Well, I think statistics might be the cancer in baseball.

They gave me the cooties.

I'm really looking forward to the end of Hall of Fame voting.

IIRC, didn't Bill James later write he regretted his portrayal of Allen? I'm at work and without my books, but I think he did.

I can't say I trust everything that Goose Gossage says. I get the sense he remembers stuff the way he wants to. Nothing wrong with that, but he's not my go-to guy for accurate representations of the past.

The ability to throw "95 mph heat"...definitely relevant when valuing opinions.

"Well, I think statistics might be the cancer in baseball."

Is there a cancer in everything? And if so, what is the cancer in cancer?

Dick ... your only case for the HoF is statistical. Heck, it's rate stats even, not counting stats.

And last I checked, Tony Taylor's 1 hit and 2 walks would show in the stats along with his SB and runs scored and a guy reaching base 3 times a day would have been named the greatest player in baseball history by James even without the blood and torn jersey.

(Taylor was a perfectly good player for a very long time, nothing said above should be taken as a swipe at Taylor)

I think Allen gets a harder time over most of his behavior than he should but walking out on your team midseason is as bad as it gets.

Hell, it's not like Bill James made up the idea of Allen as a cancer. Whether his take was accurate, it wasn't something he found on a spreadsheet, but an opinion shared by a lot of folks.

Hell, it's not like Bill James made up the idea of Allen as a cancer. Whether his take was accurate, it wasn't something he found on a spreadsheet, but an opinion shared by a lot of folks.

Yeah, but I think this was why James was later chagrined. He's usually not one to accept the CW about a player. Who's got the abstract? Am I dreaming this or does Bill James still think Allen was a jerk?

Yeah, but I think this was why James was later chagrined.

Sure, but using Bill James as the counterpoint to the Gossage viewpoint seems odd. The conventional wisdom was that Allen was a jerk. There's no need to single anyone out for holding that viewpoint.

I think Allen gets a harder time over most of his behavior than he should but walking out on your team midseason is as bad as it gets.

Precisely. I'm of the opinion that Allen belongs in the HOF, but his case is no slam dunk, and the revisionist history that no one ever actually had any problems with him is ridiculous.

Take your choice, a numbers guy who throws hearsay into his equations or a closer who threw 95 mph heat past hitters?

I stopped reading here.

Hearsay?

I say, Hochman? More like Hack-man. (No Gene.)

The ability to throw "95 mph heat"...definitely relevant when valuing opinions.

If his opinion was "I could strike you out on three pitches," then I'd listen.

If his opinion was "I could strike you out on three pitches," then I'd listen.

Or if it was, "I think I can make you all think I just killed Ron Cey". (First beaning I saw on tv that looked scary. It did NOT help my little league career at all.)

If Dick Allen is elected to the Hall, which cap would be on his plaque? The one for the team where he was very unhappy, or the one for the team he walked out on? Anyway, it should be a helmet.

I can't say I trust everything that Goose Gossage says. I get the sense he remembers stuff the way he wants to. Nothing wrong with that, but he's not my go-to guy for accurate representations of the past.

Gossage said the same thing ten years ago to Phil Pepe. And it's not just Gossage. Jim Kaat loved Allen. So, did Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson. And Mike Marshall. And Jorge Orta, Stan Bahnsen, Tony Taylor, Bill White, Bobby Valentine, Johnny Briggs, Alex Johnson and on and on. And most of his managers, including Mauch, Kennedy, Schoendienst) said they'd take him in a second too. Whatever you want to say about Allen, he certainly was not a clubhouse cancer.

I think Allen gets a harder time over most of his behavior than he should but walking out on your team midseason is as bad as it gets.

To clarify, he walked out on his team (the 1974 White Sox) the first week of September, not at midseason. And he did it, at least ostensibly, to retire. It took a personal mission from Mike Schmidt and Richie Ashburn to get him to return to baseball with the Phillies.

Am I dreaming this or does Bill James still think Allen was a jerk?

Bill James did nothing to suggest that he thought otherwise when I talked to him about Allen at the SABR convention in Toronto three years ago.

Allen was a truly legendary hitter, whose rate stats certainly suggest that he belongs in the Hall. However, I can certainly see the case that his injuries didn't allow him enough full seasons in the majors.

Thanks Anthony.

Shooty, here's what James had to say on Allen in his book "The Politics of Glory," which I'm many of us read. I did years ago, but forgot this section. I don't know if James changed his tune on Allen since then. Not sure why this popped up now, since this book is more than a decade old.

http://www.expressfan.com/dickallenhof/docs/billjames.pdf

Ellsbury, I think Gossage's comments fit in nicely with what James says here. He created factions who were for him or against him. Obviously, Goose was in the "for him" column, assuming this is all true.

Shooty, here's what James had to say on Allen in his book "The Politics of Glory," which I'm many of us read. I did years ago, but forgot this section. I don't know if James changed his tune on Allen since then. Not sure why this popped up now, since this book is more than a decade old.

Thanks. I think I ahve it stuck in my head that he later changed his stance, but I could be conflating James with many other writers who have written defenses of Allen but quote James and so get my meager brain all confused.

Longshot, James said the same thing, perhaps even more meanly in the old Baseball Book profile of Allen. The problem with James's take on Allen is that he misleads or portrays Allen in the most negative light imaginable in every instance of his career. Essentially, James does what he once accused most sportswriters (particularly Peter Gammons in 1982) of doing -- coming to a conclusion first and then finding the facts to fit the argument. James's blindspot with regard to Allen is one of his worst failures as a baseball analyst. If he had just said, I hate this guy even though he's one of the 15 greatest first basemen ever, that would have been fine. But when deliberately tries to mislead, he's doing a disservice to his own reputation for integrity.

Lastly, the idea that Allen created factions is rather inaccurate. There were and are factions in nearly every clubhouse. There were certainly players in each of Allen's clubhouses (notably Ron Santo with the White Sox and Wes Parker with the Dodgers) that didn't like Allen, however it's almost impossible to find any one type of player or person that Allen gravitated toward. He was close friends with rookies and veterans; was close with both stars and scrubs. He had very good friends that were black and those that were white. Finally, Allen was a bit of a stoic. I have never come across a single bit of evidence that Allen ever tried to rally anyone else to his cause or create a faction, even when things were at their worst in Philadelphia. He was fiercely loyal to people that he respected and wasn't afraid to speak his mind if he thought that someone he respected was not being treated well enough.

I too was surprised that James was against Allen's entrance to the HOF, which is why I went looking for what he actually said. It seems most on the stat side are supportive of Allen, so when I read that the godfather of baseball statistical analysis was less than supportive, I was curious. Like you, I thought he had changed his tune to some degree, but maybe I'm also mixing up other writers with James. Wouldn't be surprised if he says something, somewhere on the issue.

Anthony, thanks. Appreciate the perspective and comments. Your points that James "does what he once accused most sportswriters (particularly Peter Gammons in 1982) of doing" is why I found the whole incident interesting. James didn't seem to be basing his comments on statistical analysis, but instead on hearsay. That's why I've also left the door open that maybe James has changed his mind, at least somewhat, since that article was first published many a year ago. Based on what you're saying, though, I'm guessing maybe he hasn't.

James did somewhat soften his stance -- probably in part because Craig Wright (a person James really respects) wrote an excellent rebuttal to his piece in Politics of Glory.

But he softened it only so far, listing him (with among other Rogers Hornsby) as among the biggest (nanny-bait) in the history of the game.

Hornsby's not a bad comp in some respects.

Ron Johnson, thanks for the update. I don't think, however, James would argue against Rogers Hornsby in the HOF based on his personality, although it may explain why he rated Hornsby as "only" the third greatest second baseman of all time, when many have Hornsby at #1.

I just noticed that Rob Neyer has posted a blog on this whole issue, and he also seems to imply that Bill James has softened his stance somewhat. RN, however, is not sold of Allen because he missed too many games. Here's the direct link to his Wednesday Wangdoodles. I'm pretty sure he's no longer behind the wall, so all can read, although I'm guessing most here are subcribers. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob

"He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball."

I can't believe that Bill seriously thinks Allen did more to keep his teams from winning than Hal Chase.

If Dick Allen is elected to the Hall, which cap would be on his plaque?

For the Hall of Merit, we said Phillies.

I think Allen gets a harder time over most of his behavior than he should but walking out on your team midseason is as bad as it gets.

People don't seem to mention this very much when they're making the case for Bert Blyleven.

Tom, there's also 1969 (I note that Craig Wright didn't get a quote from Bob Skinner). OK he didn't exactly walk out, but he chose a path that had basically the same result.

Now my recollection of the 1969 season was that the Phillies allowed a minor incident to get to the point of suspending their best player. Didn't have to play out as it did. But I think Allen deserves most of the blame.

#24, James has Hornsby #3 because while Hornsby was a tad better than Morgan and Collins at their respective best, both were great players for a much longer time. No docking for personality.

Hornsby was of course a better hitter, but both Morgan and Collins seem to have had a significant defensive edge as well as a huge edge on the basepath.

And Tom, it's also worth noting Allen's lengthy suspension in 1969. The Phillies were partly to blame of course. Didn't have to play out as it did, but in my eyes Allen's actions then aren't really any different than walking out on the team.

Tom, there's also 1969 (I note that Craig Wright didn't get a quote from Bob Skinner). OK he didn't exactly walk out, but he chose a path that had basically the same result.

Now my recollection of the 1969 season was that the Phillies allowed a minor incident to get to the point of suspending their best player. Didn't have to play out as it did. But I think Allen deserves most of the blame.

Agreed. And the issue with Allen isn't that he didn't get along with his teammates, so all the quotes from teammates saying how much they liked him is beside the point. The issue with Allen is that he was chronically, repeatedly at odds with management to the point of open hostility, not just once or twice but over and over again. He wasn't an evil person by any means, but the notion that he was a blameless victim is just not correct.

Ultimately the character argument against HOF induction only makes sense if there are some real reasons to suspect that a player's character kept his team from winning. Dizzy Dean and Joe Medwick were querulous jerks, and that did not prevent the 1934 Cardinals from winning a World Series. Rogers Hornsby was both a prima donna and quite an objectionable SOB, but he managed the 1926 World Champions. Ty Cobb was unspeakable, but his teams won three straight pennants when he was young. Ernie Banks is a truly lovely guy, but played in fewer postseasons than Dick Allen.

Utter jerks have contributed a lot to champions. Allen didn't. It doesn't follow that he was too big a jerk for his teams to win. His teams didn't win, but maybe they weren't very good anyway.

Walking out on his teams was bad, but Allen "paid" for it in terms of his HOF case by denying himself good baseball seasons.

Agreed. And the issue with Allen isn't that he didn't get along with his teammates, so all the quotes from teammates saying how much they liked him is beside the point. The issue with Allen is that he was chronically, repeatedly at odds with management to the point of open hostility, not just once or twice but over and over again. He wasn't an evil person by any means, but the notion that he was a blameless victim is just not correct.

But he didn't have repeated incidents with "management." He had repeated incidents in Philadelphia, especially after he asked them to trade him after the 1967 season and they refused. He had no significant incident in St. Louis, although some sportswriters made a deal about Allen not traveling with the team after his season-ending hamstring injury in mid-August. The only problem that he had with the Dodgers was that he didn't want to do the off-field glad-handing (and appearances on the Brady Bunch, presumably) the team insisted upon. He had zero problems with White Sox management in three seasons. Aside from his complaints that he thought that Tony Taylor deserved a playoff roster spot, he had no problems with the Phillies. He didn't get along with Charley O but who did? The problem was that he got a reputation as a trouble maker in Philly that he was never able (or never willing) to shake. His first stint in Philly colored everything.

He had zero problems with White Sox management in three seasons.

Except for walking out on the team. Also, I vaguely remember him insisting that his brother Hank had to be on the roster alongside him in 1972.

Allen had zero problems with the Sox mostly because Chuck Tanner let him do whatever he wanted.

He had zero problems with White Sox management in three seasons.

Oh come on, Anthony. "Retiring" in early September while leading the league in home runs isn't exactly creating zero problems for management. Nor is allowing that "retirement" to force management to trade him for pennies on the dollar.

He had also held out in 1972, refusing to report to spring training while hinting even then that he was going to retire.

And maybe off-field public appearances are silly, but the Dodgers' management didn't think so, and it's their opinion that's relevant, not ours. O'Malley and Campanis were quite frustrated with Allen in L.A., and that no doubt had a lot to do with their trading him.

Allen earned a reputation as a troublemaker in Philadelphia, it didn't just randomly happen to him. And he upheld it for the remainder of his career.

I vaguely remember him insisting that his brother Hank had to be on the roster alongside him in 1972.

Your memory is entirely correct. Because Dick demanded it, the White Sox put Hank on the active roster in Sept. of 1972, and kept him there through all of 1973. Hank's marvelous contribution? 37 games, 60 at-bats, 7 hits (a .117 BA), 0 homers, 0 RBIs, and 1 walk.

Dick Allen was a self-centered prima donna. That's just the way it was.

I routinely bring up Bert's action in 1980. And get told by the masses here it's "no big deal".

Allen could really hit.

He also played blah defense.

He got passed around the league like a drunken cheerleader among the football team.

His teams didn't win jacksh#t with him as a central figure.

He had a short career.

If those are the markers of a Hall of Fame player I'm a lug nut.

I routinely bring up Bert's action in 1980. And get told by the masses here it's "no big deal".

What Blyleven did and what Allen did aren't really comparable. Blyleven threatened to retire, but didn't; he remained in the starting rotation all season long, right to the season's end, making 34 appearances and 32 starts. Allen just up and quit, going home on Sept. 8th, never to return.

Blyleven's dispute caused his team to trade him in the off-season, but they got fair value in return. Allen's "retirement" caused his team to trade him from a rotten bargaining position, and they got a token return.

He also played blah defense.

Yes.

He got passed around the league like a drunken cheerleader among the football team.

Yes.

He had a short career.

Yes.

His teams didn't win jacksh#t with him as a central figure.

This is true (though several of his teams were close contenders), but it's BS to put this on Allen. Baseball is a team sport; it wasn't Allen's fault that the 1964 Phillies were a pitcher or two short of a rotation, or that Bill Singer had a miserable year for the 1971 Dodgers, or that the 1972 White Sox were stuck in the same division as the Oakland A's.

Blyleven threatened to retire, but didn't; he remained in the starting rotation all season long, right to the season's end, making 34 appearances and 32 starts.

Blyleven left the Pirates on April 30, and was put on the disqualified list (whatever that was). He was gone for two weeks, then came back to the team on May 13.

Care to guess who his manager was?

james isn't immune to blind spots. i think he defended rose past all logic.

Blyleven left the Pirates on April 30, and was put on the disqualified list (whatever that was). He was gone for two weeks, then came back to the team on May 13.

The Pirates played 10 games during that span, meaning that Blyleven missed one, and at the very most two, starts. It wasn't a maneuver guaranteed to delight his management, but truly, it wasn't a big deal.

Dick Allen is quite the interesting person which begs the question: Anthony, when are you going to get your book published?

It's not a big deal to admit you're wrong either, Steve. Blyleven did not "remain in the starting rotation all season long."

Oh, and Anthony, I have some book questions for you. Please email me when you have the chance. Thanks!

It's not a big deal to admit you're wrong either, Steve. Blyleven did not "remain in the starting rotation all season long."

He made his final start in his team's 156th game; I think that can fairly be characterized as remaining in the starting rotation all season long. Yes, he missed a start, two at the most, during his tantrum, but I honestly don't think the situation compares with Allen's.

By that logic, David Cone was in the rotation all year long for the 1996 Yankees: He started Game No. 1 and Game No. 157.

What Blyleven did was exactly the same as what Allen did. Exactly. The fact that Allen was a first baseman and Blyleven a starting pitcher isn't relevant. The fact that Blyleven did it in May and Allen in September isn't relevant.

Blyleven was gone for two weeks and Allen for three; that's the only thing that argues in Allen's favor. On the other hand, the position of their teams makes Blyleven look a lot worse: Allen walked out on a fourth-place team with 19 games left on its schedule, while Blyleven left the World Champs 16 games into the defense of their title.

He made his final start in his team's 156th game; I think that can fairly be characterized as remaining in the starting rotation all season long.

No, because...

Yes, he missed a start, two at the most, during his tantrum

...of that.

If he missed a start or two due to his tantrum, then he obviously didn't remain in the starting rotation "all" season long. The "all" simply doesn't wash.

Nor does your "right to the season's end," which glosses over the fact that he wasn't there near the season's beginning.

By that logic, David Cone was in the rotation all year long for the 1996 Yankees: He started Game No. 1 and Game No. 157.

Really? Do you honestly, seriously think that's what I was saying? Seriously? You think that a guy making 32 starts is the same as a guy making 2?

What Blyleven did was exactly the same as what Allen did. Exactly.

Except for the differences, which are ...

The fact that Allen was a first baseman and Blyleven a starting pitcher isn't relevant.

In what way is the fact that a first baseman plays every day and a (modern) starting pitcher once every five days not relevant? Is there no difference between every day and once every five days? Really?

The fact that Blyleven did it in May and Allen in September isn't relevant.

Well, sure, other than the fact that Blyleven did it in May and then stopped doing it, and Allen did it in September, and kept on doing it, remaining "retired" into the offseason and well into the next playing season. No relevance? Really?

Blyleven was gone for two weeks and Allen for three; that's the only thing that argues in Allen's favor.

Only on a planet in which one or two starts is the same thing as 19 games played, and which also believes that remaining "retired" into the offseason is the same thing as not.

On the other hand, the position of their teams makes Blyleven look a lot worse: Allen walked out on a fourth-place team with 19 games left on its schedule, while Blyleven left the World Champs 16 games into the defense of their title.

And rejoined it another one-sixteenth of its way through their schedule, as compared with never doing so, remaining "walked out".

Nice try.

In what way is the fact that a first baseman plays every day and a (modern) starting pitcher once every five days not relevant? Is there no difference between every day and once every five days? Really?

Steve, please quit while you're far, far behind. Even if it were relevant to the issue that one of them didn't play as often as the other, the fact is that a starting pitcher has more of an impact on a single game than a position player has. As you well know. So, yes, there really is no difference between every day and once every five days, as far as a starting pitcher and a position player are concerned.

Anthony, thanks. Appreciate the perspective and comments. Your points that James "does what he once accused most sportswriters (particularly Peter Gammons in 1982) of doing" is why I found the whole incident interesting. James didn't seem to be basing his comments on statistical analysis, but instead on hearsay.

Since when did James base his analysis solely on statistics? My favorite part of his writings was his ability to use observation and non-statistical analysis alongside the numbers.

Saying "hearsay" is unfairly deeming to all non-numeric evidence. It's not like "there's a rumor Dick Allen had an incident with Frank THomas in 1965." One can disagree with James's interpretation, but there is real non-quantitative evidence out there.

Anything can be quantified. The simple fact is that Allen led the league in AFTARP (altercations with Frank Thomas) that year.

Saying "hearsay" is unfairly deeming to all non-numeric evidence.

Not quite. There's a difference between James using his powers of observation to see that a player's assist total is deceiving and rendering judgment on a person's character (or how it affects the team) based on others' opinions.

Jim Kaat loved Allen. So, did Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson. And Mike Marshall. And Jorge Orta, Stan Bahnsen, Tony Taylor, Bill White, Bobby Valentine, Johnny Briggs, Alex Johnson and on and on.

Okay, so one of the known other biggest ######## in baseball history (Marshall), Bobby V who I've testified about any number of times, and Alex Johnson, who comes out as a tragic figure in Miller's book but who can be charitably described as "having severe emotional problems". That's not an inspiring list of people who think you're great in the midst of a sea of alternate opinion. When Bob Gibson is one of the more normal and even-keeled people in a group, that's probably not a great thing.

The idea of Dick Allen on the Brady Bunch would have made for a great Saturday Night Live sketch had the show been around then.

Really? Do you honestly, seriously think that's what I was saying? Seriously?

Yes, Steve, I really do. I think you looked at Blyeven's total number of starts in 1980, saw that it was roughly a season's worth, and assumed that he had been with the team all year. When I pointed out this was not the case, you suddenly decided that it was really no big deal to walk out on your team for two weeks (as long as you're a starting pitcher).

There's no shame in being wrong about something. You got something wrong, I pointed it out. It happens to all of us.

Well, sure, other than the fact that Blyleven did it in May and then stopped doing it, and Allen did it in September, and kept on doing it, remaining "retired" into the offseason and well into the next playing season. No relevance? Really?

Yes, it makes Allen look a lot better: He was serious about retiring, no different from John Kruk. Blyleven was just pitching a fit.

Anything can be quantified.

Which doesn't mean all knowledge is data points. Qualitiative information can be taken into account as well.

Jeff K., you've chosen to ignore the really even keel guys (Bill White, Tony Taylor and Johnny Briggs). And what strikes you as extreme about Kaat or Bahnsen?

A few other quotes from the Craig Wright article I mentioned:

Roland Hemond:

"He came in with a tremendous amount of respect from our players, and that was always there. He was a very analytical player with a great memory for past situations. A smart player, an outstanding baserunner. I'll never forget him, and I'll always be grateful to him."

Danny Ozark:

"...he did a lot of good things that nobody saw. He helped other players. He liked to help the young guys. He helped Mike Schmidt more than anyone. Mike will back that up. He got people talking in the dugout--what a pitcher was doing, base running. He made them think."

(Though I see the bit about helping Schmidt about the same way I see Ty Cobb taking credit for helping Al Simmons. It seems likely that Schmidt would have been successful if he'd never met Allen)

Gene Mauch:

"I've never been in contact with a greater talent. He was held in absolute awe by every player in the league. He had tremendous power. He had a great feel for the game, and he was one of the finest base-runners [...] that I ever saw. If I was managing California today, and Allen was in his prime, I'd take him in a minute."

"...he wasn't doing anything to hurt [his teammates] play of the game, and he didn't involve his teammates in his problems. When he was personally rebellious, he didn't try to bring other players into it."

"His teammates always like him. You could go forever and not meet a more charming fellow."

(pretty generous of Mauch, but then all of his managers but Skinner said broadly the same thing)

Red Schoendienst:

"He was great in our clubhouse. He got along with everybody. He wasn't a rah-rah guy, but he came to play. They respected him, and they liked him."

Schoendienst is practically the definition of even keel.

Oh and I was wrong about Skinner's opinion of Allen. He said that Allen was not a divisive presence and that his "teammates did not have a sense of animosity toward him." Somewhat less glowing than his other managers (didn't bother with any quotes by Tanner since they'd be dismissed as "consider the source")

I don't recall him taking matters this way in 1969 though -- but he may have felt the need to take the company line back then. Then again it might just be selective memory or not wanting to revisit battles decades old.

Jeff K., you've chosen to ignore the really even keel guys (Bill White, Tony Taylor and Johnny Briggs). And what strikes you as extreme about Kaat or Bahnsen?

I don't know a ton about Briggs, and Bahnsen rings zero bells for me. I was just pointing out that of the 12 people named, three were noted and legendary (maybe not Bobby V, but that just means my work isn't done...) ######## and/or "headcases". Sure there are some to balance that out, but that should be the case. If it were *all* ######## (Somehow Chase, Cobb, McLain, Clemens and more all knew him or something), it wouldn't even be a discussion.

I don't have much of an opinion on Allen for the HOF, because the personality/actions comes so much into play. My dad once said when we were discussing this, "You had to be there." I just turned 30 a few weeks ago (*shudder*), so I wasn't. He didn't say that often, so I listened on this one. I let those who were figure it out. FWIW, he was pretty squarely in agreement with HW.

When Bob Gibson is one of the more normal and even-keeled people in a group, that's probably not a great thing.

Since when is Bob Gibson a weirdo or a head case or whatever?

Gibson was an extremely demanding teammate but was also very fair. If he had no problem with Allen, well, I can think of no better reason for me to think <u>I'd</u> have no problem with Allen.

I think you looked at Blyeven's total number of starts in 1980, saw that it was roughly a season's worth, and assumed that he had been with the team all year.

Well, Tom, you think wrong. I knew that Blyleven actually was with the team for 15/16ths of the year, and chose to characterize it as "remaining in the rotation all season long" because that's an entirely reasonable way to characterize it. Blyleven's snit deprived his team of his services for a grand total of either 1/33rd of his potential contribution, or at the very most 2/34ths. I don't get why it's necessary to get our knickers in a knot over it.

Well, whatever. I don't feel like discussing it any more.

Well, Tom, you think wrong. I knew that Blyleven actually was with the team for 15/16ths of the year, and chose to characterize it as "remaining in the rotation all season long" because that's an entirely reasonable way to characterize it.

Well, now you've managed to cause your statement to be classified as intentionally misleading, rather than just as an honest mistake. I advised you to quit while you were behind.

Please tell me how this statement of yours from #37 even hints at Blyleven missing one or two starts:

What Blyleven did and what Allen did aren't really comparable. Blyleven threatened to retire, but didn't; he remained in the starting rotation all season long, right to the season's end, making 34 appearances and 32 starts. Allen just up and quit, going home on Sept. 8th, never to return.

"Essentially, James does what he once accused most sportswriters (particularly Peter Gammons in 1982) of doing -- coming to a conclusion first and then finding the facts to fit the argument. James's blindspot with regard to Allen is one of his worst failures as a baseball analyst."

It's a pretty good bookend for his position on the Dowd Report, actually. I admire James a lot, but when he blows one, he really blows one.

Steve, you're committing the rhetorical sin of trying to prove your point by refusing to grant any creedence to the other side. It's not doing your argument any good. You're minimizing Blyleven's misdeed beyond all logic, while blowing Allen's out of proportion.

There's no way these aren't comparable acts. It may be right that Allen's was more serious (slightly longer period of time), although I'm not entirely sure. But to say that Allen was quitting on his team and Blyleven just had a minor snit that we shouldn't "get our knickers in a knot over" is ridiculous.

Steve, please quit while you're far, far behind.

Fat chance. Steve's a great poster and knows his ####, but he will never, never, never, never, never concede anything.

Yes; I've never doubted that Steve knows his stuff. It's just that sometimes he seems to get stuck in quicksand for no good reason.

It may be right that Allen's was more serious (slightly longer period of time), although I'm not entirely sure

What in the world is there not to be entirely sure about? Is 10 games (encompassing one and at most two starts) equal to 19 games of everyday play? Is aborting the "retirement" and promptly returning to the active roster equal to continuing the "retirement" into the offseason and well into the next regular season? Is being traded for fair return equal to being traded for pennies on the dollar?

The two situations simply aren't the same. Why one should concede something that isn't the case, that I don't understand.

I have always worked to focus on the things we KNOW about Allen's career versus the dust swirling around it. While I was present and have some level of personal knowledge because of common interests shared by Allen and myself outside of baseball(horseracing for example), I don't wallow in those items because as Darren pointed out earlier that could be construed as less than hearsay and rightfully so. In this forum I am merely some schmoe on the Internet with no legitimate ability to substantiate any claims.

So that leaves those things directly related to his career output. And in my mind there is more than enough information to justify NOT voting for Allen's induction into the Hall of Fame.

Though Allen clearly enjoyed some magnificent seasons it takes some fancy math to present him as anything other than a borderline candidate. And the typical hue and cry in these parts is to work AGAINST pushing guys under the wire versus throwing open the door.

Also, if one considers, considers mind you, the aspect of "Fame" what, precisely, is Dick famous FOR in the game of baseball that could be construed as positive? He had no singular MOMENTS that folks assign to his name. No baseball fan refers to a particular type of play or action as "Allen-like" or "Allenian". If you asked a fan over 50 about Allen it would take about 3 nanoseconds into the conversation before they mentioned the Thomas fight, or the writing of the name in the dirt around first base or the early "retirement" in Chicago. Nothing about his play on the field other than, "boy, he could hit". Which is the same thing that could be said about 100 other guys not in the Hall of Fame.

I think folks here fuss over Allen out of guilt. And ignore the fact that while Allen had a difficult environment much of what happened in Dick's career were the result of Dick's CHOICES.

Allen reminds me of a beagle puppy who thinks it's cool to play at my feet and when he doesn't move quick enough gets stepped on and starts screaming bloody murder. Most sensible folks would give the pup a wry look and tell him to stay out of the way next time. Or you have some like my wife who come swooping in and in a ridiculous baby talk voice go, "Ooooo, poor widdle puppy dog. Did the big, bad man step on you? Oooo, sweetie it's ok. I will make it all better."

This comparison has a hole in that certainly OTHERS bear SOME responsibility for Allen's challenges. But then guys like Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Gibson, Stargell, Robinson, et all were there facing the same or comparable nonsense and none of THEM had the litany of "situations" as did Allen.

And to Allen's credit you don't read much about HIM complaining about life's injustices.

So why folks think they need to pick up this flag I have no earthly clue.

What in the world is there not to be entirely sure about? Is 10 games (encompassing one and at most two starts) equal to 19 games of everyday play?

Some might say that one hole out of nine spots in the lineup for 19 days is less important than having to have an inferior guy as your starting pitcher for two starts. The starting pitcher does have a bigger impact on the games he appears in than any other player does.

Is aborting the "retirement" and promptly returning to the active roster equal to continuing the "retirement" into the offseason and well into the next regular season?

Some might say it's worse, because it shows that you were doing it as a stunt instead of for real, and because it happened at a time when the team hadn't been eliminated from the pennant race and therefore would be more desperate to replace him. (they were 10 games back on September 8th when Allen left, I guess they hadn't been technically eliminated yet.)

Is being traded for fair return equal to being traded for pennies on the dollar?

Well, you're right on that one. Although Allen never had another good season after he left the White Sox anyway.

Some might say that one hole out of nine spots in the lineup for 19 days is less important than having to have an inferior guy as your starting pitcher for two starts.

Well, the some who said that would be incorrect. Yes, a starting pitcher has far more impact on the game outcome than any position player, but not that much more. Not to the degree at which 1.5 > 19. No performance assessment system in the world would assign that degree of importance to a starting pitcher.

Some might say it's worse, because it shows that you were doing it as a stunt instead of for real

Then some have to explain how it is that Allen's "retirement" was any less a stunt instead of for real. Last time I looked, Allen "unretired" just as surely as Blyleven did, it just took him a lot longer (and at vastly greater cost to his team) to get over his sulk.

Although Allen never had another good season after he left the White Sox anyway.

True but completely irrelevant.

Is 10 games (encompassing one and at most two starts) equal to 19 games of everyday play?

You keep talking about the 19 games vs. 1 or 2 starts. if you stick to 19 game to 10 games, you;d have a better case. Otherwise we could talk about people who missed an entire season as having missed 162 game vs. only 32 or 34 starts.

There were serious costs of uncertainty in what Blyleven did. Yes, he ended up coming back after 10 days, but the Pirates couldn't know how long it would last. With Allen, at least the White Sox could assume that he would be gone for the year and plan accordingly; the Pirates wouldn't know whether they should promote a guy to fill a couple starts, or start to look for trades, or what.

That said, Allen's transgression is probably worse for the reasons you list, and because it came in a career that that contained other examples of bad behavior. But it's a difference of degree, not kind.

You are hyperventilating man. No, 2 weeks does not equal 3 weeks. There are differences between what Blyleven and Allen did. You are open to arguing that what Allen did was more culpable than Blyleven. I didn't say you had to concede that Allen wasn't more culpable than Blyleven. There is a case for that to be made, clearly.

However, you don't stop at that. You describe Blyleven leaving the team as "not a big deal" and nothing "to get your knickers in a knot about". That's where you lose me. To any logical person these are comparable situations--unhappy players walking out on their teams without consent for a significant period of time (2/34ths of a season is a significant part of the season, I would say). Difference is, as you point out, that Allen did it for longer and his walkout was interrupted by the end of the season. Fine--but at their cores both were essentially the very same selfish act.

I don't see how one can condemn Allen so easily and forgive Blyleven so readily, other than a stubborn refusal to concede any points.

True but completely irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. How do you know he was traded for "pennies on the dollar"? Maybe the team trading him, and the team he was traded to, were expecting him to never have another good season.

Well, the some who said that would be incorrect. Yes, a starting pitcher has far more impact on the game outcome than any position player, but not that much more.

But enough to completely invalidate your bad argument that it was only one or two starts.

Allen's transgression is probably worse for the reasons you list, and because it came in a career that that contained other examples of bad behavior. But it's a difference of degree, not kind.

I'll happily concede that, so long as we acknowledge that a difference of degree but not of kind is still a difference.

How do you know he was traded for "pennies on the dollar"? Maybe the team trading him, and the team he was traded to, were expecting him to never have another good season.

Now that's funny.

Let's see ... 32 years old, starting All-Star first baseman, second in the league in OPS+, leads the league in home runs, SLG and OPS. Traded for a player to be named later and cash; the player eventually settled upon is the immortal Jim Essian.

Right, that wasn't pennies on the dollar. Right, everyone expected Allen to never have another good season. Uh-huh.

But, Steve, I think that it's completely likely that Allen WAS intent on retiring. I have almost no doubt about that. If you have a very long time , I can explain (perhaps the chapter in a book) my near certitude about that decision. I don't have time to go into the whole argument now, but you know full well that I probably know more about Allen than anyone.

If he was intent on retiring, and everyone (certainly the Sox and the Braves) thought that he was then getting a very good prospect like Essian for him was a tremendous coup and spoke to just how valuable Allen was. How good was Essian? He was 23-years old and considered a solid defensive catcher who had also posted a lifetime minor league record of .271/.371/.415. His MLEs suggest that this was not an illusion. His 1973 season at AA produced a .285/.407/.460 MLE line and his very shortened 1974 season (180 at bats) was still .260/.347/.338 (with an career low in doubles). Taken together a 1975 version of Transaction Oracle would have been stunned to see that the Braves would have given up a young catcher with an expected MLB production of .275/.382/.413 (15 homers and 91 walks in 530 at bats) for an injury prone, retired, 33-year old slugger. (For doubters of MLEs, in real life, Essian hit .263/.356/.376 in his first 520 MLB at bats and was tremendous in 1977).

I'm not a flag carrier for Allen's HOF candidacy. I think that his continual injuries should keep him out. But, as an historian I think that it is of utmost importance that we, as among the more intelligent baseball observers around, approach his career with honesty. He was widely respected for his baseball knowledge and ability by nearly everyone that he either played with or played for. On every one of his teams (except LA) he was a considered a tremendous leader, taking the time to tutor and shield younger players. Even though he was among the most highly-paid players he was an early and dedicated champion of the player's union. On the field, he was far from a one-trick slugging pony. He was a good fielding 1B and decent at 3B and LF (although immensely handicapped with a weak arm, thanks to a blow to his shoulder by Frank Thomas's bat and a separation in 1966, and nerve damage in his throwing hand, thanks to a mishap with a headlight in 1967) who nearly every year (especially in 1970 and 1971, but also with the Sox) continued to volunteer to help the team by playing out of position (usually at 3B but also at 2B). Among those that saw him, he was widely regarded as one of the best base runners in the league.

If people don't think that he's qualified to be in the HOF based on his record, that's fine with me. But, since nearly all of the conventional wisdom about Allen is either wrong or severely misleading, it's a very dangerous precedent to bring those things into the equation.

you know full well that I probably know more about Allen than anyone.

I won't dispute this!

If he was intent on retiring, and everyone (certainly the Sox and the Braves) thought that he was then getting a very good prospect like Essian for him was a tremendous coup and spoke to just how valuable Allen was.

But, Anthony, this is misleading, in three separate ways.

First, the White Sox didn't get Essian when they traded Allen in December. All they got at that point was the proverbial token "cash and a player to be named later." Because at that point their bargaining position was bupkus, because no one at that point had been able to talk Allen out of his retirement, and it was clear that if anyone could, it wouldn't be the White Sox (thus demonstrating how your assertion earlier that he never gave White Sox management any grief doesn't stand up).

Second, the White Sox were finally able to negotiate Essian as the settlement of the deal on May 15th, after Allen had been traded a second time, to the Phillies, and had "unretired" and was actively playing again. Thus they now had a much stronger case to make to the Braves, who'd gotten $150 grand plus Essian as compensation from the Phillies, that the Braves owed the White Sox something meaningful.

And third, most importantly, while your effort to shine the most flattering possible light on Essian is commendable, come on: he was 24, had never made the majors except for some fleeting cups of coffee, and didn't project to be anything more than what he turned out to be, a workaday journeyman, never even a full-time regular. Saying he was "tremendous in 1977" is really spinning it hard: he had a fine year as a semi-regular, putting up a stat line far out of line with anything else he ever did. Essian was a helpful role player, but nothing more than that, certainly nothing special, nor did anyone ever expect him to be.

That is pennies on the dollar for Allen. Contrary to what Crispix fantasizes, no one at the time -- certainly not the White Sox, the Braves, or the Phillies -- expected that if Allen played he would never have another good year. As of 1974 he had still been one of the absolute elite hitters in the game; trading him for Jim Essian and cash was the White Sox getting (please pardon the pun) hosed.

And just to reiterate my own opinion on Allen: I think he belongs in the HOF, even with his baggage. What I object to is the attempt to rationalize away or minimize his baggage, which was very real and very abundant.

It should be noted that not only did the White Sox get Essian (who was, as Anthony notes, a pretty good catching prospect), the Braves also wangled Barry Bonnell from the Phillies.

WRT what Blyleven did vs what Allen did: It is likely true that the direct impact of Allen's decision was larger than the direct impact of Blyleven's decision, but that doesn't mean that we should minimize either one. Nor does it mean that we should overstate the impact either. I'd suggest that Babe Ruth's various absences in 1919, 1922, and 1925 - due mostly to his own choices as well - had far more negative impact than either Allen or Blyleven did, and I don't see anyone arguing that Ruth shouldn't be in the HOF because of what he did.

-- MWE

I think he belongs in the HOF, even with his baggage. What I object to is the attempt to rationalize away or minimize his baggage, which was very real and very abundant.

As is Blyleven's - maybe not *as* abundant, but very real, too.

-- MWE

WRT what Blyleven did vs what Allen did: It is likely true that the direct impact of Allen's decision was larger than the direct impact of Blyleven's decision, but that doesn't mean that we should minimize either one. Nor does it mean that we should overstate the impact either.

Entirely agreed: both should be properly understood for what they were.

As is Blyleven's - maybe not *as* abundant, but very real, too.

I will certainly agree that Blyleven's personality created annoyance at several points in his career, but there is simply no "maybe" about it when comparing the difference between his baggage cart and Allen's.

Blyleven left the Pirates on April 30, and was put on the disqualified list (whatever that was). He was gone for two weeks, then came back to the team on May 13.

Care to guess who his manager was?

I'm going with Chuck Tanner.

Steve,
Add me as another fan of yours who wishes you would reconsider your "in the starting rotation all season long, right to the season's end," comment and then saying yes, you knew Blyleven skipped 2 weeks.

Conceding a modest glitch doesn't hurt one's cause; it helps one's credibility.

Stick with it if you like, and leave me in the corner of the previous poster who likes your work but notices the unneeded stubbornness.

And I also agree with you re Allen vs Blyleven.
But you should have revealed the comparative info at first discussion, and not left it for someone else to lay it out. Your case may be right, so why not put it out there, unprompted?

Caesar's wife...

If you don't understand that "in the starting rotation all season long, right to the season's end" is how I have always honestly comprehended Blyleven's 1980 campaign, ever since it took place, then I don't know what to say. I watched it happen at the time. Until now I never understood that this was such a controversial interpretation. To the extent that I have communicated unclearly, I apologize.