Scott Rolen: Hall of Famer?

[cyclingwriter]

The injury thing on Mattingly is tough because it was his back. Most Americans have bad backs or at least think they do. I know it sounds trivial, but most people don't realize how bad Mattingly was injured and how much pain he had to play in because of his back.

Now Puckett goes blind, the average person knows that sucks. Koufax can't pitch because of his arm, they can understand it. A guy tears up his (pre-1990s) and they can see why his performance is hindered.

The back? Throw a heating pad on it and stretch some more is the feeling of a good portion of people. And since you need 75 percent to vote to Hall, it is not hard to find people think a bad back is a problem.

And, to clarify, I know a back injury is horrible and completely derailed Mattingly as well as Dale Murphy.

 

[cyclingwriter]

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.

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.

That is a fair argument that Rolen was a better hitter, but for him to be considered the better player it takes more. Robinson is widely considered to be the best fielding 3b of all time. For Rolen to be considered the better of the two, he would have to be considered the best hitter or very close... even if he was considered the No. 2 fielding third basement of all time.

 

[Stoney]

That is a fair argument that Rolen was a better hitter, but for him to be considered the better player it takes more.

It's not only "a fair argument", it's an argument that is overwhelmingly supported by the factual evidence. Rolen's offensive numbers easily beat Robinson's at the same stage of their careers. Unless something goes terribly wrong or his career ends prematurely for injury, Rolen should finish with offensive numbers that dwarf Robinson's in every single category. Rolen IS the better offensive player.

So the case for Robinson's superiority is defense. Obviously nobody beats Robinson defensively, he's the best defensive 3rd baseman ever. But Rolen comes about as close as anyone. He was also the game's best defensive third baseman for years. Eight gold gloves is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

That is a fair argument that Rolen was a better hitter, but for him to be considered the better player it takes more.

It's not only "a fair argument", it's an argument that is overwhelmingly supported by the factual evidence. Rolen's offensive numbers easily beat Robinson's at the same stage of their careers. Unless something goes terribly wrong or his career ends prematurely for injury, Rolen should finish with offensive numbers that dwarf Robinson's in every single category. Rolen IS the better offensive player.

So the case for Robinson's superiority is defense. Obviously nobody beats Robinson defensively, he's the best defensive 3rd baseman ever. But Rolen comes about as close as anyone. He was also the game's best defensive third baseman for years. Eight gold gloves is nothing to sneeze at.

You're looking at raw numbers without any context. Rolen played in an era of offense (not a steroid accusation).

 

[jagtrader]

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.

At his peak, Rolen had a better arm and better range than Robinson. Rolen is just a significantly better athlete, partly because of the evolution of athletes in general. The Brooks Robinson World Series highlights and the fact he's acknowledged as a really nice guy have elevated his status above what he actually was as a player. Sorry if that's crazy talk or whatever.

 

[cyclingwriter]

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.

At his peak, Rolen had a better arm and better range than Robinson. Rolen is just a significantly better athlete, partly because of the evolution of athletes in general. The Brooks Robinson World Series highlights and the fact he's acknowledged as a really nice guy have elevated his status above what he actually was as a player. Sorry if that's crazy talk or whatever.

That is actually a decent argument, and one that gets brought up time-to-time.

How do you compare the fielding of Mazeroski or Robinson to a modern player. Just because they were deemed the greatest of all time in the 1960s, does that mean it needs to last forever? When do you make that change? I came up watching Ozzie Smith and hearing how great he was? Some have stated that Vizquel was better in recent years? How do we as journalists know for sure?

Yes, there are metrics and formulas for defense, but since a lot of people don't like those numbers, does that mean they get thrown out?

I am not making a stand either way, but want to see what people think.

 

[shockey]

It's not only "a fair argument", it's an argument that is overwhelmingly supported by the factual evidence. Rolen's offensive numbers easily beat Robinson's at the same stage of their careers. Unless something goes terribly wrong or his career ends prematurely for injury, Rolen should finish with offensive numbers that dwarf Robinson's in every single category. Rolen IS the better offensive player.

So the case for Robinson's superiority is defense. Obviously nobody beats Robinson defensively, he's the best defensive 3rd baseman ever. But Rolen comes about as close as anyone. He was also the game's best defensive third baseman for years. Eight gold gloves is nothing to sneeze at.

robinson is in the hof because he was universally acknowledged to be the GREATEST defensive third basemen of all time. rolen has been the best defensive third basemen in the national league for a a long time, no question. it's hard to argue rolen isn't superior to brooks offensively.

imo, that doesn't make rolen an hof'er, but i'm not a voter and have no idea what the bbwa membership's criteria is when it comes to third basemen. i know the numbers indicate there aren't a lot of third sackers in the hof. i'm not smart enough to compute whether one of the best-fielding third basemen of his era who also was a very good hitter translates into hof.

it's a good argument, certainly.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Not for nothing, but Rolen has departed three organizations on bad terms.

That to me is more interesting than his non-existent Hall of Fame credentials.

 

[Mark McGwire]

Actually, shockey, not only is Puckett in Mattingly's class, he's a marginally better hitter who, during his prime run from 86-89 was a better hitter than Mattingly. So I think your attempt to disprove NY/East Coast bias might have done the opposite.

 

[Mark2010]

The gold standard for third basemen in my generation were Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt and George Brett. When I look at those guys, that defines a Hall of Famer for me.

Do I rank Rolen up there with them? No. Chipper Jones? Pretty close. Alex Rodriguez? As much as I think he's a drug-using cheat, Yes.

 

[cyclingwriter]

The gold standard for third basemen in my generation were Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt and George Brett. When I look at those guys, that defines a Hall of Famer for me.

Do I rank Rolen up there with them? No. Chipper Jones? Pretty close. Alex Rodriguez? As much as I think he's a drug-using cheat, Yes.

That is a great gold standard for third basemen. I will throw in Matthews in there...a little earlier than Brooks, but still in that pantheon.

However, since he just passed away, I will bring his name up. Snider, Mays and Mantle were the gold standard for CFs for a certain generation. That essentially kept Richie Ashburn out of the Hall for decades despite being very worthy (in my opinion). It probably affected some other guys as well. Was Ashburn comparable to those three? Not quite. Was he a HOFer? Yes.

In a roundabout way, I guess the question becomes is there a difference between HOF gold standard and a regular HOFer when it comes to a third basemen. There seems to be that criteria at other positions...Tony Perez was not Lou Gherig, Jimme Foxx or Willie Stargell. Catfish Hunter was not Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Sutton or a host of other contemporaries. Jim Rice was not Dave Winfield or Ricky Henderson.

I am trying to stay out of Vet committee votes and the mistakes of the 1940s and 1970s to keep this clean.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think of that position and I think of Brett and Schmidt as well. That might be a bit unfair since some would argue they're the two best third basemen of all-time.

Boggs wasn't on the level of Brett and Schmidt, but he still sailed in on the first ballot. Maybe he's the better benchmark.

 

[shockey]

Actually, shockey, not only is Puckett in Mattingly's class, he's a marginally better hitter who, during his prime run from 86-89 was a better hitter than Mattingly. So I think your attempt to disprove NY/East Coast bias might have done the opposite.

i dunno what barometer you're using, but puckett was never a better hitter than mattingly from '84-'89.

but my intention was not threadjack a rolen discussion into a puckett-mattingly debate. neither has a thing to do with the rolen issue...

 

[cyclingwriter]

I found this from baseball prospectus...and to be honest I am not enough of a stathead to know what JAWS is in terms of baseball. But basically, it says he is a better hitter than George Brett and Chipper Jones. Not sure if I buy it, but what the hey.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12525

 

[RickStain]

That is a fair argument that Rolen was a better hitter, but for him to be considered the better player it takes more. Robinson is widely considered to be the best fielding 3b of all time. For Rolen to be considered the better of the two, he would have to be considered the best hitter or very close... even if he was considered the No. 2 fielding third basement of all time.

This argument assumes that hitting and fielding have to be weighted equally, which makes no sense unless you think pitching is irrelevant.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Not for nothing, but Rolen has departed three organizations on bad terms.

That to me is more interesting than his non-existent Hall of Fame credentials.

Headstrong? Wants what he wants? Pain in the ass?

Affirmative.

 

[BYH]

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.

Also, if he'd had six more good seasons from 1990-1995.

Mattingly: .286-58 HR-382 RBI-.345 OBP-.405 SLG
Puckett: .312-111 HR-579 RBI-.363 OBP-.485 SLG

How people continue to say Puckett is in the HOF so Mattingly should be too boggles my mind. The candidacies are not even close, and the only reason Mattingly is hanging on the ballot is East Coast/Tragic Yankee Bias (because he never won a championship). If he played anywhere else, he wouldn't have gotten 5% his first year.

 

[shockey]

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.

Also, if he'd had six more good seasons from 1990-1995.

Mattingly: .286-58 HR-382 RBI-.345 OBP-.405 SLG
Puckett: .312-111 HR-579 RBI-.363 OBP-.485 SLG

How people continue to say Puckett is in the HOF so Mattingly should be too boggles my mind. The candidacies are not even close, and the only reason Mattingly is hanging on the ballot is East Coast/Tragic Yankee Bias (because he never won a championship). If he played anywhere else, he wouldn't have gotten 5% his first year.

easy there, bucko. i, for one, didn't argue that mattingly should be in. i understand why he's not. my contention has only been that kirby, imo, should NOT be in the hof. i brought mattingly into the discussion as an example of a puckett peer who, imo, was a more dominant offensive force UNTIL he fell off the table as a direct result of his back woes.

i'll go back to check my posts but i do not believe i ever argued. 'if kirby is so should mattingly.' kirby played at a higher level than mattingly from '90-'95; only a moron would contend otherwise. and yet, imo, mattingly had more 'hof-worthy seasons' than puckett did. again, imo. kirby is another 'hall of very good' player, just not a hof-calibre player.

but again, it's moot. kirby's in, mattingly never will be. no changing that. i'm guessing i veered onto this path to argue that rolen, too, hasn't had enough 'hof-calibre seasons' to get my vote if i had one.

 

[shockey]

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 *****.

here is the post in which i somehow veered onto the mattingly-kirby track. it began when someone contended mattingly was a 'singles hitter' but rolen is more hall-worthy because he is a 'power hitter,' or something to that effect....

 

[BYH]

Sorry shockey, I inferred from your post that you thought Mattingly was a superior hitter to Puckett. I'll agree they were similarly great from '84-'89, but Puckett's last six seasons give him a resume that runs laps around Mattingly's. And Puckett had at least two HOF-caliber seasons in the 1990s (1992 and 1994).

I hate that Mattingly's back went out too (he was the one Yankee I liked as a kid) but we can't discount those seasons b/c he wasn't playing at full strength.