Hall of Fame Blind Resume #1

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm sure a few of you will be savvy enough to figure out who this player is. Please keep it to yourself until the reveal. Thanks.

The Basics
- 15 seasons (10 season 500+ PA)
- Split time between 1B, 3B, OF (in order of games played)
- Rookie of the Year
- 1-time MVP (two other top ten finish, one top five finish)
- 7-time All Star
- League leader in major offensive categories 12 times, including 2-time HR champion (also led league in runs, triples, RBI, BB (twice), OBA (twice), SLG (three times), total bases
- league leader in OPS four times, eight seasons .900+, three seasons 1.000+


The Stats
- .292/.378/.594/.912
- 351 HR
- 1119 RBI
- 133/52 SB/CS
- 1848 H
- 1099 R
- 320 2B
- 79 3B


The Advanced
- 156 OPS+ (19th all time, led league three times)
- 71.8 oWAR
- 61.2 WAR


The Negative
- (-10.6) dWAR
- led league in K's twice
- oft injured, short career
- .927 fielding pct as a 3B, one of the worst percentages in modern baseball
- led league in errors twice


The Intangibles
- reputation for having a bad attitude, clubhouse distraction
- of his two full season with an OPS under .900, one was played in Dodger Stadium
- played large portion of career in a pitcher friendly era
- played in one post season series (.222 AVG in three games)


Player X had one of the greatest rookie seasons of all time, leading the league in total bases. Spent tons of time on the DL, and changed teams frequently due to clashes with managers. Retired at age 35 because he felt the team owner lied to him when he was told he would not be forced to DH. Is a recluse who has largely disappeared post baseball. The subject of some of the coolest looking baseball cards of all time.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I should note that this player may or may not actually be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Irish]

No. Some things are nice but I need more for my hall of fame.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

OPS+

110
162
145
181*
174*
160
165
145
151
199*
175
164
94
130
89

*led league

 

[FirstTimer]

Really really solid career. But not sure it screams HOF to me. If he went in I wouldn't fight it. If he never made it I wouldn't care.

I'd lean more yes than no given the era he played in.

 

[Goober]

No. Counting stats not high enough to justify a vote, especially considering bad defense and the fact he played at first.

 

[Irish]

I should also say I have no idea who this is. For some reason I think I might think differently depending on the time period he played.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

mid 60's - late 70's

 

[NAHSTE]

I'm more of a peak guy than a longevity guy, so I'd let him in. Won an MVP, 150 career OPS+, great metrics and he accumulated 60 career WAR? Yes, that's a HOFer to me.

 

[Villain]

This is a tough call. His numbers are right on the edge and that was a pitchers' era.

I'll vote no because, while they it's a solid career with a nice trophy cabinet, I don't look at those numbers and see levels that are extraordinary. Well above average in that era, sure, but I'm just not blown away.

 

[Senser81]

- .927 fielding pct as a 3B, one of the worst percentages in modern baseball
- led league in errors twice

Sorry, but Keith Moreland is definitely NOT a Hall of Famer.


I had no idea who Player X was until you gave me the era. I'm pretty sure I know who it is now. I would not put him in the HOF. Numbers are nice, but the longevity/durability isn't there...he doesn't have a postseason resume, and he was a terrible fielder. Loosely resembles a Dave Kingman resume.

But he also played during a terrible era for hitters. He and Reggie Jackson were probably the two most feared sluggers of that time. It would be interesting to compare Player X to Reggie Jackson and Jim Rice.

 

[FedEx227]

I know who it is, but he's borderline. He's worth arguing because I can see both ends of the spectrum. Gaudy offensive numbers, in fact really good... but probably ahead of his time. If he played in the 90s or this era we could probably look past his mediocre defense but in that time, it was tough.

My vote is probably no. He's IN that territory and is definitely worth a discussion. Great offensive numbers, but probably not consistently great enough for inclusion.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

hmm.

Good question.

Could you tell the story of baseball without him? Probably.

Could you tell the story of the Phillies without him? Probably not.

Borderline guy. I'd probably lean yes because his numbers at the plate are very strong.

 

[spiker]

Don't know who it is but I voted "No". Trophy cabinet aside, just not enough offense for a horribly bad defensive player.

 

[spiker]

This is a good idea for a thread or series of threads, btw. Great discussion topic.

 

[NAHSTE]

- led league in errors twice

Remind me to bring this up in 15 years when it's time to discredit David Wright's candidacy.

 

[FedEx227]

I didn't really like the fielding percentage inclusion but I understand why it was there.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I didn't really like the fielding percentage inclusion but I understand why it was there.

It was historically bad.

I think it's safe to say a guy with a .920 lifetime was pretty awful at that position.

 

[FedEx227]

No definitely, I agree. It just makes the blood boil when I see it but yeah .920 is hideous.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Ok, since the cat is largely out of the bag, let's do the reveal.

Player X is this guy...

 

Richie (Dick) Allen

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/allendi01.shtml

Richie Allen is not in the Hall of Fame, and this is why:

1848. That's his hit total. Allen was first eligible for the hall in 1983, and a decent portion of voters at that time had been writing about baseball since the 1930's and 1940's. The standards of the grizzled old writers of that era were career counting numbers. 1848 hits was not going to cut it with these guys, and Allen's first year voting total of 3.7% is the proof. Allen was a dominant hitter, but lacked longevity to pile up numbers.

By 1996, as voters became savvier to stats other than career counting totals, Allen peaked at 19%. Still criminally low.


When you look at his B-R page, you see a ton of black ink, but most of that black ink is in categories like OBA and OPS+, and I can guarantee that the eyes of people like Shirley Povich went directly to the bottom of the baseball card, as something like OPS was barely conceived at that point, let alone valued.


In short, Allen had numbers that are greater appreciated in 2012 than 1983. He was an on base percentage & OPS beast during an era where that was ignored as an offensive skill.

He played for bad teams, so I don't hold the thin postseason resume against him. I always view that as 'extra credit' rather than a requirement, especially in the pre-Wild Card era where many players never even played in the post season.

Allen was flamboyant, not unlike Reggie Jackson, but lacked Jackson's charisma, so while Jackson was both loved and hated, Allen was just hated. He wasn't quite Milton Bradley, but you get the idea. The writers did not like him, which combined with low counting totals, spelled doom.

He was also hurt a lot. He was outspoken against artificial turf, even blaming his injuries on it. Writers hated that. But it turns out he was right.


I would vote for him. To me, he is the most egregious Hall of Fame snub among hitters. One of the greatest rookie seasons ever, an MVP, and arguably the most feared hitter in the National League for a decade. A horrendous defensive 3B, he was passable at 1B and the OF. Besides, there are plenty of bad defensive players in the Hall of Fame. Some of his offensive seasons really shine when you consider the pitching strong era.