Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

KYW Newsradio: Kenney, Wolf Join Campaign to Elect Dick Allen to the Hall of Fame

The Allen campaign is relentlessly driven by Mark “Froggy” Carfagno — a former Veterans Stadium groundskeeper who believes Allen was “the most productive offensive player from 1964 through 1974.”

“Better than Hank Aaron,” he continued, “Willie Mays, Willie Stargell, Johnny Bench, Ron Santo — all Hall of Famers. They’re all in the Hall of Fame. Why isn’t this guy?”

 

Players with a similar number of Batting Wins as Allen from age 22-32:

Rk         Player BtWins OPS+   PA From   To
16        Mel Ott   51.2  159 7025 1931 1941
17 Frank Robinson   51.1  160 6815 1958 1968
18     Dick Allen   48.6  165 6270 1964 1974
19   Jeff Bagwell   48.1  159 6519 1991 2000
20    Joe Jackson   47.8  171 5652 1910 1920
21  Dan Brouthers   46.6  180 4877 1880 1890
22 Alex Rodriguez   46.4  151 7553 1998 2008
23  Eddie Collins   46.2  152 7014 1909 1919
24  Manny Ramirez   45.6  157 6520 1994 2004 
DanG Posted: June 05, 2019 at 08:46 PM | 176 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dick allen, hall of fame, phillies

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: June 12, 2019 at 11:25 AM (#5850954)
bat flip
   102. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 12, 2019 at 11:31 AM (#5850961)
Somebody throw a baseball at Howie next time he posts.
   103. DanG Posted: June 12, 2019 at 12:42 PM (#5851033)
2) It seems that, after the 1956 ballot, something happened (beyond just the shift to voting every other year instead of annually) that threw off their ability to induct anyone- note that there are ballots in that era with votes-per-ballot not that far off from what we've seen lately, but with them having hard times inducting anyone
Rather than provide the voters with a list of the leading vote-getters from the previous election, they gave them a list of all players eligible for election.

I wrote this explanation in an article here a few years back:

The BBWAA adopted the 10-years rule for the 1958 election. At that time, candidates were eligible up to 30 years after retirement. The five-year retirement rule had been adopted four years earlier, so players last active in the years 1928-1952 were on the ballot in 1958. Assuming they listed everyone who played 10+ years and retired in those years, the ballot would have listed 405 candidates.

The immediate result was huge numbers of players received votes and nobody got elected (elections were being held bi-yearly at this time):

1958: 154 received votes / 0 elected
1960: 134 received votes / 0 elected
1962: 79 received votes / Feller and Robinson elected

After that last election, the BBWAA made a move to reduce the size of the ballot. They decided that candidates would only be eligible up to 20 years after retirement rather than 30. That cleared off a ton of deadwood and opened the path for the elections of Appling, Ruffing and Medwick by the BBWAA. (It also threw many 1920’s and ‘30’s favorites over to the jurisdiction of the Veterans Committee, who spent the next twenty years electing the leftovers from that ballot.)
   104. SoSH U at work Posted: June 12, 2019 at 12:48 PM (#5851036)
Rather than provide the voters with a list of the leading vote-getters from the previous election, they gave them a list of all players eligible for election.

I wrote this explanation in an article here a few years back:

The BBWAA adopted the 10-years rule for the 1958 election. At that time, candidates were eligible up to 30 years after retirement. The five-year retirement rule had been adopted four years earlier, so players last active in the years 1928-1952 were on the ballot in 1958. Assuming they listed everyone who played 10+ years and retired in those years, the ballot would have listed 405 candidates.

The immediate result was huge numbers of players received votes and nobody got elected (elections were being held bi-yearly at this time):

1958: 154 received votes / 0 elected
1960: 134 received votes / 0 elected
1962: 79 received votes / Feller and Robinson elected

After that last election, the BBWAA made a move to reduce the size of the ballot. They decided that candidates would only be eligible up to 20 years after retirement rather than 30. That cleared off a ton of deadwood and opened the path for the elections of Appling, Ruffing and Medwick by the BBWAA. (It also threw many 1920’s and ‘30’s favorites over to the jurisdiction of the Veterans Committee, who spent the next twenty years electing the leftovers from that ballot.)


Knowing that, why are you a strong proponent of reinstatement of the occasional snub and other measures that would undoubtedly make the ballot larger?

   105. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 12, 2019 at 01:00 PM (#5851048)
In 1966, they tried him in LF

If I'm recalling correctly, Allen was put in LF because he'd injured his shoulder and couldn't throw. So on every ball hit out there, the SS had to run out and get an underhand toss from Allen and relay it back to the IF.

Nothing to do with the errors, just an historical footnote.
   106. DanG Posted: June 12, 2019 at 01:22 PM (#5851067)
why are you a strong proponent of reinstatement of the occasional snub and other measures that would undoubtedly make the ballot larger?
I'm still in favor of reinstating some of the 5% victims. However, I now advocate for a 20-man ballot for BBWAA elections.
   107. SoSH U at work Posted: June 12, 2019 at 01:41 PM (#5851074)
I'm still in favor of reinstating some of the 5% victims. However, I now advocate for a 20-man ballot for BBWAA elections.


Gotcha. That is a change, correct?
   108. DanG Posted: June 12, 2019 at 03:07 PM (#5851112)
That is a change, correct?
Yes, for about three years now.

Get the best 20 candidates from the ten years under review on the ballot and eliminate the ten-vote limit and 5% rule. That way we dispense with the non candidates while getting an up-down vote on everyone.
   109. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 03:09 AM (#5853068)
I decided to study Allen's defense in a little more detail to try to put some value on his defensive liabilities. My main point of contention, As I been saying recently, is that GB error rates are not the same for all base/out situations, they increase about 3x in double play situations (it varies a bit for different base/out situations), if you do the math this indicate that about 40% of infield errors are going to occur in DP situations, there's also non DP situations where runners are on base, so roughly speaking infield errors are going to occur 50% of the time with men on base.

Large portion of inf errors are throwing errors, that should be noted.

But the base/out situation is really important to understanding how we value defense cause I dont think most peope/systems are accounting for this. With men on base, a throwing errors is going to cost around 1.0 runs in terms of weighted runs cause usually a base runner will advance two bases.

If you take 1967 Dick ALlen made 35 errors, which if we assume Half of those errors are with men on base, and those errors should cost about 1.0 def. runs, then we get -17.5 half of those errors and 8.75 for the other half. We get about 26 runs lost on his errors.

So I decided to actually look at the game logs from 1967 to see if that's where throwing errors occur.

As one might have guessed most of these errors were throwing errors, there was one in April where he dropped a foul ball (a pretty harmless error) and in aug he dropped a throw on a play at third, a couple others must have been GB that ate him up as the score does not indicate (throw); most of the rest were throwing errors.

Hes moving along at 5 or 6 error/month then he makes 10 in July ; on July 2 a nice 1.7 wt value w/ 2 runners advancing 2 bases; he was suspended for a game in 7/8; In a 7.31 game there no one on, but the bater got to 2b; I just pt. this out in passing that even errors with no one on can sometimes be more than the usual -0.5 or so that we put on routine errors. In aug he had 9 more errors including 5 errors in two games in third week of Aug; the three error game against the Mets on 8/22 was two days prior to the famous incident where he cut his hand on the headlight and that ended the season, one wonders if some of off field problems might have been connected to his throwing problems he seems really streaky on defense.

Total errors 19 with men on base 16 w/ no one on. I didnt bother to count all the base runners moving up but we can take a guess and value those 19 errors at -19 runs and the 16 at 8 runs for a total of 27 runs lost on errors.

His range seems reasonable at 3b so I assume he's ok at that. How many errors does the avg 3b make per season? I really dont know (or have time to look right now) Im guessing 10 and using the previous method that should work out to about -7.5 runs on def. So I'm guessing that Allen in 1967 probably cost about 20 runs on defense versus the average 3baseman. TZ gives him as -15 which isnt that far off but problem understates his problems for the reasons I mention.

that's a lot to give up defensively.

Then you ask: What was his value on Offense? And you realize that he really wasnt a babe Ruth, Barry Bond type on off. His most offensive runs produced was 60 and he hit 50 a couple of time. IF we discard his short 1973 season, for the remaining 10 seasons of 1964-74, really almost his entire career, he really averages only 42 runs a year on offense.

He didnt play much 3b after 1970, so whats his value if you play him at 3B. For 7 seasons 64-70 TZ gives his def. as -11 per season, I would bump it to say -14 for reasons already stated, he's 39.5 runs on off those same seasons (his base running is about neutral). So overall he's about 2.5 WAR in value these years, that's really his peak/prime.

That's it. That cant be a Hall of Famer. Surely Bando, or Nettles or Ken Boyer have far more value. They all also made significant contributions to pennant drives, the narrative portion I suppose of our criterion. .

I guess 1967 was probably an aberration and in retrospect maybe I shouldnt have used it but I wanted to see if my guess was right about GB errors occuring more with men on base.

If my guess that TZ is underestimating def. for infielders, then Allen is really just an above avg player once you account for his def. liabilities. I guess he's better used at 1b or LF but then you still have to account for that with positional value that TZ uses or some other method.

SO unlike Walt, I am not neutral about Allen for HoF; he's worse than Baines probably, he has half the career of Baines and his value is really no more than an above average player.

   110. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 03:47 AM (#5853069)
Looking at 1966 where he only played 60% of the season at 3b he made 9 errors, all throwing. 7 of them with men on base. Should estimate to about losing -8 runs def or about -4 vs the avg 3b; TZ gives him as -3. So similar under representation to that I see in 1967. He's a worthy all star, probably a 4.5 WAR player that year.

He came in 4th in MVP voting which seems utterly absurd.
   111. TomH Posted: June 18, 2019 at 07:11 AM (#5853074)
I haven't looked at Allen's defense (nice job Sunday), but I wouldn't bag on his 4th place MVP showing in 19666, since he was The Best Offensive Player in the League. What position players would you put above him in MVP voting? Best OPS< 3rd in runs, 3rd RBI, 10 triples, 40 home runs. If you want to say Hank Aaron should be 4th and Marichal #5 pushing Allen to 6, I'll give you that much.
   112. Rally Posted: June 18, 2019 at 08:28 AM (#5853078)
His range seems reasonable at 3b so I assume he's ok at that. How many errors does the avg 3b make per season? I really dont know (or have time to look right now) Im guessing 10 and using the previous method that should work out to about -7.5 runs on def.


On BBref you can go to the 1967 season and look at fielding by third basemen. The league average fielding % was .950, and Allen had 379 chances, so the average 3B that year with his chances would have made 19 errors.

So he's got 16 more errors than average, at .75 per E that's -12 runs.
   113. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 08:31 AM (#5853079)
In re 111; gene alley seems comparable in value. Although he gets 2 war for def on the seasonal chart he only gets 7 runs per the value table on his personal page. Mappe thats the positional adoustment? What numbers do we get for Torre?
   114. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 18, 2019 at 09:48 AM (#5853090)
He didnt play much 3b after 1970, so whats his value if you play him at 3B. For 7 seasons 64-70 TZ gives his def. as -11 per season, I would bump it to say -14 for reasons already stated, he's 39.5 runs on off those same seasons (his base running is about neutral). So overall he's about 2.5 WAR in value these years, that's really his peak/prime.

Isn't that 2.5 WAA, so more like 4.5 or so WAR even with the discounted defense? And bWAR has him at 5.4 on average for those 7 years so not so far off once you include his positive baserunning.

That stretch of course excludes his 5.4 bWAR 1971 and his 8.6-bWAR MVP season in 1972 at 1B, so I'm not sure how you can say that 1964-1970 was his peak/prime. As well as a few other above average seasons.
   115. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 18, 2019 at 10:10 AM (#5853093)
That stretch of course excludes his 5.4 bWAR 1971 and his 8.6-bWAR MVP season in 1972 at 1B, so I'm not sure how you can say that 1964-1970 was his peak/prime.


I'm willing to say that if you've got a guy who wins an MVP, and has another season where he leads the league in homers, slugging and OPS, and yet anther season where he's top five in OPS+ and top ten in WAR, and none of those three seasons are considered part of his peak/prime - you've probably got a Hall of Famer there.
   116. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: June 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM (#5853103)
Why are so many people somehow invested in this guy? There are so many more recent players who had really good careers and no baggage like Larry Walker and Scott Rolen. There seem to be like 500 Cardinal fans here, where is the Scott Rolen chant?
   117. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2019 at 11:00 AM (#5853107)
Surely Bando, or Nettles or Ken Boyer have far more value.

The only reason to prefer Allen to Nettles is an non-rational preference for great bat/terrible glove over good bat/great glove.

Nettles peak is every bit as good as Allen's, and he has a lot more career value.
   118. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 11:19 AM (#5853115)
We have no idea how those errors came about. Maybe they were on plays other 3Bs wouldn't have gotten to.

The only reason to prefer Allen to Nettles is an non-rational preference for great bat/terrible glove over good bat/great glove.


It's not "great bat," it's "all-time elite bat." And the preference is entirely rational, since we can't come close to accurately quantifying the defensive "cost." The accuracy we purportedly "see" is all a product of illusion. The data's there and we put a lot of effort into it so therefore we "must" be doing it right -- but that doesn't actually hold together. We see this illusion in its essential extreme with all the framing stuff. It's virtually all a product of easy data availability and cheap computing power. Nothing more.

This is a paragraph from a 2010 SABR article on the history of trying to quantify defense:

In 1954, Allan Roth and Branch Rickey, at that time general manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates, developed an “efficiency formula” for quantifying run-creation and run-prevention performance. Unable to figure out how to measure fielding, they set their metric for it at 0—that is, they threw up their hands and just assumed that its overall effect on the game’s outcome was neither positive nor negative. Rickey was resigned to the idea that “there is nothing on earth anyone can do with fielding.”


That's pretty much where we still are, particularly now that shifts have watered down the very concept of "position." We can see and intuit and kind of measure who good defenders are, but they could do the very same thing in 1954.(*) In no sense do we have the ability to quantify fielding with enough accuracy that it can be used as an accurate setoff against offense. Allen gets demerits for his defense. But the idea that we know it was bad enough to put him below Graig Nettles -- a far inferior hitter -- is cray-cray.

(*) Branch Rickey and others in 1954 would have had no problem identifying Graig Nettles or Buddy Bell as better 3Bs than Dick Allen or Bobby Bonilla.
   119. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2019 at 12:15 PM (#5853126)
Allen gets demerits for his defense. But the idea that we know it was bad enough to put him below Graig Nettles -- a far inferior hitter -- is cray-cray.

Everyone could see with their naked eye that Nettles was an elite 3B and Allen was a butcher. Baseball men have been choosing elite glove good bat players over great bat butchers for ever.

And Allen wasn't really an elite bat. From age 22-30 Allen averaged 42 Rbat per season. From 22 to 30 Mickey Mantle averaged 62.
   120. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: June 18, 2019 at 12:18 PM (#5853127)
In 1954 the big innovation was the first commercial transistor radio and the country started immunizations for polio so I guess everything had been solved. Totally get why this defense in baseball thing is too big for mankind so why bother?
   121. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 12:45 PM (#5853144)
On BBref you can go to the 1967 season and look at fielding by third basemen. The league average fielding % was .950, and Allen had 379 chances, so the average 3B that year with his chances would have made 19 errors.

So he's got 16 more errors than average, at .75 per E that's -12 runs.


OK a couple points:

If you're right, that does give back Allen quite a bit of value. So I def need to recheck all this..

2. .950 seems a bit low for field. pct. Are we missing something? The one online site I was at was saying that (presumably) overall error rate on GB was 2% or something. Then when they showed the error rate for various base/out states it jumps to 7 or 8% in various cases. So I was thinking that the error rate on GB w/ no one on was a lot less like 0.5% or something.

NOW, Im thinking that what they meant was 2% error rate on GB w/ no one on and 7-8% w/ men on that would get us somewhere near a 5% overall error rate. Hmm..

3. But Allen's def value is shown as -15 (per TZ I think) on the baseball reference page. And now you're correction is taking him down to -12 runs. I dont think his range factor is anyway possible to bring that -15 up much.

TZ has him at least -15 and now you've got him at -12 or so..Something's off somewhere.
   122. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 12:55 PM (#5853148)
this one shows a 3.3% overall error rate on GBs:

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/6/24/4456142/when-is-an-error-more-likely-to-occur-in-a-game

It does say 3b commit more errors that anyone else but enuf to get to 5% on overall GB?? Obviously more errors in the 60s but i know its not that much.

this one shows error rate/base out state in the 4th table which shows a much higher rate.

https://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/error_art.htm

then he does a correction for SH and fielder's choices in the next table which I am not sure is relevant to our discussion.
   123. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:00 PM (#5853152)
errors overall have gone up 0.7% since the mid 60s so I dont think that accounts for it...
   124. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:01 PM (#5853154)
Everyone could see with their naked eye that Nettles was an elite 3B and Allen was a butcher.


I know -- which is why I said that already.

Baseball men have been choosing elite glove good bat players over great bat butchers for ever.


Actually they've been doing the exact opposite, particularly at corner IF/OF. Typically, what happens is what happened with Allen. If he's suboptimal at 3B, he gets moved to LF or RF or 1B. (Or DH.) Bats like his never, ever get taken out of the lineup altogether because of defense.

And Allen wasn't really an elite bat.


Come again? He's one of the top 25 bats in the history of the game, maybe top 20. His bat quality comps are people like Henry Aaron and Miguel Cabrera.(*) Let's try to keep at least a semblance of seriousness over the proceedings.

(*) "Generational" is one of those Deadspinny, social media, ESPNny terms I could do without, but he was a generational bat.
   125. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:17 PM (#5853167)
In 1954 the big innovation was the first commercial transistor radio and the country started immunizations for polio so I guess everything had been solved. Totally get why this defense in baseball thing is too big for mankind so why bother?


This is the kind of perspective which naturally leads to the kind of false confidence already noted and explained. "We have the data and we're smart and we're trying really hard" still doesn't necessarily lead to good results -- as we see with baseball defense.
   126. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:20 PM (#5853169)
125--I believe in trying versus not trying. That failing is better than not trying. That trying to learn is better than ignorance. No false confidence. Just think bagging the whole thing is weak sauce
   127. Rally Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:21 PM (#5853170)
TZ has him at least -15 and now you've got him at -12 or so..Something's off somewhere.


Uh, maybe something is off. Probably. But those numbers don't tell you that. A 3 run difference is a rounding error.

But mainly the difference is between TZ and a quick and dirty run value for only errors. Total zone has a lot of inputs, adjustments, calculations and attempts to measure total defensive value, both range and error avoidance. The -12 is just using your calculation of about .75 runs per error, and the fact that Allen made 16 more errors than the average 3B for 1967.

If you're right, that does give back Allen quite a bit of value.


I'm not trying to reinvent the defensive metric here, just a simple look at how many extra errors he made. The number of fielding chances Allen had, 379, and the league fielding % at his position, .950, are known and anyone here can check these numbers on BBref.

   128. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:22 PM (#5853172)
.... and now teams routinely leave the spot where Allen played completely open and oftentimes leave the place where his sidekick at SS played completely open ... so, really, how important could defense from a guy who stood where teams now routinely don't even have a guy stand have been?
   129. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:25 PM (#5853174)
The whole premise that you don't add value if you don't do a particular thing better than the average guy at your position is flawed. That's not the right universe of comparison or the right baseline. You don't "cost your team runs" if you don't field as well as the average third baseman and it's puzzling as to how that idea worked its way into the baseball analytical bloodstream. My guess is that it has to be assumed because that makes the available data "work" the best. But the assumptions and premises should precede and drive the data, not the other way aroudn.
   130. Rally Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:25 PM (#5853175)
This is the kind of perspective which naturally leads to the kind of false confidence already noted and explained. "We have the data and we're smart and we're trying really hard" still doesn't necessarily lead to good results -- as we see with baseball defense.


How long did it take you to get that statement onto a punch card and upload it to your 1954 style mainframe computer? Or do you accept that in some areas knowledge can progress?
   131. Rally Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:29 PM (#5853179)
.... and now teams routinely leave the spot where Allen played completely open and oftentimes leave the place where his sidekick at SS played completely open ... so, really, how important could defense from a guy who stood where teams now routinely don't even have a guy stand have been?


If they routinely had the third baseman pull up a lawn chair and take a break in foul territory, that would lead me to think defense at the spot is not very important. Especially if they did it against right handed hitters. Moving that player from a spot where a specific batter does not hit many balls, to a spot where he hits more? Different story.
   132. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:32 PM (#5853182)
Moving that player from a spot where a specific batter does not hit many balls, to a spot where he hits more? Different story.


Nah, it really isn't. Allen could have sat in your proverbial lawn chair against a bunch of hitters and it really wouldn't have mattered much. The baseball world of 1964-76 wasn't devoid of left-handed pull hitters.
   133. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:35 PM (#5853184)
Or do you accept that in some areas knowledge can progress?


Of course I accept this. Cancer is a good example. Baseball defense is ... well, it's a far worse example. The very premises of the enterprise are flawed. From that flaw can flow only flaws.

Cool things can be measured better, for sure -- I like the jump numbers that just came out, but even extrapolating those out uses flawed premises. You don't subtract value by not doing a thing as well as the average for your position. A PGA tour guy who drives the ball worse than tour average doesn't just by that fact alone crater "value." It's a flawed idea that needs fixing.
   134. Sweatpants Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:39 PM (#5853186)
His bat quality comps are people like Henry Aaron and Miguel Cabrera.(*)
I was hoping the asterisk would be for something like "Of course, Aaron had almost double the career PA Allen had," but nothing doing.
   135. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:43 PM (#5853189)
--
   136. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 01:44 PM (#5853190)
"Of course, Aaron had almost double the career PA Allen had,"


Irrelevant. The sample size is easily big enough for Allen's true hitting talent to have revealed itself. There's no serious question that he was an elite hitter.
   137. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 02:42 PM (#5853232)
so yeah that was supposed to be WAA not WAR, my bad there. Sorry.

So with batting, Allen had one 8 WAR season, 2 7 war seasons. For the 11 seasons 64-74, hes averaging 6.2 WAR with his bat. So yeah that's really good. I'd say 8 WAR with the bat is elite, but not perhaps not 7. I think Bonss, McGuire, Ruth and maybe a couple other guys had more than 8 WAR with the bat.

im just trying to figure out how much he's giving back in the field, and so far: Not as much as I thought. So...
   138. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 02:44 PM (#5853234)
You don't "cost your team runs" if you don't field as well as the average third baseman and it's puzzling as to how that idea worked its way into the baseball analytical bloodstream


what are you talking about? If you dont play defense well, that will hurt your team. That will show up in the runs oolumn over the long run.

Why wouldnt one wish to quantify defense in terms of runs given up? Why is that flawed? You're pretty strange sometimes.
   139. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5853239)
If you dont play defense well, that will hurt your team.


Sure, but playing it below average won't necessarily hurt your team. Terms like "well" and "hurt your team" need rigorous definition.

Why wouldnt one wish to quantify defense in terms of runs given up? Why is that flawed?


I have no issue quantifying defense in terms of runs. I dissent from the idea that fielding a position below average necessarily costs runs. ("Cost" is another term that needs rigorous definition. There's nothing magic about the average guy. Why not the best guy and everyone who doesn't field as well as the best guy "costs" his team runs? Dick Allen fielded 3B better than billions of people, including tens of millions of athletic people and millions of people who played baseball in their lives. Why is that not said to have "gained" his team runs?)

At least in theory, of course, it's possible that nothing Dick Allen ever did on defense truly cost his team a single run. So maybe the notion of "costing runs" is misguided at inception and needs to be improved upon.

I'm still thinking this through, but I'm leaning toward the idea that defense has to be measured in some kind of on-off, plus-minus way, like the plus-minus numbers in basketball.(*) Second best would be some kind of isolated plus-minus where we can accurately measure the defensive GB efficiency of the left side of the infield with and without Allen. (By that, I mean without any of the estimating Total Zone is forced to do.) Adding up portions of runs based on estimated events against average doesn't work. I'd be sold by a rigorous adjusted plus-minus system that showed the '64 Phillies giving up 25 more runs (or whatever) with Allen on the field than with him off. The quality of the method would come down to the sensibility of the adjustments.

Keeping in mind Bill James's work showing that the Cardinals' ERA didn't go down with Ozzie on the field (I think only that one year), an open mind about impact is very much in order. It's eminently possible that the theoretically discoverable plus-minus numbers for someone like Allen show an impact well below what we would guess or intuit.

(*) Defense in basketball is hard to measure and quantify too, but if the other team scores a lot more when Player A is on the floor with similar teammates and opposition as Player B, everyone reasonably concludes that Player B is better defensively.
   140. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 03:23 PM (#5853248)
I dissent from the idea that fielding a position below average necessarily costs runs


what about the notion that fielding a position below average would cost a team runs GIVEN A LARGE ENUF SAMPLE SIZE?

Would you disagree with that premise?

Assume we can all agree on quantifiable measure for "average" defensive play.
   141. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 03:28 PM (#5853250)
what about the notion that fielding a position below average would cost a team runs GIVEN A LARGE ENUF SAMPLE SIZE?

Would you disagree with that premise?


Yes, of course. I'm assuming a large enough sample size.

Why the average guy? What's magic about the average guy such that doing worse than him means you've subtracted value -- or "cost" your team value or runs or whatever? That's where the entire enterprise falls apart.
   142. Sunday silence Posted: June 18, 2019 at 05:35 PM (#5853308)
there's nothing magical about the average guy and I have no idea why that has become a focal pt. of your thesis. What is your pt there?

You could use an "elite" guy you could use a "replacement" guy standard and all other pts in between. If you are using the same sccale you should get the same results or the same ordering of talent. So no it doesnt matter.

there's at least one practical reason for using an average guy: we have tons more data pts on those than on the extremes. so we should be able to be more certain about what the average is. So we can define that pt. more precisely.

I mean elite what is that? How much elite? One in a decade? one in a lifetime? one in history? Or replacement, Im not even sure I understand that. Is it supposed to be one theoretical guy who's replacement level in both off/def etc? or is a level for one parameter and those guys who have that level might be better or worse in other parameters?
   143. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 05:39 PM (#5853309)
You could use an "elite" guy you could use a "replacement" guy standard and all other pts in between. If you are using the same sccale you should get the same results or the same ordering of talent. So no it doesnt matter.


That all makes sense, but we aren't merely ordering talent defensively. We're purporting to measure how many runs talent "cost" their team defensively and then using those "cost" runs mixed with offense to come up with a combined ordering.

   144. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 18, 2019 at 06:21 PM (#5853325)
Allen was an elite hitter. I prefer to use Rbat rather than OPS+ to measure this, because the latter doesn't take into account playing time, but Allen still looks elite by that metric:

- 99% of his career value came from 1964-1974
- He had 431 Rbat during that time period, which was the most in MLB (basically tied with Aaron and slightly ahead of Frank Robinson)
- Of course, just looking at 1964-1974 is biased in Allen's favor (other guys were almost as good on a rate basis but did it for longer, or started / finished their careers a bit after / before that time period)
- If you broaden the time period to 1959-1979, Allen is 7th in Rbat, way behind Aaron/Robinson/Mays, a bit behind McCovey/Killebrew, and more in line with Stargell/Yaz/Clemente
- If you broaden it to 1954-1984, he's 12th in Rbat. Now he's also way behind Mantle, a bit behind Kaline, and in line with Reggie/Morgan/Mathews/Schmidt/Carew

"All-time elite bat" really depends on how you define it -- obviously there are guys who were better / just as good for longer -- but I guess the question is whether he was good enough that his bat alone was enough to get him into the HOF irrespective of overall value considerations (kind of like Bill Mazeroski's glove, at least in the opinion of the people who voted him in). Or do we need to look at his case more closely, i.e. does it matter what position he played / how well he played it?

Ultimately, all of those guys listed above are HOFers, and some of them (i.e. Reggie) were about as bad defensively as Allen supposedly was. The main difference between Reggie and Allen isn't their defensive quality but rather that Reggie played a lot longer (including greater in-season durability), adding another 4000 PA even though the effective rate was not that much above average. And that has real value, enough that Reggie was a first-ballot HOFer with 93.6% of the vote.

In the end I'm not sure Allen's bat was so incredible that you can just ignore everything else and put him in the Hall (if it was, he'd already be in). I also don't think there should be that much controversy about the quality of his defense -- we know he was bad, and even if he only should have lost 6 WAR instead of 11 WAR due to the quality of his defense, he's still not an automatic HOF guy -- I mean, advanced defensive metrics and WAR aren't the reason that he peaked at 19% with the writers. (If anything, I think sabermetrics and the push for objective analysis have helped sustain interest in Allen's case over the years.)

In response to #116 I'm not really invested in Allen at all, but his profile is a bit of an outlier in several respects and therefore makes for interesting discussion/analysis. Like I said earlier, I'd vote for him but I understand why some people wouldn't.

NOTE: Edited for clarity.
   145. . Posted: June 18, 2019 at 06:50 PM (#5853331)
He didn't get much traction with the writers because he was an outspoken black guy who saw through their pieties and said so. And a small tiny little bit because he didn't play many postseason games. Pretty simple. He was never going to get an honest evaluation from the writers. No chance. If he was born even six or seven years later, he'd have been way better off. Port his rookie year from 1964 to 1971 and he's probably in.



   146. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 09:15 AM (#5853502)

Perhaps. His case is similar to that of Vlad Guerrero, but with 3 fewer seasons worth of PAs, less durability, and a slightly higher peak. The result is much lower counting stats, plus the off field issues. Would Vlad have made the HOF if he had retired at age 33 instead age 36? Eventually, maybe, but not as easily for sure. Or Cabrera if he had retired at age 31? Neither guy has added that much value since then but they’ve added some bulk to their careers. There’s not a perfect comp for “Allen without the off-field issues” to say for certain how the voters would have treated him.
   147. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 09:50 AM (#5853508)
Allen was an elite hitter. I prefer to use Rbat rather than OPS+ to measure this, because the latter doesn't take into account playing time, but Allen still looks elite by that metric:

- 99% of his career value came from 1964-1974
- He had 431 Rbat during that time period, which was the most in MLB (basically tied with Aaron and slightly ahead of Frank Robinson)
- Of course, just looking at 1964-1974 is biased in Allen's favor (other guys were almost as good on a rate basis but did it for longer, or started / finished their careers a bit after / before that time period)
- If you broaden the time period to 1959-1979, Allen is 7th in Rbat, way behind Aaron/Robinson/Mays, a bit behind McCovey/Killebrew, and more in line with Stargell/Yaz/Clemente
- If you broaden it to 1954-1984, he's 12th in Rbat. Now he's also way behind Mantle, a bit behind Kaline, and in line with Reggie/Morgan/Mathews/Schmidt/Carew


The problem with this is that actual elite bats are great bats outside of their prime. Anything just focusing on Allen's 11 years is hugely biased toward him. And anything that uses rate stats also overrates him because he couldn't stay on the field.

From '64 to '74 Allen averaged a 165 OPS+ but only 39 Rbat per season. From '54 to '64 Mays averaged the same 165 OPS+, but 51 Rbat. From '57 to '67 Aaron averaged a 163 OPS+, and 49 Rbat. He's not in their league as a hitter, even before you count the other ten great seasons they each tacked on to their prime, while Allen added nothing.
   148. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM (#5853526)

#147, um, that's the exact point I was making. He's not in Aaron/Mays/Mantle/FRob's class as a hitter. If that's the threshold for "elite bat" then he doesn't qualify.

But Reggie Jackson only had about one season's more of Rbat than Allen in about 4000 more plate appearances. The main difference between Jackson and Allen is a lot of league average hitting. Was Jackson an elite bat?

Stargell has almost exactly the same number of Rbat as Allen (and fewer WAR) in about 1700 more PA. Was Stargell an elite bat?

Both Jackson and Stargell were uncontroversial first-ballot HOFers. Neither of them added anything defensively. Now, Reggie had the postseason heroics and the extra value from all the league-average play. Stargell had his own postseason heroics. But is that enough to justify first-ballot vs. non-HOFer?
   149. SoSH U at work Posted: June 19, 2019 at 11:03 AM (#5853530)
But is that enough to justify first-ballot vs. non-HOFer?


I think it's easy to look at Reggie and, especially, Pops and determine they were overrated. So, if you think Reggie should have been a third-ballot guy, and Willie should have gotten in on Ballot 8, then it's really not hard to draw a line between them and Dick, even the pretend Dick Allen that Sugar has created whose issues were entirely the result of the media.

   150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 11:43 AM (#5853549)
But Reggie Jackson only had about one season's more of Rbat than Allen in about 4000 more plate appearances. The main difference between Jackson and Allen is a lot of league average hitting. Was Jackson an elite bat?

Stargell has almost exactly the same number of Rbat as Allen (and fewer WAR) in about 1700 more PA. Was Stargell an elite bat?

Both Jackson and Stargell were uncontroversial first-ballot HOFers. Neither of them added anything defensively. Now, Reggie had the postseason heroics and the extra value from all the league-average play. Stargell had his own postseason heroics. But is that enough to justify first-ballot vs. non-HOFer?


I don't think of either Jackson or Stargell as elite bats, and Stargell is definitely a borderline guy, to me. Jackson is REGGIE!, because he won 5 World Series in 8 years, and was an absolute beast in the playoffs. Otherwise, he's a solid, but not inner circle type HoF.
   151. . Posted: June 19, 2019 at 12:51 PM (#5853589)
Not being able to play because you have a bum shoulder or something doesn't say a single thing about the caliber of hitter you are/were. It's utterly meaningless.

It's simply wrong to say that if Dick Allen plays 130 games and Jerry Adair plays 162 and Jerry Adair puts up 0.2 WAR or something in those extra 32 games that Jerry Adair was a better hitter or more valuable than Dick Allen in those 32 games. Saying that stretches the meaning of those terms to a silly breaking point and the observation, such as it is, is entirely frivolous. In truth, those 32 games reveal nothing about the relative caliber of their hitting.
   152. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 01:14 PM (#5853592)
In truth, those 32 games reveal nothing about the relative caliber of their hitting.

If player A can only play 130 games a year, and player B can play 160, and they both produce at the same level when on the field, player B is better. Full stop.

Player B may also be better if he produces at a somewhat lesser rate. One factor to consider is that guys that get a lot of rest (without going on the DL) will tend to miss games against the pitchers they will do least well against, inflating their rate stats.
   153. . Posted: June 19, 2019 at 01:24 PM (#5853597)
Nah, that's all invention to backfill something you've already decided. Just go with the normal definitions everyone uses. Jim Brown wasn't a "worse" player because he retired at 29 to go into acting instead of playing three or four more years. Tony Conigliaro didn't become a "worse" player because he got hit in the eye with a heater. Aaron Judge isn't a "worse" player in 2019 just because his oblique blew and he missed a couple months. No one talks that way. If someone said something like that in normal bar/sports bar conversation, they'd get stuck with the bill at best and laughed out of the room at worst.

Athletes get hurt. #### happens. Doesn't mean a thing.
   154. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 02:04 PM (#5853615)
Fine, but simply being talented when you're at your best hasn't historically been enough to make the Hall of Fame. The ability (or desire, as the case may be) to stay on the field is a skill, and one that has historically been valued by the Baseball HOF. Probably overvalued, but valued nonetheless. Pretending it is otherwise doesn't make it so.
   155. . Posted: June 19, 2019 at 02:15 PM (#5853625)
Fine, but simply being talented when you're at your best hasn't historically been enough to make the Hall of Fame.


To the degree that's true, it's because the writers are a bunch of fuddie-duddies who prefer pluck and grit and staying on the field and boringly accumulating, to actual talent.

The ability (or desire, as the case may be) to stay on the field is a skill, and one that has historically been valued by the Baseball HOF. Probably overvalued, but valued nonetheless. Pretending it is otherwise doesn't make it so.


Nah, that's a frivolous cliche. In a very few outlier cases some guys' bodies are injury prone and other guys' bodies the opposite -- but that doesn't make it a baseball "skill" in any sense. Aaron Judge didn't get hurt this year because of a lack of skill. Sandy Koufax or Mark Fidrych didn't have arm problems because of a lack of skill.

But given the general philosophy of baseball writer types, it's not a surprise that they pretend it's a skill to not get hurt. If you put truth serum in them, many of them would say not being able to play because you're hurt is a sign of lower character. No one should take such nonsense seriously.
   156. John DiFool2 Posted: June 19, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5853631)
Reggie was a pretty good defender thru age 29: +50 TZ.
   157. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 02:24 PM (#5853637)
Nah, that's a frivolous cliche. In a very few outlier cases some guys' bodies are injury prone and other guys' bodies the opposite -- but that doesn't make it a baseball "skill" in any sense.

How is it less of a skill than being tall, or being fast, or having great eyes, or quick hands? They're all physical characteristics that you had nothing to do with developing.
   158. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 02:31 PM (#5853647)
How is it less of a skill than being tall, or being fast, or having great eyes, or quick hands? They're all physical characteristics that you had nothing to do with developing.

And they're all important to winning ballgames.

There are lots of additional guys who could be in the HOF if we just evaluated them based on their peak and without regard to playing time during that peak. Just on the pitching side, Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, Orel Hershiser, Doc Gooden. The Hall has established a precedent for the type of career length / total value that it looks for -- even for guys with great peaks -- and Allen is borderline on that basis. Not much more needs to be said.
   159. Rally Posted: June 19, 2019 at 03:11 PM (#5853699)
Reggie and Stargell got in without much debate because they had full careers. It's the counting stats. Reggie hit 500 homers before steroids took over the game, and Stargell's 475 was considered close enough. Had he played 20 years later with the same numbers Stargell probably is on the outside looking in, like Fred McGriff. Allen at his peak was a bit better than both, but didn't have the counting stats to sway the writers.

Orlando Cepeda is similar and got in by the VC. Allen was clearly the better hitter by rate stats, but Cepeda played longer and has more counting stats, 28 more dingers and he passed the 2000 hit mark. They are about even on defense, Cepeda was just a 1B/OF and Allen played a lot of 3B, but played it poorly. Both won a rookie of the year award, and 8 or 9 years later won the MVP.

Allen has little postseason to add, just 2 for 9 while his team was swept by the Big Red Machine in 1976. Cepeda doesn't have much, .207 with 3 homers in 87 AB. He did well in the 1969 NLCS, .455 against the Mets, but his team lost anyway. In the only series his team won, the 1967 WS, he had 3 hits and 1 RBI in 29 AB. Cardinals won in spite of him.

I'd definitely take Allen but the HOF took Cepeda. It's not just the VC, it started with the BBWAA. In his last year of the ballot, Cepeda just fell short at 73%. In light of that a VC selection was all but assured. Allen was on the same ballot and only got 14%, and topped out at 19%.
   160. Rally Posted: June 19, 2019 at 03:13 PM (#5853702)
There are lots of additional guys who could be in the HOF if we just evaluated them based on their peak and without regard to playing time during that peak.


If we went by peak ability without considering how long it lasted, Eric Davis would be the alpha inner circle dude. At least among the pre-Trout period.
   161. Sunday silence Posted: June 19, 2019 at 05:25 PM (#5853768)
Tony Conigliaro didn't become a "worse" player because he got hit in the eye with a heater.


Are you arguing Conigliaro should be in the HoF? Do you see Allen's case as any different than Conigliaro's?
   162. Sunday silence Posted: June 19, 2019 at 05:28 PM (#5853769)
Aaron Judge isn't a "worse" player in 2019 just because his oblique blew and he missed a couple months


Is Aaron Judge at this pt. in time a Hall of Famer to you?
   163. Sunday silence Posted: June 19, 2019 at 05:29 PM (#5853771)
To the degree that's true, it's because the writers are a bunch of fuddie-duddies who prefer pluck and grit and staying on the field and boringly accumulating, to actual talent.


So you would argue Mark Fidyrich is a HoFer for you, based on one season?
   164. GregD Posted: June 19, 2019 at 05:32 PM (#5853772)
So you would argue Mark Fidyrich is a HoFer for you, based on one season?
He must have had one of the better MLB careers of the people in that HOF. Lots of the people with the most hitting and pitching talent must have died in tragic childhood accidents or influenza waves or been afflicted with polio.
   165. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 19, 2019 at 06:50 PM (#5853792)
I'm trying to take this discussion seriously, so here's an interesting table -- players not in the HOF, ranked by RBat:

Rk  Player           Rbat       OPS+    PA      WAR
----------------------------------------------------
1   Barry Bonds      1128.5     182     12606  162.8
2   Albert Pujols     682.3     148     11934  100.0
3   Manny Ramirez     651.3     154      9774   69.4
4   Alex Rodriguez    640.2     140     12207  117.8
5   Miguel Cabrera    579.9     150      9949   69.8
6   Gary Sheffield    560.7     140     10947   60.5
7   Mark McGwire      545.5     163      7660   62.2
8   David Ortiz       455.1     141     10091   55.3
9   Joey Votto        446.5     152      7042   59.0
10   Jason Giambi     442.8     139      8908   50.5
11   Mike Trout       442.6     176      4985   69.1
12   Joe Jackson      438.2     170      5693   62.2
13   Dick Allen       435.2     156      7315   58.7
14   Rafael Palmeiro  430.8     132     12046   71.9
15   Todd Helton      424.3     133      9453   61.2
16   Lance Berkman    420.7     144      7814   52.1
17   Larry Walker     420       141      8030   72.7
18   Pete Browning    404.3     163      5315   40.6
19   Fred McGriff     399.5     134     10174   52.6
20   Bob Johnson      381.6     139      8050   57.3
21   Jack Clark       373.8     137      8230   53.1
22   Carlos Delgado   372.2     138      8657   44.4
23   Bobby Abreu      369.3     128     10081   60.0
24   Pete Rose        367.7     118     15890   79.7
25   Brian Giles      362       136      7836   51.1 


So basically, everyone with more Rbat than Allen is either in the HOF, will be in the HOF, is ineligible, or is a PED guy, with the exception of:

1. Votto -- probably the most similar to Allen in terms of career length to date, Rbat, OPS+, WAR. There's been a fair amount of debate given his slow start about whether he's in hit-by-a-bus territory today. I think it's up for debate, but he has 100 million reasons to play for another 4 years after this one, so by the time he's ready for retirement his career line will likely look very different.

2. Giambi -- I mention him because even though he's a PED guy, he almost certainly wouldn't have made the Hall even without the PED usage. During his 12-year peak he has 7000 PAs at a 150 OPS+, pretty close to Allen. However, he did almost nothing outside of that, and as a poor 1B/DH he had even less defensive value than Allen. Also played in a higher scoring environment where his production was less valuable (in terms of RAR-to-WAR conversion). Not really dispositive to Allen's case -- it's easy to explain why Allen and not him.

Likewise, if you start to look at the non-roid guys just below Allen on that list, most of them had longer careers with lower peaks, or comparable career length but less value. Other than Walker, it would be pretty easy to induct Allen and not open the floodgates to a lot of other players.

So Allen really is a pretty unique and interesting case. I can certainly see the argument for inducting him and I can see the argument why he's a borderline guy.
   166. Sunday silence Posted: June 19, 2019 at 08:16 PM (#5853808)
Its an interesting table in 165...NOt to diminish your pts. I think they are good, but you should also mention the candidacies of Palmiero, Sheffield and Helton all of whom have similar WAR. Even without steroids would Palmiero be a shoo-in?
   167. Rally Posted: June 19, 2019 at 10:41 PM (#5853880)
Without steroids Raffy would have to be in. Just not many people with 3000 hits and 500 HR. Maybe he’d have to wait a few years, like Don Sutton did, for being a compiler instead of dominant. But within 5 years I’m sure he would have gathered the votes.
   168. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2019 at 08:35 AM (#5853928)

Right, everybody with 3000 hits or 500 HR is in the HOF, barring steroid taint. Anybody with both would make it, no question. Palmeiro also has 13 more WAR than Allen.

I think Sheffield would have gotten in eventually as well with 500+ HRs.

Helton is an interesting one. Arguably deserves to be in but a 1B in Colorado who didn't put up big counting stats and is relying in part on his defense to support his case I think is going to have a tough time with the voters.
   169. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 20, 2019 at 09:06 AM (#5853940)
Without steroids Raffy would have to be in. Just not many people with 3000 hits and 500 HR.

I think Sheffield would have gotten in eventually as well with 500+ HRs.

How likely were they to reach those milestones without steroids? Guys sure seem to be aging faster nowadays.

   170. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2019 at 11:36 AM (#5854026)

#169 no idea. I didn't think that's what Sunday Silence was asking and don't think it's that relevant to Allen's case. I think Raffy and Sheff would have eventually been HOFers if they had fallen a bit short of those milestones (i.e. 450 HRs and 2700 hits). If they had only matched Allen's counting stats, they wouldn't have been valuable enough to make the HOF, given their lower rate of production.
   171. Eddo Posted: June 20, 2019 at 11:40 AM (#5854028)
I think Raffy and Sheff would have eventually been HOFers if they had fallen a bit short of those milestones (i.e. 450 HRs and 2700 hits)

I think I disagree here, especially about Palmeiro.

Unlike McGwire and Bonds, and even Sosa a little, there wasn't even much advocacy by the most PED-tolerant voters for Palmeiro. Without being one of the four (at the time) 3000/500 guys, he'd be seen no differently than Fred McGriff.

Sheffield seems to get a little more buzz, but there are also plenty of people who hold his extreme immaturity / lack of professionalism early in his career against him (and they have a point, though I'm not sure if it's enough to push him out of the Hall absent the PED association).
   172. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 20, 2019 at 12:18 PM (#5854046)

I don't know. Palmeiro really shot himself in the foot with his finger-pointing performance in front of Congress and then the subsequent positive test. But a clean Raffy who retires with 490 HR and 2600 H would still have had 67 WAR. That's more than Mac and meaningfully more than Sosa. And he did start on the ballot at 11% even with the positive test. He'd have had a good shot with the VC in any event, if Harold Baines' induction is any indication.

A clean Sheffield who falls short of 500 HR is a tougher case -- he'd have been a borderline guy at best, slightly better than McGriff who didn't fare well with the voters but, to my earlier point, now looks like he has a good shot with the VC.
   173. . Posted: June 20, 2019 at 12:56 PM (#5854068)
Are you arguing Conigliaro should be in the HoF?


I don't believe you actually thought I was arguing such a thing when I used the Conig/Fidrych/Judge examples.
   174. Eddo Posted: June 20, 2019 at 01:40 PM (#5854094)
I don't know. Palmeiro really shot himself in the foot with his finger-pointing performance in front of Congress and then the subsequent positive test. But a clean Raffy who retires with 490 HR and 2600 H would still have had 67 WAR. That's more than Mac and meaningfully more than Sosa. And he did start on the ballot at 11% even with the positive test. He'd have had a good shot with the VC in any event, if Harold Baines' induction is any indication.

A clean Sheffield who falls short of 500 HR is a tougher case -- he'd have been a borderline guy at best, slightly better than McGriff who didn't fare well with the voters but, to my earlier point, now looks like he has a good shot with the VC.

The VC point is absolutely correct, I think. I expect McGriff eventually gets in via VC, and Palmeiro making it the same way (minus PEDs) makes sense.

I guess I just always got the impression Palmeiro was viewed similarly to Todd Helton; not really exciting, though deserving.
   175. Rally Posted: June 20, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5854099)
I meant #167 as if Raffy had the exact same numbers he retired with, but avoided failing a steroid test in 2005. I'm not even attempting to guess how long he used or what effect they had on his hitting.

Raffy could have roided his way to 500 homers and stopped clean in 2005. Even if doing so completely eliminated his power, he's already got 541 homers through 2004, and he came into 2005 just 78 hits short of 3000. Even a puny shell of a Palmeiro would have picked up enough singles to get there, especially considering he would not have been suspended and would have been available for more than 110 games.
   176. SoSH U at work Posted: June 20, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5854109)
I expect McGriff eventually gets in via VC,


I think McGriff goes in next time his era meets, though it's possibly only Larry Walker does (assuming LW doesn't make the full leap during his last year on the ballot).
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(790 - 9:29pm, Nov 12)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogThe Astros stole signs electronically in 2017 | The Athletic (paywall)
(61 - 9:29pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRed Sox say Pedroia hopes to return next season
(24 - 9:11pm, Nov 12)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - 2019 NFL thread
(88 - 8:49pm, Nov 12)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogAL ROY Alvarez unanimous, NL ROY Alonso 1 shy
(11 - 8:28pm, Nov 12)
Last: cardsfanboy

Sox TherapyJ.D. Martinez's Qualified Decision
(48 - 8:27pm, Nov 12)
Last: Darren

NewsblogDodgers to shop for starting pitchers, right-handed power as offseason begins
(2 - 8:22pm, Nov 12)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT - November* 2019 College Football thread
(232 - 8:07pm, Nov 12)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMets have a stud in Pete Alonso, but will they keep him?
(17 - 7:57pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogEx-Ranger says this could prevent another death like Tyler Skaggs’. Will MLB allow it?
(22 - 7:17pm, Nov 12)
Last: Walt Davis

Sox Therapy2020 is in Bloom
(11 - 6:54pm, Nov 12)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Time Cube

Newsblog2020 MODERN BASEBALL ERA BALLOT
(228 - 5:44pm, Nov 12)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogYankees plan to have talks with Cole, Strasburg
(6 - 5:24pm, Nov 12)
Last: My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected

Hall of MeritMock 2020 Modern Baseball Ballot
(30 - 3:55pm, Nov 12)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogMeanwhile, on the cold, cold Hot Stove . . .
(8 - 3:20pm, Nov 12)
Last: Stevey

Page rendered in 0.7375 seconds
46 querie(s) executed