Does Lou Brock Really belong in the HOF ?

[Taco De Muerte]

I say no.

-Career OBP of .343 (league average, .330).
-Career SLG of .410 (league average, .390).
-938 SB at 75% success rate (so he had the same effect that he would have had if he never tried to steal at all).
-Terrible fielder (BP has him at -101 runs career, and FAA/RF have him at terrible. No UZR data, of course. Win Shares agree).

Brock actually walked more often than it seemed - his totals are deflated by playing during the 60's. However, he didn't have much power, nor much on-base ability. His peak years (1964-1971) are offensively above-average, but with terrible defense. I'd say Brock was an above-average player who was overrated due to his steals. He really shouldn't be in the HOF.

[leecemark]

--I'll agree Lou Brock is one of the least valuable players in the Hall of Fame. He does belong though. He has the 3,000 hits, had the career and single season SB records and was a great post season performer. You might be able to overlook either the 3,000 hits or the SB, but it would be tough to ignore both. His outstanding play in the World Series (and the fact the Cards wouldn't have been there (3 times) without him is the icing on the cake.

[Taco De Muerte]

He has the 3,000 hits


So, if Julio Franco gets 3000 hits, he belongs?

[The Dude]

If Julio Franco gets 3,000 hits, he should be in the HOF for playing so long at such a high quality into his early 50's (or late 50's, depending on wether or not you believe he's older than recorded).

[2Chance]

Franco, who will be 48 this season, has barely 2,500 hits and has not had over 100 hits since the 1997 season. So if he makes it to 3,000, let's consider him.


edit: dude....I didn't see your post there!

[Taco De Muerte]

If Julio Franco gets 3,000 hits, he should be in the HOF for playing so long at such a high quality into his early 50's (or late 50's, depending on wether or not you believe he's older than recorded).


If Julio Franco is a Hofer, the Hall had better expand, because it'll have to admit about 400 other players.

[leecemark]

--I didn't say 3,000 hits was good for automatic induction (although I'd vote for everybody who has done it so far). I said Brock has the 3,000 hits AND had the stolen bases records AND was a key player (probably the best or 2nd best on all 3 Cards teams) on multiple championship teams. Even though there are better players I wouldn't support, Brock's various achievements merit induction IMO. He is the worst 1st ballot choice ever, but just the fact he WAS a first ballot guy demonstrates there wasn't much doubt about his merit at the time,.

[538280]

Lou Brock doesn't have the VALUE of a HOFer, but the Hall if about more than value. He was one of the greatest basestealers ever, he has 3000 hits, was known to be great in his time, and was a big World Series hero. Belongs in despite his lack of value.

That doesn't mean he's a guy I'd necessarily want on my team though.

[StanTheMan]

I believe Lou Brock has the second highest career World Series Batting average in the history of the game. Something in the .390 area.

If Julio Franco gets 3,000 hits, More stolen bases than anyone when he retired. (heck, lets make it EASY on Julio, more ANYHING than anyone), sets single season all-time records, and is one of the GREATEST hitters in WS history, they heck yeah, he is a HOF'er.

Julio Franco? :laugh

[dgarza]

So, if Julio Franco gets 3000 hits, he belongs?
And he still has to average about 150 SBs over the next few seasons.

[ElHalo]

--I'll agree Lou Brock is one of the least valuable players in the Hall of Fame. He does belong though. He has the 3,000 hits, had the career and single season SB records and was a great post season performer. You might be able to overlook either the 3,000 hits or the SB, but it would be tough to ignore both. His outstanding play in the World Series (and the fact the Cards wouldn't have been there (3 times) without him is the icing on the cake.

Lou Brock was a great basestealer, granted. So was Vince Coleman.

He has 3000 hits. He didn't walk much, and hit for basically no power (aside from speed driven triples), so his batting value comes from singles. All of his hitting prowess basically rests on his BA. And his BA is .293. He only finished in the top 10 5 times, never in the top 5. He never had more than 206 hits in a season, and never hit higher than .315.

He played the least important defensive position (LF), and didn't play it particularly well.

So, basically he's got three things going for him. 1: Postseason heroics. That's nice, but it's not getting my boy Pepper Martin into the Hall any time soon. 2: Singles hitting. Would be great if he was particularly good at it, but he wasn't... just ok. 3: Base stealing. So did Otis Nixon.

When a guy has basically no defensive value, and his offensive value rests solely on singles hitting (and he's not even close to being a Tony Gwynn or Ichiro in that aspect), he's just not a HoF'er for me at all. AT ALL. Better than McCarthy and Ferrell and Lindstrom and Jackson and Tinker. Not much better than anybody else.

[julusnc]

Julio Franco is not in the same league as Lou Brock.

Brock is and deserves to be a HOFer.

[leecemark]

--Yes, Vince Coleman stole alot of bases, but not as many as Brock and he was a worse hitter and for a much shorter time. I'm not arguing Brock belongs in the Hall of Value. He doesn't. The Hall of Fame is another story. In his prime Brock was a nice guy to have on your team, but not someone to build around. In the latter part of his career he'd be lucky to make my team as a pinch runner. Not a great HoF profile, but still he is a clear yes for me.

[LouGehrig]

It really is sad, but it will only get worse.

One had to see Lou Brock play to comprehend his greatness and his impact on a game. Statistics give an incomplete, inaccurate picture.

Tom Seaver can be used as an example. Brock leads off and let's say he singles. The Mets were not going to score many runs. Neither were the Cardinals.

Seaver must now concentrate on Brock because his potential run, especially if Gibson were the Cardinals' pitcher, might be the potential game winner.

Seaver now faces Sizemore, who never strikes out and will take two strikes to allow Brock to steal second. Seaver had only a fair move to first, but Grote could throw out potential base stealers.

A lot is taken out of Seaver by concentrating on Brock. Pitchers pitched into the eighth and ninth inning.

Statistics cannot measure how Brock's first inning single and threat to steal affected Seaver's effectiveness late in the game.

The infield played differently against Sizemore with Brock on first and on outs as opposed to no Brock on first and one out.

If Brock steals second, (and the 75% success rate statistic is misleading because some stolen bases are worth more than others while some thrown out attempting to steal may have no impact on the game), Sizemore can move him to third on a ground ball to second, bringing up Simmons.

Seaver must now work harder to prevent Brock from scoring. If this were the fifth or sixth inning, the Mets may have played the infield in.

Brock is a Hall of Famer. His career was much more than statistics. He playerd when runs were scarce, compared to today's game, and his value has unjustly been denigrated.

[DoubleX]

Lou Brock was a great basestealer, granted. So was Vince Coleman.

He has 3000 hits. He didn't walk much, and hit for basically no power (aside from speed driven triples), so his batting value comes from singles. All of his hitting prowess basically rests on his BA. And his BA is .293.

Interestingly, that .293 is about 7 points higher than what your boy Pie Traynor would have hit during Brock's era (if we were to judge by adapting his BA+ for Brock's era). I really have my doubts that you'd so strongly support Traynor with a .286 average.

As for Brock...Great player, no, but certainly unique. The SB record has to count for something, especially since when he retired, Joe Morgan was the nearest modern player to him, and he was 250 SBs behind.

As for 3000 hits, he's probably worst player with it, but I think there are certain Famous numbers that have been historically difficult to reach. We all know these magic number - 3000 Hits, 500 Homeruns (until the 90s) and 300 Wins. Achievement of any of these numbers, IMO, is a Hall of Fame achievement, and the few players that can do it belong it, even if there are better peak performers who are sitting out because they didn't have the longevity in them.

Now if Brock came up short and ended with say 2700-2800 hits, I'd be much more skeptical of his candidacy. So for me, the achievement of that superficial and shiny number is what does it for Brock.

[Mike D.]

I don't know where the "not many extra base hits" arguement is coming from....he wasn't a huge power guy, but he was in the top 5 in doubles five times, including leading the league once. He also was in the top 5 in triples eight times, again leading once. He even hit over 15 homers three times...not bad for a leadoff hitter in that era. Sure he got a lot of hits, and almost 75% of them were singles...but he wasn't as punch and judy as many here would make him out to be.

I'd say he's a Hall of Famer...3,000 hits, all those steals, and his Jamesian metrics all suggest a solid Hall of Fame candidate.

[dgarza]

Otis Nixon never (NEVER) cracked 100 OPS+, not once in 17 years!
Vince Coleman only did it twice, in 13 years.
Lou Brock hit 100 14/19 years

But Brock's SB numbers are actually worse than Coleman's or Nixon's.
His 162 AVG is "only" 58 at 75%.
Nixon did 59 at 76%
Coleman did 89 at 80%

[ElHalo]

As for 3000 hits, he's probably worst player with it, but I think there are certain Famous numbers that have been historically difficult to reach. We all know these magic number - 3000 Hits, 500 Homeruns (until the 90s) and 300 Wins. Achievement of any of these numbers, IMO, is a Hall of Fame achievement, and the few players that can do it belong it, even if there are better peak performers who are sitting out because they didn't have the longevity in them.

I'm not saying he's a bad player. And, yes, Mark's right in saying that it is the Hall of Fame, and Brock was a player of high renown. So I guess Brock should get in on that.

However, I don't agree with the idea of having arbitrary career numbers mean an automatic induction. Yes, I agree: 3000 hits is a very, very solid thing to have on your resume. But if you do it by getting 145 hits every year for 21 years, I'm not going to be that impressed.

There are plenty of players with those big round career numbers that I just don't think deserve to be in the Hall. Mostly pitchers; there's only three guys on the 3000 hit and/or 500 HR lists that I don't think belong based on value (Brock, Molitor, Eddie Murray)... though, as I said, I'll concede Mark's point that Brock should be in on the "Fame" criteria. On the 300 win list, I'd go with Wynn, Niekro, Sutton, Welch, and Galvin.

[Sockeye]

Looks like the yesses have it

[DoubleX]

However, I don't agree with the idea of having arbitrary career numbers mean an automatic induction. Yes, I agree: 3000 hits is a very, very solid thing to have on your resume. But if you do it by getting 145 hits every year for 21 years, I'm not going to be that impressed.

That's a completely moot point right now though because we've never had an instance of a player doing that in his career. Just think, in 130 years of organized baseball, not one single player has reached 3000 hits by averaging 145 hits for 21 years. Doesn't that say something about how unlikely that is to happen? Getting 3000 hits is about more than just compiling for a long time, it also has a lot do with talent, and that's why we have never, in 130 years, had a player reach 3000 hits by averaging 145 for 21 years. If/when we do get a player that does that, then we can deal with; but history has shown, that it's extremely unlikely that contiuous mediocrity will reach that plateau.

Moreover, just because you woudl be unimpressed by a player reaching 3000 hits by averaging 145 hits for 21 years has nothing do with Brock's candidacy. How the heck is that supposed to illustrate the fact that you don't think Brock is supposed to be because he reached 3000 hits? It's completely irrelevant. What are you going to say next? You don't think Mike Schmidt should be in just because he reached 500 homeruns because you would unimpressed with some mythical player that reaches that plateau by averaging 20 homeruns for 25 years?

[ElHalo]

That's a completely moot point right now though because we've never had an instance of a player doing that in his career. Just think, in 130 years of organized baseball, not one single player has reached 3000 hits by averaging 145 hits for 21 years. Doesn't that say something about how unlikely that is to happen? Getting 3000 hits is about more than just compiling for a long time, it also has a lot do with talent, and that's why we have never, in 130 years, had a player reach 3000 hits by averaging 145 for 21 years. If/when we do get a player that does that, then we can deal with; but history has shown, that it's extremely unlikely that contiuous mediocrity will reach that plateau.

Moreover, just because you woudl be unimpressed by a player reaching 3000 hits by averaging 145 hits for 21 years has nothing do with Brock's candidacy. How the heck is that supposed to illustrate the fact that you don't think Brock is supposed to be because he reached 3000 hits? It's completely irrelevant.

Hold on for a second. It's actually very relevant.

I don't think you're seeing the point that I was making. My point was that just because you get to 3000 hits doesn't necessarily make you a good contact hitter. Rickey Henderson (who of course is an almost-top-tier HoF'er for other reasons) got to 3000 without ever hitting 180 in any particular season.

Brock wasn't quite like that; he actually topped 200 a few times. But my point was this: Just because a player reaches a nice, round career number, doesn't mean that they were particularly possessed of the type of skill reflected by that number. In this day and age, getting to 500 HR's doesn't necessarily mean you're a great HR hitter. You certainly could be a great home run hitter... but the fact that you got there doesn't automatically make it so. Your greatness as a home run hitter has to be proven by some other means than simply stating that you got to 500.

Similarly, just getting to 3000 hits doesn't necessarily make you a great contact hitter. In the hypothetical case where a guy got 145 hits a year for 21 years, most people would agree that he wasn't a great contact hitter (which was my point... simply reaching the milestone doesn't, in and of itself, equate to greatness). In the case of Brock, who never hit higher than .315 or finished in the top 5 in BA, I think there's a pretty good argument that he's not a great contact hitter. Good? Sure. But not great. He was a good contact hitter, who respectably (but not awe-inspiringly) finished in the top 10 in his league in BA five times, and who reached that particular milestone because he played for a very, very long time (17th all time in AB's).

My point with the 145 hit a year guy was that people often throw out numbers like 3000 or 500 or 300 as if they, ipso facto, automatically prove something about a player without any further need for comment on it. And you can't do that. Jim Thome might get to 500 HR's one day. You can't then go up to people and say: "Look! Thome's got 500 HR's! This, standing alone with no other proof or argument whatsoever, proves that he's one of the greatest home run hitters to ever walk the Earth!" But people tend to do that sometimes.

So, again: People tend to give three reasons for Brock being in the HoF. Postseason heroics: valid argument, but not good enough by itself for him to make the Hall. Stolen bases: valid argument, but not good enough by itself for him to make the Hall. 3000 hits: what, standing by itself, does this number prove? What is it offered for? The assumption is that it proves he was a great contact hitter. But the 145 hits a year for 21 years example services as a logical disproof of the idea that 3000 hits, standing by itself with no other justification, proves that a guy was a great contact hitter. If you want to prove that point for Brock, you've got to go a little further.

.
.
.
(Sidenote: You ever try and read a legal document, or listen to a lawyer speak, and get frustrated because it seems to be just gibberish designed for no other purpose than to be confusing? I know I always used to. Now I'm on the opposite end. Sometimes it gets very frustrating giving a hypothetical logical argument that makes perfect sense to me in explaining a point, only to have people come back with: "Why would you even say that? That could never happen." Yesterday I stopped in another attorney's office to discuss this relatively obscure point of law I had come across, while a non-lawyer bank officer happened to be in the room. After explaining the point of law, I pointed out a very long, complicated set of facts to the other attorney, wherein the point of law could cause a problem. The bank officer was confused as to why I would waste time mentioning it, pointing out that the facts I outlined would almost never occur. The other attorney and I looked at her like she had three heads... we both understood that of course it would never happen, but that that had nothing to do with anything, and that it was the logic behind the process of what would happen under those unlikely circumstances that mattered. She didn't get it and walked away.)

[DoubleX]

Hold on for a second. It's actually very relevant.

I don't think you're seeing the point that I was making. My point was that just because you get to 3000 hits doesn't necessarily make you a good contact hitter. Rickey Henderson (who of course is an almost-top-tier HoF'er for other reasons) got to 3000 without ever hitting 180 in any particular season.

Brock wasn't quite like that; he actually topped 200 a few times. But my point was this: Just because a player reaches a nice, round career number, doesn't mean that they were particularly possessed of the type of skill reflected by that number. In this day and age, getting to 500 HR's doesn't necessarily mean you're a great HR hitter. You certainly could be a great home run hitter... but the fact that you got there doesn't automatically make it so. Your greatness as a home run hitter has to be proven by some other means than simply stating that you got to 500.

Similarly, just getting to 3000 hits doesn't necessarily make you a great contact hitter. In the hypothetical case where a guy got 145 hits a year for 21 years, most people would agree that he wasn't a great contact hitter (which was my point... simply reaching the milestone doesn't, in and of itself, equate to greatness). In the case of Brock, who never hit higher than .315 or finished in the top 5 in BA, I think there's a pretty good argument that he's not a great contact hitter. Good? Sure. But not great. He was a good contact hitter, who respectably (but not awe-inspiringly) finished in the top 10 in his league in BA five times, and who reached that particular milestone because he played for a very, very long time (17th all time in AB's).

My point with the 145 hit a year guy was that people often throw out numbers like 3000 or 500 or 300 as if they, ipso facto, automatically prove something about a player without any further need for comment on it. And you can't do that. Jim Thome might get to 500 HR's one day. You can't then go up to people and say: "Look! Thome's got 500 HR's! This, standing alone with no other proof or argument whatsoever, proves that he's one of the greatest home run hitters to ever walk the Earth!" But people tend to do that sometimes.

So, again: People tend to give three reasons for Brock being in the HoF. Postseason heroics: valid argument, but not good enough by itself for him to make the Hall. Stolen bases: valid argument, but not good enough by itself for him to make the Hall. 3000 hits: what, standing by itself, does this number prove? What is it offered for? The assumption is that it proves he was a great contact hitter. But the 145 hits a year for 21 years example services as a logical disproof of the idea that 3000 hits, standing by itself with no other justification, proves that a guy was a great contact hitter. If you want to prove that point for Brock, you've got to go a little further.

.
.
.
(Sidenote: You ever try and read a legal document, or listen to a lawyer speak, and get frustrated because it seems to be just gibberish designed for no other purpose than to be confusing? I know I always used to. Now I'm on the opposite end. Sometimes it gets very frustrating giving a hypothetical logical argument that makes perfect sense to me in explaining a point, only to have people come back with: "Why would you even say that? That could never happen." Yesterday I stopped in another attorney's office to discuss this relatively obscure point of law I had come across, while a non-lawyer bank officer happened to be in the room. After explaining the point of law, I pointed out a very long, complicated set of facts to the other attorney, wherein the point of law could cause a problem. The bank officer was confused as to why I would waste time mentioning it, pointing out that the facts I outlined would almost never occur. The other attorney and I looked at her like she had three heads... we both understood that of course it would never happen, but that that had nothing to do with anything, and that it was the logic behind the process of what would happen under those unlikely circumstances that mattered. She didn't get it and walked away.)

But I don't think you're seeing the point I'm trying to make which is that your point is hollow. It's an extreme circumstance that has never been achieved. You can't get very far arguing unlikely hypotheticals. A player can win 10 games for 30 years and win 300 games; sure it's within the realm of possibility, but it's not been done in 130 years and it's highly unlikely to be done. We can deal with these ridiculously unlikely hypotheticals if/when they happen. Until then, you have to consider why the ridiculous hypothetical hasn't occurred in 130 years. There is a reason for it. It's because it's ridiculous! If it wasn't ridiculous, it would haven been done, or at least approached in 130 years. It takes more than just 21 years of mediocrity to get to 3000 hits, it takes some skill and some skill over a long period. 3000 hits embodies this aspect that it's difficult to achieve and that mediocrity will not get it done. Also, no one here asserted that Brock was a good contact hitter or that 3000 hits is necessarily indicative of it. If you want to think that, go right ahead. But to me, it just means he was good enough for long enough, and that seems to do the trick to pull off the rare feat. Let me know when you've found someone who was mediocre enough for long enough to do it, and then we can have a real discussion about the validity of 3000 hits.

Do I accept that your extreme example is within the realm of possibility? Yes. If it is done will I have serious doubts about that player's Hall of Fame credentials if 3000 hits is his entire argument? Yes. But it doesn't change the unlikeliness of it, nor does it have any bearing on Lou Brock, because that is not what Lou Brock did. We're talking about what Brock did here, not some mythical player that has no bearing on Brock's accomplishments. Yes, if the mythical player did it, would I rethink the value of 3000 hits. I would, BUT ONLY IN RELATION TO HIM, it will not cause me to rethink Brock because Brock is a totally different example (didn't they teach you how to distinguish fact patterns in law school?). As of right now, history strongly tells me that 3000 hits is very difficult to achieve and it's not for the mediocre of talent. So when your mythical player does the unlikely, I'll re-evaluate 3000 hits, but I will do so only in relation to him and in the context of his era. Which brings me to your comparison to 500 homeruns....

As for the comparison to 500 homeruns...When we have a whole generation of players defying history and reaching 3000 hits at a rate like never before, then we'll talk. Also keeping in mind that several changes to the game in the past 15 years have made homeruns much easier (smaller parks, two expansions, juiced balls, increased weight training, steroids, and over-emphasis on swinging for the fences), whereas there have been no such changes to effect hits so substantially; so again, when we have a number of developments that are conducive to attaining hits at historically prolific rates, we can revisit this. And if this ever does happen, 3000 hits will only take on a new meaning to that generation of players, it will still have no bearing on what Lou Brock did or what 3000 hits meant in previous eras. You are essentially working with an extreme definition that may never manifest and pushes the bounds of possibility (like I said, if and when it manifests, we'll deal with what it means then). Does 500 homeruns for Jim Thome denigrate 500 homeruns for Eddie Mathews? No, it just gives 500 homeruns a different definition in the context of Thome's era. This is how we distinguish fact patterns, look for context, and account for history.

Moreover, we're not in a court of law here; but it's nice that you let your career define your persona in how you engage in other aspects of life. Almost anything is possible if you were to assume the extremes, but that doesn't mean you've made a good point. I'm sure you get very far in court by arguing, "but your honor, technically this is possible, though it is extremely remote and has never been done, never really been approached, is not likely to be done anytime soon, and there is pretty much a reason it has not been done."

P.S. Please, and forgive me for asking this, oh enlightened master of argumentation and reason, do not patronize me again...Thanks!

[DoubleX]

But I don't think you're seeing the point I'm trying to make which is that your point is hollow. It's an extreme circumstance that has never been achieved. You can't get very far arguing unlikely hypotheticals. A player can win 10 games for 30 years and win 300 games; sure it's within the realm of possibility, but it's not been done in 130 years and it's highly unlikely to be done. We can deal with these ridiculously unlikely hypotheticals if/when they happen. Until then, you have to consider why the ridiculous hypothetical hasn't occurred in 130 years. There is a reason for it. It's because it's ridiculous! If it wasn't ridiculous, it would haven been done, or at least approached in 130 years. It takes more than just 21 years of mediocrity to get to 3000 hits, it takes some skill and some skill over a long period. 3000 hits embodies this aspect that it's difficult to achieve and that mediocrity will not get it done. Also, no one here asserted that Brock was a good contact hitter or that 3000 hits is necessarily indicative of it. If you want to think that, go right ahead. But to me, it just means he was good enough for long enough, and that seems to do the trick to pull off the rare feat. Let me know when you've found someone who was mediocre enough for long enough to do it, and then we can have a real discussion about the validity of 3000 hits.

Do I accept that your extreme example is within the realm of possibility? Yes. If it is done will I have serious doubts about that player's Hall of Fame credentials if 3000 hits is his entire argument? Yes. But it doesn't change the unlikeliness of it, nor does it have any bearing on Lou Brock, because that is not what Lou Brock did. We're talking about what Brock did here, not some mythical player that has no bearing on Brock's accomplishments. Yes, if the mythical player did it, would I rethink the value of 3000 hits. I would, BUT ONLY IN RELATION TO HIM, it will not cause me to rethink Brock because Brock is a totally different example (didn't they teach you how to distinguish fact patterns in law school?). As of right now, history strongly tells me that 3000 hits is very difficult to achieve and it's not for the mediocre of talent. So when your mythical player does the unlikely, I'll re-evaluate 3000 hits, but I will do so only in relation to him and in the context of his era. Which brings me to your comparison to 500 homeruns....

As for the comparison to 500 homeruns...When we have a whole generation of players defying history and reaching 3000 hits at a rate like never before, then we'll talk. Also keeping in mind that several changes to the game in the past 15 years have made homeruns much easier (smaller parks, two expansions, juiced balls, increased weight training, steroids, and over-emphasis on swinging for the fences), whereas there have been no such changes to effect hits so substantially; so again, when we have a number of developments that are conducive to attaining hits at historically prolific rates, we can revisit this. And if this ever does happen, 3000 hits will only take on a new meaning to that generation of players, it will still have no bearing on what Lou Brock did or what 3000 hits meant in previous eras. You are essentially working with an extreme definition that may never manifest and pushes the bounds of possibility (like I said, if and when it manifests, we'll deal with what it means then). Does 500 homeruns for Jim Thome denigrate 500 homeruns for Eddie Mathews? No, it just gives 500 homeruns a different definition in the context of Thome's era. This is how we distinguish fact patterns, look for context, and account for history.

Moreover, we're not in a court of law here; but it's nice that you let your career define your persona in how you engage in other aspects of life. Almost anything is possible if you were to assume the extremes, but that doesn't mean you've made a good point. I'm sure you get very far in court by arguing, "but your honor, technically this is possible, though it is extremely remote and has never been done, never really been approached, is not likely to be done anytime soon, and there is pretty much a reason it has not been done."

P.S. Please, and forgive me for asking this, oh enlightened master of argumentation and reason, do not patronize me again...Thanks!

Ugh, I hate when I let myself get carried away and delve too far into the personal and stir the pot...

El Halo, although I do feel like your tone was patronizing (and thus had its own implicit judgments), I apologize for some of my words and insinuations, especially the ones regarding your career. I'm sure you are a fine lawyer and one who has great enthusiasm about the profession (there are too many people nowadays entering the field for the wrong reasons), and I didn't mean to come across like I felt the contrary. I let myself go beyond the subject matter, and that's never cool. So I can be man enough and face up for it.

So I'm hoping we can let bygones be bygones, strike some of the more unfortunate comments from the record and move forward. I'm also open to PM if you want to discuss further.

[ElHalo]

Cutting this one up a little out of order...


P.S. Please, and forgive me for asking this, oh enlightened master of argumentation and reason, do not patronize me again...Thanks

Hey man, real sorry if I came accross that way. I've never had anything but respect for you here, and would never try to talk down to or patronize anyone I have respect for, and I have a lot of respect for your opinions. So if I came off that way, I apologize. Honestly, no joking around: I highly value and enjoy your opinions, and tend to agree with you more often than not; I'd never mean to be anything but cordial and respectful, and you have my sincerest apologies if I failed in that.

But I don't think you're seeing the point I'm trying to make which is that your point is hollow. It's an extreme circumstance that has never been achieved. You can't get very far arguing unlikely hypotheticals.

Sure you can. That's kind of the whole point of argument. If I say: "If A, then B," and you show even one circumstance (likely, unlikely, or otherwise) where that's not the case, then my whole premise is wrong, and I can't use it to prove anything else. I can say: "If A, then usually B," but I then have to go and show why this isn't one of those unusual cases.

When you get one of those magic numbers (3000, 500, 300), you've got to stop and ask yourself what the number represents. By itself, it's just a number; without any context, saying that a guy had 3000 hits is no more important or meaningful than saying that he wore the number 6 on his jersey. Since 3000 is a count of hits, it can be assumed that saying a player had 3000 hits is a shorthand for saying that they were an excellent contact hitter, in much the way that saying that they had 500 homer's is a shorthand for saying that they were excellent power hitters.

So, in Brock's case, the subject is his contact hitting. We've got a player who cracked the top 10 in BA only 5 times, and never the top 5. We've got a player who never in his life hit higher than .315, and for the first decade of his career rarely even flirted with the leaderboards for BA. We've got a guy who collected a large number of hits, over a large number of years, but whose BA's would tell us accumulated them through time and consistancy rather than through bursts of excellence. We've got a guy who was often among his league's leaders in total hits (11 straight years, as a matter of fact), but was always even closer to the leader in AB's... lending creedence to the idea that he built up his stats through quantity of play rather than quality of play. His ratio of hits to at bats was consistently above average, but it was never consistently among the best. Good, but not great.

In short, we've got a guy who, leaving aside the number 3000 and all the emotional resonance that goes along with that, was a consistant, good, never great contact hitter, for a long time. When we say he had "3000 hits," in Brock's case, what we're saying is that he was a good-but-not-great contact hitter for a number of years.

Now, this is very, very important in Brock's case. For a lot of guys, it wouldn't matter, because the difference between being very good and being great in one particular aspect of the game wouldn't be a make or break thing. But in Brock's case, his contact hitting is one of the very few pegs upon which his Hall candidacy rests. So removing the "greatness" label from his contact hitting ability would really be an enormous blow. If contact hitting is one of his main claims to fame, and there are lots and lots of players who were better contact hitters and need to buy a ticket to Cooperstown, that doesn't bode well.

If you look at the context behind his numbers, look at how he got them, you can see that he was a good contact hitter who was never, ever a great one. That his large career total has more to do with his ability to keep himself healthy and physically fit than it does to do with any particular talent for contact hitting that was substantially greater than any other player's.

And here's where the "unlikely hypothetical" comes in.

You can look at 3000 hits in two different ways. 1) You can say that any player who acheived 3000 hits must automatically, without question or doubt, have been good enough for long enough to make the HoF; or 2) you can say that a player getting to 3000 hits is a good indicator of both skill and staying power, but that individual greatness needs to be evaluated on an individual basis, and that there's little to no difference between a guy with 2950 hits and a guy with 3050.

The unlikely hypothetical I threw out there was designed to say that option 1) is illogical. If I can come up with a set of circumstances, whether likely or unlikely, where your premise will be false, then 1) by definition has to be false. Something can't automatically, without question be untrue when there's an obvious, if unlikely, potential path of events that would lead to it being false.

So, therefore, we have to admit that 3000 hits is merely a good indicator of contact hitting ability, and we have to evaluate each case individually. In Brock's case, when I evaluate it individually, I see a guy who was a good contact hitter, but not anywhere remotely near to being a good enough contact hitter to get into the Hall of Fame based on nothing but his contact hitting. And in Brock's case, since the only other thing he really has is his baserunning (and baserunning is such a relatively tiny part of the game), it becomes hard to make the case for Brock the player (as opposed to Brock the identity) being deserving of the Hall.

[DoubleX]

Hey man, real sorry if I came accross that way. I've never had anything but respect for you here, and would never try to talk down to or patronize anyone I have respect for, and I have a lot of respect for your opinions. So if I came off that way, I apologize. Honestly, no joking around: I highly value and enjoy your opinions, and tend to agree with you more often than not; I'd never mean to be anything but cordial and respectful, and you have my sincerest apologies if I failed in that.

Thanks, and hopefully you've read the post I made just previous to yours apologizing for my rashness, and that we can hug and makeup.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm not going to read the rest of your post until tomorrow. I want to put a moratorium on my involvement in this conversation given the nature of my last few posts (plus I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye anyway).

[KCGHOST]

I voted "yes", but am ambivalent about it. The guy had the ability to score runs once he got on base, but wasn't especially adept at that. He got 3,000 hits which is a solid milestone, but did it with singles and an inability to get walks. Five of his top ten comps are in the HoF and two others (Gwynn and Raines) will or should be.

If you just evaluate him as a LF he probably doesn't belong; however the 3,000 hits, being the career SB leader when he retired, and holding the ML record for steals in a single season when he retired, gives him enough to be in there. It's kind of like Nolan Ryan. Without the strikeout record and all the no-hitters he was a guy who just pitched forever.

[switch_hitter]

Just to reiterate some, he does belong. He had to be somewhat decent to stay around as long as he did--batting leadoff; he's not a top-tier guy when it comes to stats, yes, but so few are in comparison to everyone else that that's really a moot point. It is the Hall of FAME, and not the hall of greatest Rate Stats, and his fame (along with 3000 hits and 930 stolen bases) and what he meant to his teams outweighs his (statistically lackluster) stats.

[Imapotato]

Yes, he was the best leadoff hitter of his time, the only true stolen base threat in an era where offense was decided by 1 or 2 runs

He was playing in a offensive sluggish era, and people who say he doesn't belong in the HOF are the same that forget Yaz when mentioning some of the greatest players ever

[NOMAR22]

I say no.

-Career OBP of .343 (league average, .330).
-Career SLG of .410 (league average, .390).
-938 SB at 75% success rate (so he had the same effect that he would have had if he never tried to steal at all).
-Terrible fielder (BP has him at -101 runs career, and FAA/RF have him at terrible. No UZR data, of course. Win Shares agree).

Brock actually walked more often than it seemed - his totals are deflated by playing during the 60's. However, he didn't have much power, nor much on-base ability. His peak years (1964-1971) are offensively above-average, but with terrible defense. I'd say Brock was an above-average player who was overrated due to his steals. He really shouldn't be in the HOF.

OUTRAGES! Only Lou Brock and Rickey Henderson have ever stolen over 900 bases and got 3,000 hits.

[NOMAR22]

Lou Brock was a great basestealer, granted. So was Vince Coleman.

He has 3000 hits. He didn't walk much, and hit for basically no power (aside from speed driven triples), so his batting value comes from singles. All of his hitting prowess basically rests on his BA. And his BA is .293. He only finished in the top 10 5 times, never in the top 5. He never had more than 206 hits in a season, and never hit higher than .315.


Al Kaline-190 hits or more 3 times, Lou Brock 190 hits or more 8 times,
Al Kaline -200 hits or more 1 time, Lou Brock 200 hits or more 4 times

[Edgartohof]

I say that the sum of the parts add up to Brock belonging in the Hall of Fame.

It could be said that he may not deserve induction into the Hall, just because of his 3,000+ hits, or his 900+ SB's, or anything else he has going for him, but altogether, they do it for me.

He was able to play the game for a long time, was able to accumulate a number of hits, at a decent rate, and was great on the bases, plus his postseason heroics, all in all, he is a Hall of Famer.

[Edgartohof]

Al Kaline-190 hits or more 3 times, Lou Brock 190 hits or more 8 times,
Al Kaline -200 hits or more 1 time, Lou Brock 200 hits or more 4 times

Al Kaline - 70 or more SB's - 0 times; Lou Brock - 70 or more SB's 3 times
Al Kaline - 50 or more SB's - 0 times; Lou Brock - 50 or more SB's 12 (consecutive) times

I'm sorry, completely pointless, but I couldn't resist - I really should get some sleep and soon before I get any more loopy :dance :coffee

[iPod]

And here's where the "unlikely hypothetical" comes in.

You can look at 3000 hits in two different ways. 1) You can say that any player who acheived 3000 hits must automatically, without question or doubt, have been good enough for long enough to make the HoF; or 2) you can say that a player getting to 3000 hits is a good indicator of both skill and staying power, but that individual greatness needs to be evaluated on an individual basis, and that there's little to no difference between a guy with 2950 hits and a guy with 3050.

The unlikely hypothetical I threw out there was designed to say that option 1) is illogical. If I can come up with a set of circumstances, whether likely or unlikely, where your premise will be false, then 1) by definition has to be false. Something can't automatically, without question be untrue when there's an obvious, if unlikely, potential path of events that would lead to it being false.

So, therefore, we have to admit that 3000 hits is merely a good indicator of contact hitting ability, and we have to evaluate each case individually. In Brock's case, when I evaluate it individually, I see a guy who was a good contact hitter, but not anywhere remotely near to being a good enough contact hitter to get into the Hall of Fame based on nothing but his contact hitting. And in Brock's case, since the only other thing he really has is his baserunning (and baserunning is such a relatively tiny part of the game), it becomes hard to make the case for Brock the player (as opposed to Brock the identity) being deserving of the Hall.

145 hits over 21 seasons is the critical point; the point everyone can agree 3000 hits has no intrinsic value. Naturally, it's only theoretical, but I think it's an interesting way of thinking about it. The value of saying a player had 3000 hits had to be discounted by a certain amount, depending on how close he is to the theoretical example. While Brock isn't that player, he's a lot closer than someone like Tony Gwynn. Of all the guys who can claim 3000 major league hits, there are only a couple for whom it matters less than Brock.

[leecemark]

--Brock is probably a Hall of Famer with 2900 hits. Paul Molitor may have been a better player than Brock, but he didn't do anything to excite the imagination. I'd say he had to reach 3,000 or he wasn't going to the Hall. Of the other magic number clubs, I'd say there is nobody in Cooperstown only because they reached 500 HR, but several who made it only because of 300 wins (Welch, Galvin and Sutton at least).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Brock is probably a Hall of Famer with 2900 hits. Paul Molitor may have been a better player than Brock, but he didn't do anything to excite the imagination. I'd say he had to reach 3,000 or he wasn't going to the Hall. Of the other magic number clubs, I'd say there is nobody in Cooperstown only because they reached 500 HR, but several who made it only because of 300 wins (Welch, Galvin and Sutton at least).

Oh come on Mark, didn't Molitor excite you with his 39 game hitting streak in 1987? :D

[switch_hitter]

The 500 club may change with this generation of ballplayers, as there are several players now who may get in just because they reached 500 HR's (Thome, for one). However, I believe that so far, all 500 HR hitters deserve their enshrinements.

There are some members of the 3000 hit club who may have gotten in just because they reached that milestone. However, the fact that they were on some team long enough to reach that milestone, which takes remarkable consistency over a long time--and, at least in my eyes, hasn't been subject to the dramatic increases associated with 500 HR's--negates this hanger-on stigma as it is the mark of an extremely consistent and durable hitter.

300 wins is, as everyone knows, especially difficult to do in this era, and there are some who reached the milestone that definitely are only in the Hall because of it. I feel differently about this than I do about 3000 hits, and I feel so because I feel comparisons between the two groups are apt: both require durability and consistency. However, it is easier, I think (I may be proved wrong)--especially in today's game--for a mediocre pitcher to stay around to gain Wins then it is for a mediocre hitter to stay around and get hits. For example, that 145 hits/21 seasons hitter has not happened in the 130 year history of baseball for a reason; there is a much bigger pool of hitters to replace a mediocre hitter like that than there are arms to replace a mediocre pitcher.

This is probably confusing to some, and I might get questions for it, and I'll try to answer them, but it comes down to this: everyone who is currently in the Hall and has 3000 hits or 500 HR's I believe reasonably deserves their enshrinement; but not everyone who has 300 wins does.

[STLCards2]

The 500 club may change with this generation of ballplayers, as there are several players now who may get in just because they reached 500 HR's (Thome, for one). However, I believe that so far, all 500 HR hitters deserve their enshrinements.

There are some members of the 3000 hit club who may have gotten in just because they reached that milestone. However, the fact that they were on some team long enough to reach that milestone, which takes remarkable consistency over a long time--and, at least in my eyes, hasn't been subject to the dramatic increases associated with 500 HR's--negates this hanger-on stigma as it is the mark of an extremely consistent and durable hitter.

300 wins is, as everyone knows, especially difficult to do in this era, and there are some who reached the milestone that definitely are only in the Hall because of it. I feel differently about this than I do about 3000 hits, and I feel so because I feel comparisons between the two groups are apt: both require durability and consistency. However, it is easier, I think (I may be proved wrong)--especially in today's game--for a mediocre pitcher to stay around to gain Wins then it is for a mediocre hitter to stay around and get hits. For example, that 145 hits/21 seasons hitter has not happened in the 130 year history of baseball for a reason; there is a much bigger pool of hitters to replace a mediocre hitter like that than there are arms to replace a mediocre pitcher.

This is probably confusing to some, and I might get questions for it, and I'll try to answer them, but it comes down to this: everyone who is currently in the Hall and has 3000 hits or 500 HR's I believe reasonably deserves their enshrinement; but not everyone who has 300 wins does.

Of all players beginning their careers after 1950, 14 hitters have hit 500 homeruns. Only 17 pitchers have won 250 games, much less 300. There should be little doubt which is more difficult and impressive.

[switch_hitter]

In today's game, most certainly winning 300 games is more impressive. But I was saying of all the players elected in the hall right now, all who are in the 500-HR club deserve it, whereas of all those who are in the hall right now and are in the 300 wins club, cases can be made that some of them (Sutton, Galvin) don't belong. My justification for this--and I can most assuredly be wrong, it is my conjecture--is that there are/were much more hitters than pitchers. Not only does this explain the (slight) historical edge in the members of the 500 HR club, but it also allots a higher replacement variable for hitters. If a hitter is middling around, I'm assuming, it was easier to replace him than it was, historically speaking, a pitcher. Therefore, because of this, and because of the way pitchers were used (starting pitchers/more innings) it was easier for a pitcher to hang around and pick up 300 wins than for a hitter to mingle around for his 500th HR.

Now that is my conjecture, and if I'm reasonably proven wrong then that's that and I'll put up and shut up. But I'm also speaking historically. This 'steroid' era is certainly twisting this paradigm, and most certainly there will be sluggers who may get in just because they hit 500 HR's that don't deserve it (like Sosa), whereas anyone who reaches 300 wins in this age most certainly deserves it.

[Windy City Fan]

Going back to the original discussion, Brock is a tough one. He's a lead off man, and lead off men tend to get undervalued. The problem is, outside of his speed/base running, Brock isn't even a great leadoff man.

His relative OBP is only 104. His relative BA is 111, which means he was actually worse than the league average at drawing walks. Brock's grey ink in OBP is one season where he ranked 9th. He only finished in the top 5 in times on base once (second). Also Brock struck out a lot. That says a few things to me. First, a guy with his speed should do everything possible to put the ball in play. With a speedster like Brock, routine plays can quickly go awry. Second, his high K total coupled with low BB total suggest he wasn't a very patient or disciplined hitter. Part of a leadoff man's job is to work the count and make the pitcher pitch.

Outside of his leadoff role, Brock doesn't hold much value at all. His defense is subpar, which is really surprising since speed should have let him be a very rangy defender. He had no power to drive the ball.

A lot of holes in his game really. Although at times I say to myself, "He did get 3,000 hits, was the all time steals leader, and had those clutch performances in the World Series. Its the Hall of FAME, so I suppose he should be in there." Other times I ask myself, if Lou Brock had retired a season early and ended his career with 2,900 hits, would I support him for the HOF? The answer is no. So should an extra 123 hits make the difference for a HoFer?

[Bill Burgess]

Lou Brock is already in the Hall of Fame. And once in, it's like the Catholics with their saints. How can you kick them out, once in?

I support most members of the 3,000 hits club, but I just don't think Brock belongs. Stolen Bases are great but shouldn't be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. The Rickey definitely belongs, but I can't say the same about Lou Brock. Just my opinion.

I'd say that Brock is the weakest member of the 3,000 hits club. He had no power to speak of. 149 HRs in a long career, no .500 slugging season, and struck out way too often, 1,730 times. Normally power hitters strike out but make up for it with homers. But not Lou. He stuck out 100 times, in 9 seasons, but without the power to offset that.

Just proves the clubs must be examined before they are automatic tickets.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Brock got 3,000 hits playing in a hitter-hostile era. If he played in the 1980s, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Brock, IMO, was the REAL MVP in 1967, not Cepeda.

[Seattle1]

--I'll agree Lou Brock is one of the least valuable players in the Hall of Fame. He does belong though. He has the 3,000 hits, had the career and single season SB records and was a great post season performer. You might be able to overlook either the 3,000 hits or the SB, but it would be tough to ignore both. His outstanding play in the World Series (and the fact the Cards wouldn't have been there (3 times) without him is the icing on the cake.

I agree with this argument leecemark. He belongs.

[538280]

Yes, he was the best leadoff hitter of his time, the only true stolen base threat in an era where offense was decided by 1 or 2 runs

He was playing in a offensive sluggish era, and people who say he doesn't belong in the HOF are the same that forget Yaz when mentioning some of the greatest players ever

Now I DO think Lou Brock belongs in the HOF (but like KCGHOST I'm ambevalent about it because he really wasn't very valuable to his teams). But, (and I'm a big Yaz advocate, BTW), Brock was no offensive force even in the context of his time, far from it in fact. He was a bad defensive player, and if he was the best leadoff man in any era that's an era really, really starved for great leadoff men.

[Outta Here]

I can see were u could say he doesnt belong, but the hits, SBs & WS results make him still deserving imo

[ElHalo]

I can see were u could say he doesnt belong, but the hits, SBs & WS results make him still deserving imo

The SB's, of course, are granted. WS results don't get many other players into the Hall (hasn't worked for Pepper Martin or Don Larsen or Dusty Rhodes).

But the hits... I might feel better about him if he was a particularly great contact hitter. But the guy never hit higher than .315, never cracked the top 5 in his league, and has a career .293. That's ok, but it's not a Hall of Fame level contact hitter. And when that's all he's got going for him...

[brett]

I say no.

-Career OBP of .343 (league average, .330).
-Career SLG of .410 (league average, .390).
-938 SB at 75% success rate (so he had the same effect that he would have had if he never tried to steal at all).
-Terrible fielder (BP has him at -101 runs career, and FAA/RF have him at terrible. No UZR data, of course. Win Shares agree).

Brock actually walked more often than it seemed - his totals are deflated by playing during the 60's. However, he didn't have much power, nor much on-base ability. His peak years (1964-1971) are offensively above-average, but with terrible defense. I'd say Brock was an above-average player who was overrated due to his steals. He really shouldn't be in the HOF.

A 75% success rate is not a wash. Not even close. The highest wash percentage ever was about 70% and in Brocks time it was about 60%. (And of course that is not even including situational strategy.)

[brett]

I have Brock metrically as a low but solid hall of famer assuming average overall defensive value. He probably was a little below average overall, as would be most outfielders. Without his steal attempts-no way. I have all of his steal attempts netting him about 700 bases or around 176 runs.

I say no.

-Career OBP of .343 (league average, .330).
-Career SLG of .410 (league average, .390).
-938 SB at 75% success rate (so he had the same effect that he would have had if he never tried to steal at all).
-Terrible fielder (BP has him at -101 runs career, and FAA/RF have him at terrible. No UZR data, of course. Win Shares agree).

Brock actually walked more often than it seemed - his totals are deflated by playing during the 60's. However, he didn't have much power, nor much on-base ability. His peak years (1964-1971) are offensively above-average, but with terrible defense. I'd say Brock was an above-average player who was overrated due to his steals. He really shouldn't be in the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lou Brock is a HOFer and a deserving HOFer, and, quite frankly, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. He didn't get in because he was "famous"; that's somethng you'd say if Roger Maris or Bucky Dent got in the HOF. He got in because he had a HOF-worthy career, as evidenced by accumulating counting stats worthy of the HOF in key categories, and because he was catalytic to two Cardinal World Championships.

There is NO doubt but that the acquisition of Brock in 1964 was the key to the Cardinals winning the 1964 pennant. Brock hit .348 as a Cardinal and sparked the Cardinals to overtake three other teams to win the pennant (the Phils, Giants and Reds). Brock was, arguably, the NL MVP in 1969. He didn't walk a lot, but he hit .299 with 21 HRs, slugging .472 (the league slugged .377) while leading the league in runs and steals. While Clemente had a great year and Cepeda was a unanimous MVP that year, I believe that the MVP electors picked the wrong man. Brock's season was far more indespensible to the Cardinal success that year. Just imagine what that season would look like in 2000.

Brock was not a great defensive player, but he wasn't so bad that he would have had to DH if there was a DH. There has been an effort to overrate Brock on defense, but there has also been a counter-effort to rate him as less than he was. Much of the criticism of Brock on defense comes from the fact that many people expect a guy with his speed to be able to handle CF, but Brock wasn't real great on fly balls, and he had an average arm at best. But he wasn't a guy you had to get out of LF, not at all. He was not a liability in the field; he just wasn't a strong asset, defensively.

Brock hit .304 and stole 21 bases at age 40. That was a remarkable season, and suggested that Brock had something left in the tank. That's a sign of greatness. He went through with retirement because he wanted to retire and could do so, but he still could have played. He didn't limp to 3,000 hits, and he easily could have had 3,500 hits if he played it out all the way, and if he played in a different era; he could have had 3,200 hits if he had played one more season.

Brock is the kind of player who is not the favorite of sabermetric types because he wasn't Rickey Henderson as a walker, but there were some seasons where he drew plenty of walks. In addition, he was a base stealing threat and had doubles and triples power. I'll bet that the number of times per season that Brock led of a game and by the end of the next player's AB was in scoring position due to a steal or an extra base hit is in the top five of all time for leadoff hitters. (What's the tradeoff value of a few walks in exchange for a few more times leading off and getting to second?)

Stop it, already! He's a HOFer, and he deserves to be.

[ElHalo]

Not really a good argument. The player would have to have had a Hall of Fame type regular season career (or close to it) for a great post season to push him over the top. And none of the guys you mentioned had anything close to that.

Pepper Martin should be in the Hall. Yeah, I said it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The SB's, of course, are granted. WS results don't get many other players into the Hall (hasn't worked for Pepper Martin or Don Larsen or Dusty Rhodes).

But the hits... I might feel better about him if he was a particularly great contact hitter. But the guy never hit higher than .315, never cracked the top 5 in his league, and has a career .293. That's ok, but it's not a Hall of Fame level contact hitter. And when that's all he's got going for him...

Your statement about Martin, Larsen, and Rhodes is a red herring. While we're at it, let's add Al Weis to that trio. These guys had moments in the sun during the WS, but they didn't have careers.

Brock, on the other hand, had a great career, and his World Series performances add to it. World Series performances shouldn't put Pepper Martin in the HOF, but they ARE something to the credit of Brock (and of Stan Hack, who should be in the HOF; Hack hit .348 in 4 WS).

Brock's BA of .293 is excellent for his era; if he played 10 years later, he'd be a .300 hitter lifetime. His BA improved in his thirties, but this is an illusion, due to the better conditions for hitters in the seventies than in the sixties, so imagine what Brock's stats for 1963-68 would look like if they were played in the 1970s (let alone the 1990s).

Brock is 40th in career runs scored. Almost all of the top 50 are in the HOF.

Brock is 2nd in career SB, and still holds the career NL record.

Brock is 2nd in single season SB, and still holds the single season NL record.

Brock is 54th in career doubles, and 63rd in career triples

Brock is 22nd in career hits.

Brock is 100th in career extra base hits.

Brock is 78th in Runs Created. The overwhelming majority of the top 100, including those players from slot 79-100 are in the HOF.

Brock was not Damaso Garcia with a little better BA who hung on. If Brock were Damaso Garcia, he wouldn't be able to hang on. That's what people seem to miss; Brock had things going for him besides the ability to hit singles that kept him in the game until age 40. And he was one of the most productive 40 year olds in baseball history.

Brock was also a team guy; a team leader, from the beginning of his career to the end. His role in championship teams is NOT overstated, and during the 1970s, when the Cardinals were often a foundering organization, Brock provided a link to Cardinal greatness for the young Cardinals who were not part of the great Cardinal teams of the 1960s.

Growing up, I HATED the Cardinals, and I HATED Brock, because he helped sink the 1967 Red Sox in the Series. A few years ago, I decided to start a thread to deride Brock's selection to the HOF, but in doing so, I discovered just what a critical player Brock was to great teams. It's where I concluded that Brock should have been the NL MVP in 1967, and not Cepeda.

I'm glad Brock is in the HOF, and I'd feel bad if he were not. He belongs, and he belongs without asterisks or apologies. Above all, I want to squash the notion that he just hung on for 3K. He was productive to the end, then he retired as he said he would. He was a great player, and a class act to boot, and he's one of the guys that honors the HOF. Not everyone there can say that.

[64Cards]

Sure been a lot of bad mouthing of some Cardinal icons lately...Dean, Boyer and now LOUUUU..

Lou's HOF resume is impeccable...3K hits, was the career and season SB leader at the time of his retirement and was one of the great WS performers of all time. He did have 149 career HR's, not bad for a leadoff man playing in a tough HR park. He hit 115 of those his first 10 years, an injury to his hand pretty much robbed him of his power and Lou became a slap hitter, but before that, Lou could drive the hell out of the ball. Defensively, he was nothing great, but with his speed he could still get to balls or cut off balls that most LFers would wave at, important in a big park like Busch with the Astroturf.

And this is just anecdotal evidence, but for most of his career, Lou was the guy you wanted up in a crucial situation, late in a game when you had to have a hit. Maybe his numbers weren't so awesome, but some ballplayers are at their best when in a clutch situation. Lou was one of those guys. And on a team that didn't have much power and had to manufacture runs, Lou's presence on the bases drove a lot of pitchers nuts.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sure been a lot of bad mouthing of some Cardinal icons lately...Dean, Boyer and now LOUUUU..

Lou's HOF resume is impeccable...3K hits, was the career and season SB leader at the time of his retirement and was one of the great WS performers of all time. He did have 149 career HR's, not bad for a leadoff man playing in a tough HR park. He hit 115 of those his first 10 years, an injury to his hand pretty much robbed him of his power and Lou became a slap hitter, but before that, Lou could drive the hell out of the ball. Defensively, he was nothing great, but with his speed he could still get to balls or cut off balls that most LFers would wave at, important in a big park like Busch with the Astroturf.

And this is just anecdotal evidence, but for most of his career, Lou was the guy you wanted up in a crucial situation, late in a game when you had to have a hit. Maybe his numbers weren't so awesome, but some ballplayers are at their best when in a clutch situation. Lou was one of those guys. And on a team that didn't have much power and had to manufacture runs, Lou's presence on the bases drove a lot of pitchers nuts.

Brock's stats need no apology. He was a great leadoff man, not as great as Rickey, but a great leadoff man, one not miscast (as was Aparaicio). If he played 20 years later, he'd be over .300 lifetime, with more walks due to the compacted strike zone. He'd have 200 more lifetime hits and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[brett]

By the way, Raines is an absoute game value LOCK.

[rugbyfreak]

Lou Brock is a HOFer and a deserving HOFer, and, quite frankly, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. He didn't get in because he was "famous"; that's somethng you'd say if Roger Maris or Bucky Dent got in the HOF. He got in because he had a HOF-worthy career, as evidenced by accumulating counting stats worthy of the HOF in key categories, and because he was catalytic to two Cardinal World Championships.

There is NO doubt but that the acquisition of Brock in 1964 was the key to the Cardinals winning the 1964 pennant. Brock hit .348 as a Cardinal and sparked the Cardinals to overtake three other teams to win the pennant (the Phils, Giants and Reds). Brock was, arguably, the NL MVP in 1969. He didn't walk a lot, but he hit .299 with 21 HRs, slugging .472 (the league slugged .377) while leading the league in runs and steals. While Clemente had a great year and Cepeda was a unanimous MVP that year, I believe that the MVP electors picked the wrong man. Brock's season was far more indespensible to the Cardinal success that year. Just imagine what that season would look like in 2000.

Brock was not a great defensive player, but he wasn't so bad that he would have had to DH if there was a DH. There has been an effort to overrate Brock on defense, but there has also been a counter-effort to rate him as less than he was. Much of the criticism of Brock on defense comes from the fact that many people expect a guy with his speed to be able to handle CF, but Brock wasn't real great on fly balls, and he had an average arm at best. But he wasn't a guy you had to get out of LF, not at all. He was not a liability in the field; he just wasn't a strong asset, defensively.

Brock hit .304 and stole 21 bases at age 40. That was a remarkable season, and suggested that Brock had something left in the tank. That's a sign of greatness. He went through with retirement because he wanted to retire and could do so, but he still could have played. He didn't limp to 3,000 hits, and he easily could have had 3,500 hits if he played it out all the way, and if he played in a different era; he could have had 3,200 hits if he had played one more season.

Brock is the kind of player who is not the favorite of sabermetric types because he wasn't Rickey Henderson as a walker, but there were some seasons where he drew plenty of walks. In addition, he was a base stealing threat and had doubles and triples power. I'll bet that the number of times per season that Brock led of a game and by the end of the next player's AB was in scoring position due to a steal or an extra base hit is in the top five of all time for leadoff hitters. (What's the tradeoff value of a few walks in exchange for a few more times leading off and getting to second?)

Stop it, already! He's a HOFer, and he deserves to be.

I swear, fuzzmeister, it's uncanny. It's like you and I are in a mind-meld. (The only thing I ever questioned about you is that photo of Hulk Hogan (or is it you?) that you post, but that's my deal.

You stole most of my Brock lines.

1964: Can we name any other in-seaon trade that had such a dramatic and material effect upon a pennant race? (Dave Justice '00 comes to mind, but a distant second.)

1967: Always believed Cepeda was a shaky MVP choice, and shocking as a unamimous one. But as the leading (and only) power threat on a pennant winner, it was quite in character for baseball to give him more respect than a leadoff hitter. But everyone knew Lou was the balljoint of that team, and no way Cha-Cha leads in ribbies without Lou in front of him.

1979: Lou shuts up everyone who complained he was hanging on to get his 3000 by having one of the best 40-year-old seasons in history, and going out in style. This was no Early Wynn bow-out; he even made the All-Star team (OK, OK I won't push this point too fa!).

By contrast, not to bash him here, but did anyone hang on more painfully just to get numbers than rickey Henderson? Over the last 11 yeas of his career, he barely hit .250 (although continued to draw walks).

World Series: I've always said that voters should never debit a guy who played with bad teams--this "gotta have a ring" thing dives me nuts. But extra credit should always be extended to guys who stepped up on the big stage, and here, Brock was huge, arguably a top-5 all-time WS pefomer. Just ask the Sox or the Tigers about the holes in his game. Only rickey '89 had a more dominant post-season as a leadoff hitter. (Apologies to Bobby richardson.) Just as you guys all say that A-rod compiles a lot of his numbers when it doesn't count, my gut tells me that a lot of Brock's many outs were when it didn't count. He was an IMPACT player, something you can't always measure by numbers.

The '60s: It neve ceases to amuse me how the SABE guys lean heavily on thei "leveaged" evaluations when it suits them (e.g. denigating O'Doul, Klein and Sisle fo playing in a slugge's ea), and then, talking about Bock, downgading a .293 BA duing the biggest pitching ea since the deadball. In the '60s, evey un was pecious, and teams knew that, with the Cads' supeb pitching and defense, if Bock stole that key un, the game was ove.

[digglahhh]

The "value" take on SBs and percentages are really strange. I kind of got cast into the over the top SABR camp on this for a little while, but luckily having Jose Reyes on my team has made me rediscover the joy and REAL value of speed and stolen bases.

I still support the underpinnings of the SABR take, and I'm quick to point them out. Certainly a CS's detriment is way beyond an SB's benefit. No plays really irk me more than bad baserunning decisions. Getting caught stealing, advancing or stretching at an inappropriate time and taking your team out of an inning because of sheer bad judgment. The teams I play on kill me with that too, the only thing I really get mad at my teammates for...

Anyway, most of the really good percentage stealers are not REAL basestealers, they are opportunists! Johhny Damon is fast enough to know that if the other team forgets about him he can steal that bag 90% of the time. But don't think for a second that Johnny Damon could have stole the bag that Dave Roberts did in the ALCS.

Then you have your hybrid opportunists like Carlos Betran. Bobby Abreu is another one, he has had some pretty good SB/CS ratio seasons but is about 76% for his career. These guys have speed they are good basestealers and they rack up respectable yearly totals, but they are not true basestealers. They go situationally for the most part (if Reyes had Abreu's OBP, he'd BE Rickey Henderson) but might be good enough to steal you a bag when you NEED one.

True basestealers, like Reyes or Crawford nowadays are threats everytime. They fly around the bases, they case throwing errors by catchers. A lead of single for Reyes allows him to score on two outs. Single, SB, Lo Duca hits the ball to the right side and even an out gets Reyes to third and then he can score on another out, and it happens a lot!

Stolen bases are individual, an agregate value perspective misses the essence of the play. They are a leverege play, their importance and net benefit or detriment is highly conditional.

But when everybody in the park knows the guy is going and the opposing team can't do anything about it, like is often the case with Reyes, that's a true basestealer. That's the kind of basestealer Brock was. Beltran might even swipe 40 and he might not get caught but 4 or 5 times, but not a single one of them is coming against Yadier Molina, no matter how bad you "need" it.

Stealing at a 4:1 ratio is awesome but swiping 28 and getting caught 7 times is nothing like what Rickey or Tim Raines did in their primes. Show me that same rate and swipe 50 or 60 plus! That means you go anytime, all the time and on just about any pitcher or catcher. Watching both Reyes and Beltran everyday is a pretty insightful opportunity and it kind of exposes the glass menagerie that is the literal interpretation of agregate SB "run value" data.