Scott Rolen: Hall of Famer?

[Baron Scicluna]

Actually, looking it up, using the same logic as the Pirates, you CAN claim the Yankees have a HOFer at every position:

C: Yogi/Dickey
1B: Gehrig
2B: Lazzeri
SS: Rizzuto
3B: Joe Sewell (Yes, he played primarily with Cleveland, but he spent 3 seasons with NY and won a WS in 1932 with them while hitting the most HRs of his career that season, 11)
RF: The Babe, of course. Sorry Reggie
CF: DiMaggio/Mantle
LF: Winfield (Spent 9 years in NY, 8 in SD)

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Actually, looking it up, using the same logic as the Pirates, you CAN claim the Yankees have a HOFer at every position:

C: Yogi/Dickey
1B: Gehrig
2B: Lazzeri
SS: Rizzuto
3B: Joe Sewell (Yes, he played primarily with Cleveland, but he spent 3 seasons with NY and won a WS in 1932 with them while hitting the most HRs of his career that season, 11)
RF: The Babe, of course. Sorry Reggie
CF: DiMaggio/Mantle
LF: Winfield (Spent 9 years in NY, 8 in SD)

They probably put Lazzeri in to round this very item out . . . and it remains a joke. With that lineup supporting him, he hit appreciably better than he would have with a normal team, and his offensive numbers weren't all that great, to put it mildly. Among the most ridiculous HOF sequences ever was when Lazzeri got in ahead of Fox . . . and after the screaming, they finally put Fox in, out of embarassment. Ah, the Eastern bloc.

 

[cyclingwriter]

Quick piece of trivia: What is the only team to have a Hall of Famer at every position?

Hint: It's not the Yankees.

Like Baron noted, it depends on what you consider a full-time player. I know the Red Sox can do it.

C-Fisk and Ferrell
1b: Yaz (he played almost half his carrer there) or Foxx
2b: Doerr
ss: Cronin
3b: Boggs
OF: Williams, Rice, Hooper, Speaker...

I think the Giants have it and maybe the A's...though, I can't think of an A's shortstop in the hall.

 

[cyclingwriter]

Actually, looking it up, using the same logic as the Pirates, you CAN claim the Yankees have a HOFer at every position:

C: Yogi/Dickey
1B: Gehrig
2B: Lazzeri
SS: Rizzuto
3B: Joe Sewell (Yes, he played primarily with Cleveland, but he spent 3 seasons with NY and won a WS in 1932 with them while hitting the most HRs of his career that season, 11)
RF: The Babe, of course. Sorry Reggie
CF: DiMaggio/Mantle
LF: Winfield (Spent 9 years in NY, 8 in SD)

They probably put Lazzeri in to round this very item out . . . and it remains a joke. With that lineup supporting him, he hit appreciably better than he would have with a normal team, and his offensive numbers weren't all that great, to put it mildly. Among the most ridiculous HOF sequences ever was when Lazzeri got in ahead of Fox . . . and after the screaming, they finally put Fox in, out of embarassment. Ah, the Eastern bloc.

I agree with Lazzeri, but the Yanks have Gordon now as well.

 

[shockey]

Mattingly had a much better peak than Rolen and his peak is why he's in, but for career value, the biggest difference is that Mattingly did it with singles and Rolen did it with walks and power.

you are terribly, terribly wrong here. from '84-'89 -- the start of his career that put him on a sure path to the hof -- mattingly did it with power, double, singles, everything but triples 'cause he couldn't run a bit. and in '85 and '86, mattingly was widely considered the best PLAYER in baseball. by '89, he either was tied for or held the ALL-TIME record for consecutive games with a homer AND grand slams in a season.

the back woes relegated him to 'singles hitter' status for the rest of his career, but mattingly's best six seasons compare very favorably to most hof'ers. this is abhor these discussions: i believe rolen is a terrific player. but when the 'hall of very good' folks are in the discussion with the 'hof'ers,' you end up sounding as if you're denigrating terrific players like rolen, which isn't my intent.

but ya know how sparky anderson pissed off thurman munson after the '76 world series by saying, 'don't embarrass anyone by comparing them to johnny bench?' well, the gulf between rolen's hof credentials and mattingly's is as large.

mattingly isn't in the hof but for the first six seasons of his career compare favorably to just about every hof'er in the pre-steroid era. with all due respect to rolen, there was NEVER a time in which i thought, 'wow, this guy is an hof'er.'

and this notion that n.y. players have an advantage in hof voting is a crock. mattingly's not in the hall and even a supporter such as myself understands why. but i'll tell you this: one of mattingly's peers who IS in the hof is kirby puckett. and kirby puckett wasn't in mattingly's class as a hitter in their primes. even with mattingly's 'prime' cut short, he had twice as many 100-rbi seasons. puckett's career ba was a splendid .318 to mattingly's .307; but from '84-'89, don's ba was over .330. from '90-'95, when he still should've been padding his stats (mattingly was just 29 in '90) he instead bottomed out, hitting (barely) over .300 twice; averaged LESS THAN 10 homers per season, and never again came close to 100 ribbies (he had 86 twice). it was like the 'tale of two careers.'

as for mattingly's 'singles' vs. rolen's 'power": in his first six seasons, the 'singles hitter' had 160 homers; in rolen's best six seasons, he totaled 176. so much for that weak argument.

bottom line from here is that neither mattingly nor rolen gets into the hof without a ticket. more proof that it is extraordinarily difficult to earn a plaque. and while we can all site examples when we'd argue the standards have been lowered, i very much appreciate that, for the most part, the standards remain a *****.

 

[Football_Bat]

HOFer? Lemme think for a min HELL ****ING NO.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Quick piece of trivia: What is the only team to have a Hall of Famer at every position?

Hint: It's not the Yankees.

Like Baron noted, it depends on what you consider a full-time player. I know the Red Sox can do it.

C-Fisk and Ferrell
1b: Yaz (he played almost half his carrer there) or Foxx
2b: Doerr
ss: Cronin
3b: Boggs
OF: Williams, Rice, Hooper, Speaker...

I think the Giants have it and maybe the A's...though, I can't think of an A's shortstop in the hall.

Actually, it's the Giants and the Sox. The book I had with that question came out a year or two before Boggs was inducted.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Mattingly had a much better peak than Rolen and his peak is why he's in, but for career value, the biggest difference is that Mattingly did it with singles and Rolen did it with walks and power.

you are terribly, terribly wrong here. from '84-'89 -- the start of his career that put him on a sure path to the hof -- mattingly did it with power, double, singles, everything but triples 'cause he couldn't run a bit. and in '85 and '86, mattingly was widely considered the best PLAYER in baseball. by '89, he either was tied for or held the ALL-TIME record for consecutive games with a homer AND grand slams in a season.

the back woes relegated him to 'singles hitter' status for the rest of his career, but mattingly's best six seasons compare very favorably to most hof'ers. this is abhor these discussions: i believe rolen is a terrific player. but when the 'hall of very good' folks are in the discussion with the 'hof'ers,' you end up sounding as if you're denigrating terrific players like rolen, which isn't my intent.

but ya know how sparky anderson pissed off thurman munson after the '76 world series by saying, 'don't embarrass anyone by comparing them to johnny bench?' well, the gulf between rolen's hof credentials and mattingly's is as large.

mattingly isn't in the hof but for the first six seasons of his career compare favorably to just about every hof'er in the pre-steroid era. with all due respect to rolen, there was NEVER a time in which i thought, 'wow, this guy is an hof'er.'

and this notion that n.y. players have an advantage in hof voting is a crock. mattingly's not in the hall and even a supporter such as myself understands why. but i'll tell you this: one of mattingly's peers who IS in the hof is kirby puckett. and kirby puckett wasn't in mattingly's class as a hitter in their primes. even with mattingly's 'prime' cut short, he had twice as many 100-rbi seasons. puckett's career ba was a splendid .318 to mattingly's .307; but from '84-'89, don's ba was over .330. from '90-'95, when he still should've been padding his stats (mattingly was just 29 in '90) he instead bottomed out, hitting (barely) over .300 twice; averaged LESS THAN 10 homers per season, and never again came close to 100 ribbies (he had 86 twice). it was like the 'tale of two careers.'

If Mattingly had his career cut short by an eye issue and not his back, and then died early like Kirby Puckett, he might be in.

 

[Football_Bat]

Quick piece of trivia: What is the only team to have a Hall of Famer at every position?

Hint: It's not the Yankees.

Like Baron noted, it depends on what you consider a full-time player. I know the Red Sox can do it.

C-Fisk and Ferrell
1b: Yaz (he played almost half his carrer there) or Foxx
2b: Doerr
ss: Cronin
3b: Boggs
OF: Williams, Rice, Hooper, Speaker...

I think the Giants have it and maybe the A's...though, I can't think of an A's shortstop in the hall.

Bert Campaneris? He's the closest and could easily end up a Vets pick someday.

Tejada could end up there too eventually. Could.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Mattingly had a much better peak than Rolen and his peak is why he's in, but for career value, the biggest difference is that Mattingly did it with singles and Rolen did it with walks and power.

you are terribly, terribly wrong here. from '84-'89 -- the start of his career that put him on a sure path to the hof -- mattingly did it with power, double, singles, everything but triples 'cause he couldn't run a bit. and in '85 and '86, mattingly was widely considered the best PLAYER in baseball. by '89, he either was tied for or held the ALL-TIME record for consecutive games with a homer AND grand slams in a season.

the back woes relegated him to 'singles hitter' status for the rest of his career, but mattingly's best six seasons compare very favorably to most hof'ers. this is abhor these discussions: i believe rolen is a terrific player. but when the 'hall of very good' folks are in the discussion with the 'hof'ers,' you end up sounding as if you're denigrating terrific players like rolen, which isn't my intent.

but ya know how sparky anderson pissed off thurman munson after the '76 world series by saying, 'don't embarrass anyone by comparing them to johnny bench?' well, the gulf between rolen's hof credentials and mattingly's is as large.

mattingly isn't in the hof but for the first six seasons of his career compare favorably to just about every hof'er in the pre-steroid era. with all due respect to rolen, there was NEVER a time in which i thought, 'wow, this guy is an hof'er.'

and this notion that n.y. players have an advantage in hof voting is a crock. mattingly's not in the hall and even a supporter such as myself understands why. but i'll tell you this: one of mattingly's peers who IS in the hof is kirby puckett. and kirby puckett wasn't in mattingly's class as a hitter in their primes. even with mattingly's 'prime' cut short, he had twice as many 100-rbi seasons. puckett's career ba was a splendid .318 to mattingly's .307; but from '84-'89, don's ba was over .330. from '90-'95, when he still should've been padding his stats (mattingly was just 29 in '90) he instead bottomed out, hitting (barely) over .300 twice; averaged LESS THAN 10 homers per season, and never again came close to 100 ribbies (he had 86 twice). it was like the 'tale of two careers.'

If Mattingly had his career cut short by an eye issue and not his back, and then died early like Kirby Puckett, he might be in.

That's an interesting comparison. I don't remember Puckett ever being as dominant as Mattingly was, but I'm guessing he had more good/great seasons.

 

[jagtrader]

He's not Brooks Robinson

No, Rolen is better.

 

[Big Circus]

Quick piece of trivia: What is the only team to have a Hall of Famer at every position?

Hint: It's not the Yankees.

Like Baron noted, it depends on what you consider a full-time player. I know the Red Sox can do it.

C-Fisk and Ferrell
1b: Yaz (he played almost half his carrer there) or Foxx
2b: Doerr
ss: Cronin
3b: Boggs
OF: Williams, Rice, Hooper, Speaker...

I think the Giants have it and maybe the A's...though, I can't think of an A's shortstop in the hall.

Bert Campaneris? He's the closest and could easily end up a Vets pick someday.

Tejada could end up there too eventually. Could.

Campaneris can count for every position if he gets in.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Let's all hold our collective breaths for the moment that Capaneris gets inducted.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

He's not Brooks Robinson

No, Rolen is better.

I'm praying you're joking.

 

[shockey]

That's an interesting comparison. I don't remember Puckett ever being as dominant as Mattingly was, but I'm guessing he had more good/great seasons.

oh, no question. which brings us to the never-ending discussion of should the hof award dominance or longevity? my opinion is it should require both qualities from a player; i'm not big on the 'compilers.'

the only exception to those standards that comes to mind is sandy koufax, whose last 5 seasons after enduring severe growing pains were so off-the-charts amazing (era 2..04 or less the last four, with all other requisite stats to match) there was no way to deny him.

every time i take a gander i'm overwhelmed. for those too young to remember and/or those who have never studied his numbers, take a quick gander. then i dare even the harshest judge to argue he did not dominate long enough:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml

now, sandy's career ended at its peak when he was only 31 due to elbow arthritis. interesting question: had mattingly retired at 29 due to his back, would people look at his hof credentials differently?

but mattingly if he had retired then, mattingly would not have played in the requisite 10 seasons. the dodgers patiently waited while koufax went 36-40 in his first six seasons, 18-13 with a 3.53 era in his seventh and then EXPLODED into becoming SANDY KOUFAX for five seasons.

only the dodgers' willingness to let koufax do much of his 'growing' in the majors allowed him to play the requisite 10 seasons. 'cause he arguably should've been in the minors for much of his early career. (yeah, i'm just thinking as i go along here... my head explodes)...

 

[shockey]

He's not Brooks Robinson

No, Rolen is better.

thank you for checking in, mrs. rolen. it's an honor to have you with us.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I'm glad someone took on the nonsense about the Yankees bias in terms of awards & HOF. Lazzeri was generations ago, but Gossage took way too long, and Bernie Williams, Maris, Cone, of course Mattingly and to a lesser extent Wells all have resumes that would make them passable - not the worst HOFer at their position, even excluding the ancients, and have gotten / will get little to no support. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of them, and would put in others first. But being a Yankee certainly doesn't help, and might even hurt.

 

[outofplace]

Mattingly had a much better peak than Rolen and his peak is why he's in, but for career value, the biggest difference is that Mattingly did it with singles and Rolen did it with walks and power.

you are terribly, terribly wrong here. from '84-'89 -- the start of his career that put him on a sure path to the hof -- mattingly did it with power, double, singles, everything but triples 'cause he couldn't run a bit. and in '85 and '86, mattingly was widely considered the best PLAYER in baseball. by '89, he either was tied for or held the ALL-TIME record for consecutive games with a homer AND grand slams in a season.

the back woes relegated him to 'singles hitter' status for the rest of his career, but mattingly's best six seasons compare very favorably to most hof'ers. this is abhor these discussions: i believe rolen is a terrific player. but when the 'hall of very good' folks are in the discussion with the 'hof'ers,' you end up sounding as if you're denigrating terrific players like rolen, which isn't my intent.

but ya know how sparky anderson pissed off thurman munson after the '76 world series by saying, 'don't embarrass anyone by comparing them to johnny bench?' well, the gulf between rolen's hof credentials and mattingly's is as large.

mattingly isn't in the hof but for the first six seasons of his career compare favorably to just about every hof'er in the pre-steroid era. with all due respect to rolen, there was NEVER a time in which i thought, 'wow, this guy is an hof'er.'

and this notion that n.y. players have an advantage in hof voting is a crock. mattingly's not in the hall and even a supporter such as myself understands why. but i'll tell you this: one of mattingly's peers who IS in the hof is kirby puckett. and kirby puckett wasn't in mattingly's class as a hitter in their primes. even with mattingly's 'prime' cut short, he had twice as many 100-rbi seasons. puckett's career ba was a splendid .318 to mattingly's .307; but from '84-'89, don's ba was over .330. from '90-'95, when he still should've been padding his stats (mattingly was just 29 in '90) he instead bottomed out, hitting (barely) over .300 twice; averaged LESS THAN 10 homers per season, and never again came close to 100 ribbies (he had 86 twice). it was like the 'tale of two careers.'

as for mattingly's 'singles' vs. rolen's 'power": in his first six seasons, the 'singles hitter' had 160 homers; in rolen's best six seasons, he totaled 176. so much for that weak argument.

bottom line from here is that neither mattingly nor rolen gets into the hof without a ticket. more proof that it is extraordinarily difficult to earn a plaque. and while we can all site examples when we'd argue the standards have been lowered, i very much appreciate that, for the most part, the standards remain a *****.

I'm waiting for somebody to slam you for daring to use RBI in your comparison of Mattingly and Puckett.

 

[shockey]

I'm waiting for somebody to slam you for daring to use RBI in your comparison of Mattingly and Puckett.

3, 2, 1... :D :D :D ::) ::) ::)

 

[Stoney]

He's not Brooks Robinson

No, Rolen is better.

thank you for checking in, mrs. rolen. it's an honor to have you with us.

Rolen does have a better career batting average, a much better slugging percentage, has already passed him in career HRs (accomplished in eight fewer seasons) and will very soon be easily blowing by Robinson's career totals in every single other offensive category. Rolen is clearly the better offensive player.

And I know Robinson has that "greatest defensive 3rd baseman" label going for him but, you know, Rolen was also the best defensive third baseman of his era, so it's not like there's some huge gap between them on the defensive front. The difference between them is not as wide as you'd like to believe.

And Rolen's HOF case is stronger than folks here want to believe. Any objective and honest analysis places him amongst the greatest 3rd baseman ever.