- outside the majors.

For proper emphasis, my own first (unrevised) and last paragraphs should read something like this:

Ignoring evidence from the minor careers (still missing for Rosen 1948-1949), and ignoring Rosen's 1947-1949 tidbits in the majors, the cases are similar.
. . .
But Rosen's 1947-1949 tidbits in the majors, especially the 25 games in 1949, provide some counterevidence that doesn't exist for Averill. For what 25 games is worth, Rosen's 1949 mlb record indicates that he wasn't yet mature as a player.

The difference between Rosen's 144 rookie OPS+ and 153 OPS+ in his subsequent (only four) seasons as a regular provides a little more counterevidence.
   18. Paul Wendt Posted: October 10, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1674170)
Sorry about the duplication. Using the new interface for the first time just now, the response to "Submit your comment" was nothing but a wait and a "done" in the message bar without the familiar reload of the page.

If Feller, Rosen, Doby, and Lemon all go in, the Indians have 11 HOMers with an early win on the way.
   19. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1674625)
Because McGraw didn't have quite the peak Rosen had, unless you make really massive adjustments (some are necessary, of course--just not that much, IMO).

McGraw just doesn't get any respect! Only adjusting for length of schedule:

TEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSTEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSAdvantage
McGraw18991040.8665393BRosen1953730.8016883BMcGraw
McGraw1898730.7766523BRosen1952510.7466493BMcGraw
McGraw1900640.8134473BRosen1950300.6576683BMcGraw
McGraw1893530.655597SSRosen1954270.7075663BMcGraw
McGraw1901520.833083BRosen1951160.6246613BMcGraw
McGraw1895500.7094593BRosen195580.5145963BMcGraw
McGraw1897460.7065073BRosen195660.5134813BMcGraw
McGraw1894460.6516303BRosen1947-1093BMcGraw
McGraw190290.636222SS/3BRosen1948-1053BMcGraw
McGraw189680.66903BRosen1949-40.175513BMcGraw
McGraw189150.526131SSMcGraw
McGraw189220.5353242BMcGraw
McGraw190300.578142BMcGraw
McGraw190400.63116SSMcGraw
   20. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 06:41 PM (#1674628)
That formatted beautifully in the preview window - not sure what happened?

TEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSTEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSAdvantage
McGraw18991040.8665393BRosen1953730.8016883BMcGraw
McGraw1898730.7766523BRosen1952510.7466493BMcGraw
McGraw1900640.8134473BRosen1950300.6576683BMcGraw
McGraw1893530.655597SSRosen1954270.7075663BMcGraw
McGraw1901520.833083BRosen1951160.6246613BMcGraw
McGraw1895500.7094593BRosen195580.5145963BMcGraw
McGraw1897460.7065073BRosen195660.5134813BMcGraw
McGraw1894460.6516303BRosen1947-1093BMcGraw
McGraw190290.636222SS/3BRosen1948-1053BMcGraw
McGraw189680.66903BRosen1949-40.175513BMcGraw
McGraw189150.526131SSMcGraw
McGraw189220.5353242BMcGraw
McGraw190300.578142BMcGraw
McGraw190400.63116SSMcGraw
   21. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 06:45 PM (#1674649)
TEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSTEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSAdvantage
McGraw18991040.8665393BRosen1953730.8016883BMcGraw
McGraw1898730.7766523BRosen1952510.7466493BMcGraw
McGraw1900640.8134473BRosen1950300.6576683BMcGraw
McGraw1893530.655597SSRosen1954270.7075663BMcGraw
McGraw1901520.833083BRosen1951160.6246613BMcGraw
McGraw1895500.7094593BRosen195580.5145963BMcGraw
McGraw1897460.7065073BRosen195660.5134813BMcGraw
McGraw1894460.6516303BRosen1947-1093BMcGraw
McGraw190290.636222SS/3BRosen1948-1053BMcGraw
McGraw189680.66903BRosen1949-40.175513BMcGraw
McGraw189150.526131SSMcGraw
McGraw189220.5353242BMcGraw
McGraw190300.578142BMcGraw
McGraw190400.63116SSMcGraw
   22. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 06:47 PM (#1674653)
TEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSTEAMYEARRCAPOWPPAPOSAdvantage
McGraw18991040.8665393BRosen1953730.8016883BMcGraw
McGraw1898730.7766523BRosen1952510.7466493BMcGraw
McGraw1900640.8134473BRosen1950300.6576683BMcGraw
McGraw1893530.655597SSRosen1954270.7075663BMcGraw
McGraw1901520.833083BRosen1951160.6246613BMcGraw
McGraw1895500.7094593BRosen195580.5145963BMcGraw
McGraw1897460.7065073BRosen195660.5134813BMcGraw
McGraw1894460.6516303BRosen1947-1093BMcGraw
McGraw190290.636222SS/3BRosen1948-1053BMcGraw
McGraw189680.66903BRosen1949-40.175513BMcGraw
McGraw189150.526131SSMcGraw
McGraw189220.5353242BMcGraw
McGraw190300.578142BMcGraw
McGraw190400.63116SSMcGraw
   23. OCF Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:25 PM (#1675141)
I'll give the formatting a shot. It will probably stretch the page width a little, and I'm not sure what the deal is for Rosen 1947/48.

TEAM   YEAR RCAP OWP   PA POS TEAM  YEAR RCAP OWP   PA  POS Advantage
McGraw 1899 104 0.866 539 3B  Rosen 1953  73  0.801 688 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1898  73 0.776 652 3B  Rosen 1952  51  0.746 649 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1900  64 0.813 447 3B  Rosen 1950  30  0.657 668 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1893  53 0.655 597 SS  Rosen 1954  27  0.707 566 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1901  52 0.830 308 3B  Rosen 1951  16  0.624 661 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1895  50 0.709 459 3B  Rosen 1955   8  0.514 596 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1897  46 0.706 507 3B  Rosen 1956   6  0.513 481 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1894  46 0.651 630 3B  Rosen 1947  -1   ?      ? 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1902   9 0.636 222 S/3 Rosen 1948  -1   ?      ? 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1896   8 0.660  90 3B  Rosen 1949  -4  0.175  51 3B  McGraw
McGraw 1891   5 0.526 131 SS                                McGraw
McGraw 1892   2 0.535 324 2B                                McGraw
McGraw 1903   0 0.578  14 2B                                McGraw
McGraw 1904   0 0.631  16 SS                                McGraw

Comments: This is in runs. A run during McGraw's career (mostly very high scoring times) was worth a little less than a run during Rosen's career. Putting it in RCAP is giving McGraw a larger bonus for just being a third basemen than it's giving to Rosen - you can argue about the justification of that. But KJOK has a point. I don't have my own numbers in front of me, but I think they do give the advantage to McGraw.
   24. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1675166)
THANKS - Not sure what you did to get it to work?

This is in runs. A run during McGraw's career (mostly very high scoring times) was worth a little less than a run during Rosen's career.<.i>

Yes, converting to runs will make McGraw's advantage around 2 1/2 WINS per peak season.

<i>it in RCAP is giving McGraw a larger bonus for just being a third basemen than it's giving to Rosen - you can argue about the justification of that.


Using RCAP adjusts for the fact McGraw played quite a bit of SS.
   25. KJOK Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:37 PM (#1675174)
THANKS - Not sure what you did to get it to work?

This is in runs. A run during McGraw's career (mostly very high scoring times) was worth a little less than a run during Rosen's career.<.i>

Yes, converting to runs will make McGraw's advantage around 2 1/2 WINS per peak season.

<i>it in RCAP is giving McGraw a larger bonus for just being a third basemen than it's giving to Rosen - you can argue about the justification of that.


Using RCAP adjusts for the fact McGraw played quite a bit of SS.
   26. OCF Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:43 PM (#1675191)
KJOK -

In putting things between "pre" and "/pre" tags, you can't use any tabs. All formatting must be done with spaces. I did the following: I copied one your posts into a text editing program, and switched the format to "make plain text", which put it all in a monospaced font. Then I inserted spaces where I thought spaces probably belonged (as you can see, there were a couple of Rosen years that I didn't figure out); enough spaces for everything to line up.
   27. Mark Donelson Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1675193)
I can't see any of these posts with the numbers.
   28. Mark Donelson Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1675199)
I also can't post more than a one-line entry--the submit box vanishes.
   29. Mark Donelson Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:47 PM (#1675203)
I also can't post more than a one-line entry--the submit box vanishes.
   30. Mark Donelson Posted: October 10, 2005 at 09:49 PM (#1675208)
So I'll be brief: I use schedule-adj WS, which prefer Rosen's peak.
   31. Paul Wendt Posted: February 09, 2008 at 07:29 PM (#2687251)
There is no mention of a finger injury here.
Overnight I read notice somewhere that Rosen broke a finger and his swing was never the same. Most likely that was somewhere at baseball fever but I didn't make a note.
   32. DanG Posted: February 09, 2008 at 09:13 PM (#2687307)
Rosen's minor league record is stellar. It was his great misfortune to be trapped in the loaded Cleveland system during a time of major league contraction. I can certainly see giving him credit for 1948 and 1949, his age 24-25 seasons.

1942 age 18 / with Thomasville in the North Carolina State Lg / 86 g, 323 ab, 55 r, 99 h, 12-3-7 d-t-hr, 49 rbi, 24 sb, .307 ba

1943-45 age 19-21 / in US Army

1946 age 22 / with Pittsfield in the Canadian-American Lg / 107 g, 375 ab, 94 r, 121 h, 21-19*-15* d-t-hr, 86* rbi, 30 sb, .323 ba

1947 age 23 / with Oklahoma City in the Texas Lg / 146 g, 533 ab, 115 r, 186* h, 47*-11-25 d-t-hr, 141* rbi, 17 sb, .349* ba

1948 age 24 / with Kansas City in the American Assoc. / 127 g, 462 ab, 102 r, 151 h, 29-8-25 d-t-hr, 110 rbi, 10 sb, .327 ba

1949 age 25 / with San Diego in the Pacific Coast Lg / 83 g, 273, 49 r, 87 h, 12-1-14 d-t-hr, 51 rbi, 5 sb, .319 ba

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(106 - 12:02pm, Dec 21)
Last: Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant

Herman Long
(10 - 7:54pm, Dec 20)
Last: The District Attorney

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(10 - 4:34pm, Dec 19)
Last: DL from MN

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(93 - 1:16pm, Dec 19)
Last: DL from MN

Most Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Ben Taylor
(81 - 11:04am, Dec 15)
Last: DL from MN

New Eligibles Year by Year
(962 - 10:09am, Dec 15)
Last: Chris Fluit

Cristóbal Torriente
(82 - 11:34pm, Dec 14)
Last: Brent

Brian Giles
(59 - 4:08pm, Dec 14)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(38 - 12:16pm, Dec 13)
Last: lieiam

Larry Doby
(95 - 10:00pm, Dec 12)
Last: Howie Menckel

Pedro Martinez
(159 - 6:44am, Dec 11)
Last: bjhanke

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(25 - 2:12pm, Dec 09)
Last: DL from MN

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Results
(7 - 9:24pm, Dec 05)
Last: Chris Fluit

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(29 - 4:20pm, Dec 05)
Last: DL from MN

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3166 seconds
63 querie(s) executed