Current HOF election results

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I never said Brogna was as good as Rolen, and I did not compare WAR or OPS+.

You said he was "approached by" Brogna, i.e. they were similar. You did not compare WAR or OPS+ or use any statistic or metric, presumably because using data would not support the argument in any way. It's difficult to defend this spice take on factual grounds, of course you didn't cite one.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I said Rolen was the likes of Brogna, meaning they weren't jaw-droppingly different, yet it is understood that one was a journeyman and the other is now a HOFer.

They were jaw-droopingly different. Rolen was a great defensive 3B who consistently hit well over the league. Brogna was a 1B who was a worse hitter than the league average every single year in Philadelphia and finished with a value below a replacement level player for his career. Never was he a productive player.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No one argues my main point that Edmonds was better than Rolen in St. L., never mind Pujols, Lieberthal had a better year at least one of the 5+ seasons Rolen was there and that Abreu was as good-- hell, Pat Burrell basically matched or exceeded his power numbers.

Yes, because one claim is reasonable or at least technically correct (Lieberthal's best season is better than tons of selected seasons of HOFers, that's not how the Hall works as a career honor. Some of Lieberthal's years are better than some of Babe Ruth's years) and the other is obviously false BS.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Anyway, here is a comparison of Rolen/Brogna for 1998 and 1999, or 40% of the time Rolen played in Philly full time:

Rico--1998 BA= .265; 77 R 20 HR 104 RBI
Scott-1998 BA= .290; 120 R 31 HR 120 RBI

Rico--1999 BA= .278. 90R 24 HR 102 RBI
Scott--1999 BA= .290; 74R 26 HR 76 RBI

Does the difference pop out at you? Sure the first year is a noticeable difference, but HOF vs. average guy? Second year?-- whether Lieberthal, Abreu, Burrell or even Brogna, Rolen just didn't stand out as any kind of superstar-- EVEN ON THE PHILLIES.

Even in your cherry picked stats where you can use anything to defend the thesis, you selected 77 runs and 120 runs? That's not a difference that "pops out"? Really? You don't see how Rolen outperformed a guy who was below the league average at the plate? The 1999 pick is better, when you completely ignore the rates and cover up Rolen's injury and missed games, you can make them look similar. That's better, it can fly if somebody doesn't bother to look for themselves. Unfortunately, if one actually looks, one quickly sees the obvious difference and what you've done. In this season, Rolen's injury year and his worst as a Philie starter, he was 20% over the league bat. Brogna was 5% below. Good job covering up the time played. Brogna produced similar raw totals... with almost 200 extra plate appearances.

This is a silly rhetorical argument in its root form anyway; we can make Babe Ruth look bad by taking a random player in a weaker Ruth season and saying he was similar that year. It's obviously irrelevant, the Hall is a career honor and not a measure of a cherry picked worst season of a star and best season of a random. But it's extra stupid when the random player chosen was not even close in that year and it is just a fantasy you have.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

And then go ahead, start posting Edmonds numbers.

Why would I post Edmonds numbers? Edmonds was an excellent hitter, I think a bit better than Rolen at the plate. It is possible to be aware that A) Edmonds was a great hitter and B) Brogna was below the league average and was nowhere near Rolen in even a single season at the same time. How can you conflate cognizance of B with disagreement of A? Surely you are aware this is a terrible argument to make and a poor deflection.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Again, sorry, but Rolen's numbers are not that remarkable on the Cardinals even LEAVING OUT PUJOLS, never mind others in the league. Excellent, near great, yes, but HOF? (and I'm basically ignoring his last six years that gave us one productive season). Sorry, I find his inclusion a great big YAWN.

If you want to ignore his position, sure. This is a better argument than the one you actually chose to make that included blatantly false claims. You could make a rational argument against Rolen, he's a lower tier HOFer at best. There are many reasonable arguments against Rolen as he's a border guy. You don't need to invent complete fictions or lie.