One of the big knocks against Brock was that he didn’t walk very much. This really hurt his on-base percentage and makes his career .293 batting average fairly soft. Over his career, he averaged 14.76 plate appearances for every walk. Of the 34 Hall of Famers who had at least 2000 plate appearances from 1960-1979, only a handful walked less frequently than Brock. For the record, those were Ernie Banks (14.77), Luis Aparicio (15.51), Nellie Fox (16.11), Bill Mazeroski (18.36), Robin Yount (19.10), and Andre Dawson (20.85), and these numbers are all limited to the portions of careers in just the period 1960-1979. Most of those guys, however, also struck out a lot less often than Brock, who had a 2.27 K/BB ratio in his career. Banks (1.84), Aparicio (0.97), Fox (0.35), Mazeroski (1.46), and Yount (1.96) had more balanced attacks, while Dawson (3.64) was just getting going with his own (HOF-questionable) career.
Brock also took over the lead in career caught stealings in 1974 and kept that lead until 1999, when Rickey Henderson passed Brock, 8 years after he passed him in stolen bases. In fact, looking at the top 10 guys in all-time stolen bases, Brock has the worst success rate of all (ignoring Hamilton and Arlie Latham, for whom caught stealing data doesn’t exist.) Brock’s rate was 75.3%. By comparison, Henderson was at 80.8%, Ty Cobb at 80.9%, and Tim Raines at 84.7%.
For his career, Brock ranks 35th in games played and 19th in at bats, but only 45th in runs scored, 63rd in total bases, 67th in doubles, 63rd in triples, and 58th in times on base, while 21st in strikeouts and 17th in outs made.
So what’s all the fuss? Brock was a really good player, but should he really be in the Hall of Fame?
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. depletion Posted: February 03, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4053102)He played in the 60's, and in a big park in the 70's. Some context is needed.
It is clear that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Value, but he's in the top half of the Hall of Narrative.
That's got to count for something.
Different eras have to be considered - in a lower run environment you don't need as high a success rate. Bat the figure on Cobb is flat out wrong. In the years where SB and CS were both recorded, Cobb was a 65% basestealer.
Yes, he should, and yes, he is. Next?
When he retired, during my junior year of High School, he was second. Yikes, I'm old.
Amazing what 525/525 will do for your %age
Erp.
The people who think 3000 hits is an end to the discussion, that is a dumb position to take. Baseball games are not always won by the team that collects the most hits. We have better measures of offensive performance. And Lou Brock was an awful outfielder. People who didn't watch him play might just assume he must have been good, because he was a speedy man playing a position normally manned by sluggers. He was no Carl Crawford (Rays edition). I'll have to dig up Bill James' comments on his fielding if I can find them.
So in asserting that he's a deserving hall of famer you're saying that 3 years of .270/.312/.343 (OPS+ of 79) by a bad defensive left fielder is the difference between HOGPFALT and HOF. And that strikes me as nuts. Scott Podsednik is a fair amount better than the Lou Brock of 1977 to 1979.
Because he was viewed in the light of "leadoff hitter" more than anything. For the most part, Rickey and Raines are viewed the same way.
Given the way the voters have generally treated 2B, 3B and non-amazing CF, it seems reasonably clear they don't worry much about position (with the exception of C and SS). Given the way they treat excellent all-around players with mediocre BA/HR/RBI, they don't seems to evaluate a player's entire game. They do seem to divide guys up into three buckets -- run producer, run creator and defensive whiz (mainly SS). Tony Perez (RBI!!) was a run producer; Lou Brock (3,000 hits!! SB record!!) was a run creator -- widely viewed then as the best-ever or at least in the liveball era).
I don't think Brock belongs but he got in comfortably on the first ballot so there's not much point pushing that one until we "win" some other arguments first.
No, I have no idea what we "win", they ain't yanking anybody out of the HoF except maybe for murder or something like that. I guess we "win" if Damon makes it to 3000 hits but doesn't get elected.
Isn't this pretty much the case for a whole lot of players in the HOF for career stats rather than peak? Translated, what these statements seem to mean (and we've seen a lot of them on BBTF lately) is that being a HOFer is all about peak (or some non-specific stretch of a player's career), and that if you don't hit career milestones within your peak, you're not a HOFer. At its logical conclusion, it's a peak-good career-bad argument.
Which may not be a bad thing. I prefer peak to career myself. And Brock is a bad example because his entire case is about hitting a few round numbers. But I suspect a whole lot of career candidates would suffer if we chopped off their last two or three of four years. In which case what we really have is a Hall of Peak.
Which like I said, might not be a bad thing.
Agreed.
Bad, and it was known at the time, probably because of all the errors.
He was a weird player, because he had a real primary skill (BA) and a real tertiary skill (SB), and that's it. He's the anti-Bobby Grich or anti-Alan Trammell.
And yeah, he was a pretty bad fielder, although he was no Skates Smith.
Edited to correct a spelling error.
I count twelve 3,000 hit players who retired before Brock. He passed only two of them (Clemente and Kaline). Rose was still active but well past 3,000 and well ahead of Brock. Yastrzekski got his 3,000th late in 1979, and passed Brock early the following season. So it looks like he would have been the fourteenth man to reach 3,000 hits and twelfth on the all-time list when he retired.
Was his batting average even really all that special? He never finished higher than 6th in the league in batting average (1964) and was top 10 only 5 times. And just in terms of raw number, his career high was .315. His 3,000 hits are at least as much due to not walking, being a leadoff hitter, and staying healthy for a long time.
That said, I think I've argued both sides of the Lou Brock case on this site, but today I tend to agree with SoSH in #14. I'm okay with Brock getting extra credit for his SB records and World Series performance.
Ding, ding, we have a winner!
"Brock was...well, not as bad in left as Lonnie Smith, but never very good. He came up with the Cubs, who tried to make him a center fielder. This led them to conclude that he would never be much of a player. The Cardinals had the great Curt Flood in center, and this enabled Brock to slip into his natural role."
I agree with LotS! That's a sentence I don't get to write often.
I also cosign the HoF/HoM comments.
"I'm not sure it applies quite as definitively to any other player, but I firmly believe both the Hall of Fame and Hall of Merit got it right on Brock."
HOMer voter in every election here, also endorses this position.
Brock was one of the most memorable and FAMOUS players of the era.
He was exciting, he was great in the WS, and he seemed better than he was.
Dude is never getting into the Hall of MERIT, fear not (though there are 20+ HOFers worse than him by numbers).
Brock was especially bad on fielding ground balls; not the worst thing for outfielders perhaps but something that can lead to the hitter ending up on second base.
Cardinals knew who was better when it came time for salaries:
1965: Lou 30, Curt 35
1967: Lou 40, Curt 50
1968: Lou 70, Curt 72
1969: Lou 90, Curt 90
Win Shares favors Brock enough to stake a claim for him on both sides of the HoF/HoM argument, but it wouldn't be much fun to have them agree on something like this, now, would it?
I think this is one of those unfortunate examples of a topic that was covered in excruciating detail far too recently to get reposted, but (as we all know) Repoz is often a perverse fellow.
I don't see guys like Brock or Dizzy Dean in the same column as guys like Rice or Sutter or Catfish. My objection line would fall right next to Kirby Puckett, although I'm not sure in which direction.
After Brock's 1978 season (46 OPS+), it was his much stronger 1979 performance (.304 batting average in 120 games, 11 points higher than his lifetime BA) which guaranteed his immediate HOF enshrinement. I suspect having a very nice closing season will help Mike Mussina's chances, too.
That Doc would get my vote.
Doc was one and done with 17 votes (3.3%). I think he'd have done a lot better if his precipitous decline had been the result of glaucoma or arthritis or a line drive to the knee instead of generally being attributed 100% to cocaine. But I don't think a couple more WS wins would have pushed him over the top.
Brock and Tenace (1972) may have had the two greatest World Series ever as far as clutch performances. I can't believe you could find a better one than Tenace. Jackson out...no other player had more than one RBI... He had four HR and nine RBI
That said, cocaine is one hell of a drug.
I don't either. I was trying to say that I believe the BBWAA thought it did. They're not, as a group, the sort of folks who are inclined to concern themselves with too much workload on a young arm.
There are some Mets fans who would call it 1% coke, 1% workload, and 98% Mel Stottlemyre.
As with Rice or eventually Morris or whoever, I can't get too outraged that somebody is in the Hall of Fame; when I'm in Cooperstown I'll look at their plaque with admiration. But it is probably worth pointing out over and over that certain players in the Hall are a lot weaker or stronger than the others, especially lest we let the epithet "Hall of Famer so-and-so" become a substitute for thinking. Brock was a fine ballplayer, but so were Vada Pinson and Tony Oliva and Bobby Murcer and lots of others of their contemporaries.
BBWAR, best 5 years, Brock then Flood:
5.4, 5.1, 5.1, 4.2, 3.9
5.1, 5.0, 4.7, 4.0, 3.8
I must say, I'm not seeing any huge advantage for Flood here.
The thing about Flood, he never put his best hitting and defensive years together. He had dWARs of 2.4, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, and 1.1. But in his three best hitting years (oWARs of 4.7, 4.6, 4.0), his dWARs were 0.0, 0.5, 0.0.
This, in fact, works both ways: I'm pretty sure there's some curmudgeonly writers out there who refuse to consider Bert Blyleven to be a HoFer - what they think doesn't matter, because he is in the HoF.
If the question is whether a Lou Brock compares well to the standards necessary to reach the HoF, I have two comments: 1. Players have to be compared to the standards at the time they played (not today's) (*); and,
2. I LIKE the fact that baseball standards have changed over time. It's part of the rich history of the game.
(*) Let's forget Lou Brock for a second. My point is that comparing players 30-40-50 years after they retired to players who played AFTER them to determine whether they should be in is unfair to the player.
I foresee debates about "common", "bad" and who is in on career vs. peak but ... In his last 3 years, as he struggled to get past 900 SB and 3000 hits, Brock has 1275 PA of a 79 OPS+ while playing a poor LF -- good for a -2.4 WAR.
While it's not uncommon for a HoFer to come back for one year too many or to stick around 1 year to limp over a milestone line, 1300 PA of poor play is rather rare.
If you look at HoFers with at least 1000 PA after age 37, Brock and Dawson are the only two with negative WAR (well, Maranville at -.6). McCovey, Murray and Brett are also at 0. After that, it's Reggie and Perez at 1.6 WAR.
Dawson closed poorly although the only milestone he crossed was 1500 RBI and he did that in his second year of crapitude. But he did rack up -2.6 WAR. I'm not sure if he's in on "career" or "peak" (or career for some voters, peak for others).
McCovey passed 500 at age 40 ... he sucked at 38 but was awesome at 39 so you can't blame him for coming back at 40. 41 and 42 are questionable and he did pass 1500 RBI at 41.
Brett was meh -- league average hitter playing DH. Zero WAR because he's killed by the positional adjustment. He did pass 3000 hits and 1500 RBI in his age 39 season ... but I'm thinking he was in regardless of those milestones.
Murray was somewhat McCovey-esque. Bad for the first time at 38 but a big bounce-back at 39. Bad at 40 when he eked over the 500 HR line (he'd cruised past 1500 RBI a long time ago, finished with over 1900) then foolishly came back for 41 (with the Angels? Really? Never would have gotten them as a Murray team.)
Tony Perez managed a 99 OPS+ ... and the only milestone he had was 1500 RBI and he passed that in his first year of crapitude. And Perez is one of the worst writer selections.
It's weird how many resurgent age 39 seasons there were. Reggie had one too. Winfield had a bounce-back at 40 and passed 3000 hits at 41 ... and foolishly stuck around for 42-43.
Anyway, it is reasonably common for an HoFer to limp across the line but it's rare for them to be genuinely bad -- and some of the ones who weren't useful didn't necessarily need that much extra time to cross a milestone or didn't need the milestone to make the HoF. Brock was bad in his last 3 years and probably needed 3000 hits to make it ... but maybe not, one never knows.
Which is what the HOM does, while using newer tools. I agree with Andy and others, in that I think the HOM got it right, and arguably the HOF also got it right on Brock (I still don't see a good argument for Dizzy Dean though)
For the Hall of Merit, I agree. Not a long enough career. Simple as that.
But for the Hall of Fame?
First, Dean was famous, and loved, like no other player of his day, with the exception of the fast-fading Babe Ruth. He had more personality in his little finger than entire teams (or leagues) do today. That's the one claim for "the good old days" that actually has a bit of truth to it.
Second, there's that stretch of 5 1/2 years when he won 133 games, including the year when he became the last National Leaguer to win 30. By the actual standards of the Hall of Fame, that's quite a run. The fact that his adjusted stats weren't as good as his win totals would indicate is true, but not that relevant within a Hall of Fame context.
Third, there's the matter of that 1934 World Series, in which he was basically the Joe Namath of SBIII and then some. He bragged incessantly about what he was going to do, mocked the Tigers openly, even using a stuffed Tiger doll for emphasis----and then went out and backed it up on the field, losing one close low scoring game but then winning two others with a shutout in game seven.
The truth is that a Hall of Fame without Dizzy Dean would be a lot more diminished than a Hall of Fame without Bert Blyleven, even though on a statistical basis Blyleven is obviously more deserving. But in a nutshell, that's the difference between the HoM and the HoF. One honors pure statistical merit, while the other uses that as a starting point but then expands the points of entry. Confusing the purpose of these two institutions is possibly the single greatest myopic trait of many of our otherwise quite astute Primates, but I suspect if I live to be 100 I'll never find much agreement on this, not here at least.
Where is the HOM located again? When is the induction ceremony? ;-
Btw, I've been looking at Rusty Staub's career. I had forgotten that Staub had a very good, very long peak, 12 consecutive years averaging an OPS+ of 134, from 1965-1976. Fairly durable, too. 147 games a year despite on season in which he played only 66 games. Other slices show four consecutive seasons of 149+, five of 147+.
Le Grande Orange misses, but not by much.
Right, which is why it was such a shame that it took Santo so long to get in. I recall people here and in the media saying things like "Yeah, he's got a decent case, but he was no better than the 7th-9th best thirdbaseman, which is good but hardly a travesty that he's not in." Well, at the time of his retirement, Santo was no worse than the 3rd best 3B of all time by traditional standards, and probably 2nd by sabremetric ones*. Yeah, he falls short of Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, and Chipper, maybe Rolen, and AROD if you consider him a thirdbaseman. But none of those guys were around when Santo retired, and Schmidt and Brett were still relative youngsters when Santo was one and done in 1980.
*I think Santo was better than Brooks, but try selling that to anyone outside of our little coterie.
Intrigued by this (which I probably wouldn't have noticed in 1974), I did a search on PI. As of 1974, Santo was, on the career lists of >75% thirdbasemen: sixth in Runs, fourth in Hits, second in HR and RBI, 55th in Stolen Bases (1974 was a huge year for SB, thanks to Brock, and Santo's lack of speed hurt him in perceptions at the time), 28th in Batting Average, fourth in Slugging Percentage, and probably somewhere from 35th to 40th in Fielding Percentage, from what I can infer from B-Ref's awesome Fielding Leaderboards.
If he wasn't perceived as a HOFer when he retired (and my memory is that he wasn't, outside of the North Side of Chicago), it was because Santo's batting average was meh, his speed was nil, and thinking fans then valued BA and SB over HR and SLG, which betokened one-dimensional players. The guy above him on those power numbers was Mathews, who took some time to induct as well, despite his 500 HR.
You see, I can understand how people can say this if they don't know the history and don't put themselves in a historical perspective. But, first, Dean was a great pitcher under the standards then and the standards now. He almost surely would have had a HOF career if not for fate (one he tempted and one he fought)--and his fate wasn't in reference to cocaine.
Dean was not vetted on the terms we here do now, true, but he still was a great pitcher in the prime years he had. He was seen more or less as Koufax later was. Great pitcher ( he won 20+ games four of his first five full seasons, and in the fifth one he won 18), supremely famous, and (break out the violins) a competitor who was disabled at a young peak (see Puckett, Kiner, Koufax), .
When he was elected, and for some time afterwards, he had the pitching record equivalent to Ruth's 60-homer season; he was then the last pitcher in MLB to win 30 games and it didn't look like anyone was going to do it again. He had Roger Maris’s 61 season and ’60 season, then two or three more near ’60 seasons. Look at his CGs, his shutouts, his innngs pitched per season, his strikeouts, his low walk totals, all in a time when offense was high.
Finally, he was seen as having ruined his arm by selflessly coming back too soon to help his team. He was the most famous National Leaguer (the "biggest draw") of his time, and Dean was just a wonderful ambassador for baseball during his prime retirement years.
Even under present standards, he has a career 131 ERA+ (about 40 WAR in less than 2000 innings), and that's counting those three or four seasons that depreciated his rates, years he spent hanging on in heartfelt and stalwart belief that his arm was somehow magically going to come back. Check the Hall of Fame Statistics at BB-ref. Despite his abbreviated career, he has enough black ink and meets the hall of fame standards. Given any sort of natural decline, such as Gooden’s, is there any doubt he would have easily exceeded the gray ink and the hall of fame monitor thresholds? All you need is a little intangibles for a narrative--and history provides that in abundance.
Where is the HOM located again?
Heaven.
When is the induction ceremony? ;-
In the beer garden behind St. Peter's gate. I thought everyone knew this.
You see, I can understand how people can say this if they don't know the history and don't put themselves in a historic perspective.
And that's it in a nutshell.
His .320 career batting average is distinctly less than awesome in context. He cracked the top 5 once and the top 10 a total of 6 times. And his offensive value was almost totally his batting average. Traynor was in fact probably better at hitting for average than Santo, but the gap's nothing like what the raw stats would indicate.
Traynor wouldn't even have been up for consideration (given the way third-baseman have fared) had he not played in a time when a league average position player would be expected to hit over .290.
I think Santo also got the shaft because third-basemen have generally been judged against the offensive standards of first-basemen. Helped along by the habit of teams attempting to stuff an extra bat in at third on a regular basis.
> I'm not sure it applies quite as definitively to any other player
Dizzy Dean is the other and World Series is part of his story also. I think Pie Traynor is another player I wouldn't argue against for the Hall of Fame.
Disagree, Brock went in first ballot when the memory of his career was fresh in the minds of the scribes, Rice required 15 years to go in(20 years after he retired) His narrative is no where nearly as strong as Brocks. Teh Fear was enhanced through subsequent tellings over the years, and to some extent, I would argue by voters raging against the sabermetric onslaught.
In his prime his control was good for a power pitcher, but it's surely worth noting that you suggest looking at his walk totals. He cracks the top 10 in walks allowed 3 times. They're not huge totals to be sure, but his best years for control didn't line up with his best years overall. He cracked the top 10 for fewest walks per 9 IP and his record in those years was 57-41. Again, I'll take it, but that's got no place in a peak argument.
You note the 5 year stretch at the start of his career without noting that it includes an 18-15 and a 20-18. You seek to make him look like he was excellent for the whole 5 year stretch but it's not true. It's just spreading the 58-19 of his 1934-35 over the 5 years. (Nothing wrong with his 1932 or 1933, they just have no place in a peak case)
He's got 4 strikeout titles, 2 K/9 IP titles, led the league in fewest BB/9 IP once, no era or era+ titles (3rd 3 times being his best there), but because he was a workhorse (and a pretty decent hitter for a pitcher) he was first in value among pitcher in 1934 and 1935 and second in 1936. And was having a pretty good 1937 before he got hurt.
One more thing worth noting. In Dean's days an ace was still expected to double up as a relief ace. Dean has 31 (retrospectively figured) saves and a 12-18 record in 87 relief appearance (77 games finished in 87 relief appearance)
One interesting point of trivia: when supported by 0-2 runs his record was 17-34, with 3-5 it was 50-25. He was 71-6 with 6+ runs to work with. No idea what this means, but he seems to have gotten a lot of runs to work with an unusual percentage of the time and was devastating then. I don't feel like figuring his expected wins versus his actual right now, but in his prime the Cardinals did beat their pythag by a total of 14 wins over the 5 years (but 10 came in 1936) and he probably deserves some of the credit there too.
It's pretty clear to me that the writers gave him a "what if" career. He'd genuinely logged an awful lot of value in from 1934 to the all-star break in 1937 and his play after 1937 suggested that he could have sustained that level but for the injury. Of course the BBWAA only gives these kinds of breaks to people they like, and there's no doubt that Dean was among the most popular players (with Ruth and Maranville being the only competition I can think of for that general time period -- and yes, I'm aware that their careers didn't exactly overlap)
You're right, and I'm glad you're right. The writers liked Dean for very good reasons, and if those reasons were enough to put him over the top, then unless you believe that the Hall of Fame should be all about statistics and nothing else, it's hard to see what's wrong with that.
Well, I mean a combination of the two, as a few others have been suggesting. Fame and performance.
It certainly did appear to be doable. The season before Dean's election, Robin Roberts had 28 wins. And it was only eight years before that that Hal Newhouser won 29.
Yeah. Bob Feller won 27 as a 21 YO, and after the war, he won 26 with a team that went 68-86.
Partially related: does anyone want to talk about the greatest postseason players of the divisional era?
I kind of think that the king is Lenny Dykstra.
.321/.433/.661 and 27 runs in 32 games (that's 136 over 162 games, and a rough OPS+ of 213).
Can't get that edit to work:
Dean was a dominant historical figure of his era, seemed like he contributed to the increasing national popularity of his sport, whichbifuc is important.
For fans of the 1930s, he felt (and somewhat was) like a dominant character - and was much more remembered than others.
Again, not one of the worst 20 HOF picks. And will never get elected to HOM.
Not sure why we can't have that bifurcation.
As soon as I can figure out how to use this word, I'm going to use it all the time.
For fans of the 1930s, he felt (and somewhat was) like a dominant character - and was much more remembered than others.
There've probably been half a dozen books on Dean alone and at least that many more on the Gashouse Gang. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of "Dizzy Baseball" books and "Dizzy Dean Dictionary" pamphlets that were sold and / or distributed by Falstaff during the time that Dean was a broadcaster. I doubt if there's ever been any player in history other than Babe Ruth who was more genuinely popular with fans everywhere than Dizzy Dean---hell, he even transcended the Cards-Cubs feud, and how many other players can you say that about?
Joe Niekro: 20 IP, zero runs allowed.
That doesn't include his Game 163 complete-game win, where he allowed just one unearned run.
I just found out the Cardinals Hall Of Fame has opened virtually.
Also, his comeback (c/p from Wikipedia):
'Dean made a one-game comeback on September 28, 1947. After retiring as a player, the still-popular Dean was hired as a broadcaster by the perennially cash-poor Browns to drum up some badly needed publicity. After broadcasting several poor pitching performances in a row, he grew frustrated, saying on the air, "Doggone it, I can pitch better than nine out of the ten guys on this staff!" The wives of the Browns pitchers complained, and management, needing to sell tickets somehow, took him up on his offer and had him pitch the last game of the season. At age 37, Dean pitched four innings, allowing no runs, and rapped a single in his only at-bat. Rounding first base, he pulled his hamstring. Returning to the broadcast booth at the end of the game, he said, "I said I can pitch better than nine of the ten guys on the staff, and I can. But I'm done. Talking's my game now, and I'm just glad that muscle I pulled wasn't in my throat."'
Not that I doubt jist of the story, but did he really pitch another inning after pulling his hammy?
I guess I can see that. But Santo hit .300 four times, and .297 another season. That's better than his .267 hitting contemporary who went in on the first ballot. It's not like he never hit for average.
I'd take the Morris supporters a lot more seriously if they'd showed Joe some love.
Any attempt to differentiate Morris from Niekro on a statistical basis is likely to prove awkward when comparing Morris to other one and dones.
Nice catch by the way.
Koufax 165-87, 131 ERA+, 2324 IP
Dean 150-83, 131 ERA+, 1967 IP.
From 1934-1936 He won an MVP award and finished 2nd the next two years. He would have had 2 Cy Young awards had they been around, 1934-1935. But not 1936, when the guy ahead of him in MVP was a pitcher, Carl Hubbell. If Koufax is a slam dunk first ballot, then Dean deserves to get in after 10 ballots or so, as actually happened.
Not that I doubt jist of the story, but did he really pitch another inning after pulling his hammy?
Well, here's the AP game story as printed in the following day's New York Times:
It's like pitching to three batters with a broken leg.
Didn't turn out so well for him. Never pitched again in the majors.
I'm inclined to place some blame on his manager (Bobby Valentine) if not for noticing something was physically wrong with Correa then for giving 15 starts to a 21 year old who gave him a 7.59 era (including 50 unintentional walks in 70 innings)
Beltan scored an astonishing 31 runs in 22 postseason games, or pro rating to Dykstra's games played, 46 runs in 32 games. Or 223 runs over a 162 game season. Amazing.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main