Colavito v. Howard

[AlecBoy006]

Which one is closer? Or possibly belongs. I can tell right away most of you will say neither. But I will make a case for both of them.



.In just 14 seasons, Colavito cracked 374 homeruns. He also drove in 1159 RBI. That .266 BA is ugly, but an OBP of .359, and OPS+ of 132 makes up for it. He also had an SLG of .489. 5 all stars, nothing great, but good.


For Howard.

He has a .273 batting average, better than Colavito. 1774 RBI. 382 homeruns. He has a less OBP, but .352 still good. OPS+ of 142. Better than Rocky. Just four all stars, but he had led the league in more things.


I can support both gentleman as they put up great numbers in a combined 30 seasons.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Howard has a better case, but he fell apart all at once. I consider him to be more worthy than Jim Rice.

Colavito fell apart early and suddenly; he began a serious decline in 1967 and was finished after the 1968 season after just turning 35. At least that's what the stats say.

I wonder if part of the decline was that his BA drop was overrated. Colavito only hit .211 in 1968, and .220 in the AL with the Yankees. The ENTIRE AL in 1968 hit only .230!!! Think about that; the AVERAGE hitter in the AL hit .230, and the batting leader finished at .301. (Imagine if he'd only hit .299!)

Colavito may not have been as done as he seemed. If he had come back and reached 400 HRs, he may have been a stronger candidate for the Hall. The same is true for Howard, although Howard's decline was real, and DHing didn't slow it at all.

[AlecBoy006]

Jim Rice is overrated.

For 1) Dwight Evans should be ahead of Jim Rice. Howard I think was a great offensive player, but didn't have alot of hits. But 16 seasons was great. And 400 homers is a stat I like, but Darrell Evans and Dave Kingman would be in the hall too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jim Rice is overrated.

For 1) Dwight Evans should be ahead of Jim Rice. Howard I think was a great offensive player, but didn't have alot of hits. But 16 seasons was great. And 400 homers is a stat I like, but Darrell Evans and Dave Kingman would be in the hall too.

The 400 HR mark was more significant about the time Howard retired. Had he made that mark, he and Colavito MAY have garnered more support.

Both of those guys were stars while they played; they both, however, played in the shadow of Mays and Mantle.

[AlecBoy006]

I can't believe you guys are saying no to both. What did Colavito/Howard not have that other HOF'ers did?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can't believe you guys are saying no to both. What did Colavito/Howard not have that other HOF'ers did?

The ability to stay in the game and play past their prime.

Both were done rather early, and didn't have the kind of peaks that justify induction of a player with a short career.

[AlecBoy006]

But people on here tend to go with peak over longevity. Besides, there are HOF'ers who played forever.

[Colorado Express]

Howard is closer, but neither will get in (or deserves to for that matter).

[KCGHOST]

I think these guys area a push vis-a-vis each other.. Howard was better offensively and Colavito was better defensively. Both have excellent OPS+ figures (132 for Colavito and 142 for Howard). Their RCAA's are good (Colavito 295 versus Howard's 321), but not exceptional. Neither would rank in the Top 25 at LF, or RF or 1B in that category. Their WARP3's are under 80 was indicates either a lack of quality or a short career. A typical corner OFer/1B HoFer should be 120+.

Neither Player is above the "average" mark for Black Ink, Gray Ink, HoF Monitor, or HoF Standards. Surprising they each other best comparable player using the comp calculation at Baseball-Reference. None of their ten best comps are in the HoF.

Adding either or both of these guys would constitute an embarassment, but it wouldn't be an improvement either.

[dgarza]

I'll admit, both are on the edge. I can easily see why people say no to both. I'm comfortable enough putting them both in, Colavito ahead of Howard. Howard had a better peak, Colavito spread it out more.

[Yankwood]

I love Frank Howard but he was also a "butcher" of an oufielder. Had he been an asset defensively, he may have gotten more consideration. Colavito on the other hand possessed a very strong, somewhat erratic throwing arm. He just didn't have Hall of Fame numbers.

[AstrosFan]

If Howard had put up the numbers he did, and was also a good outfielder, I might support him, but he had no range and committed a lot of errors. Given his lack of longevity and poor fielding, he would need to be all time great on offense, and he falls short of that level. Still, he deserves to be remembered as a terrific hitter. Colavito too.

[Cougar]

They are both just barely below the HOF line for me, but it wouldn't bother me a bit if either or both of them got in.

Choosing between the two...I think Colavito's peak was a little better sustained (although Dodger Stadium really disguises much of Howard's), and he was certainly a better overall athlete and outfielder (he had a rocket arm from RF, as I recall).

I think Colavito had more "star power", or was better regarded in general too, for whatever that's worth (MVP votes & ASG appearances are some evidence of this).

[yanks0714]

' Don't Knock The Rock ' is what they used to say in Cleveland. Rocky was extrordinaryly popular in Cleveland. When Trader Frank Lane traded Colavito to Detroit for Harvey Kuenn the Cleveland populace darn near staged a revolt.

Lane, trying to minimize fallout, had a press conference to explain the trade. He threw up all over himself by stating something like, '...we may have given up a HR hiter but we got a duy that can hit doubles...'. The sportwriters had a field day with that. What Lane was trying to say was we may have given up a HR hitter for a guy who carries a good BA...but he totally missed the mark. Lane never lived that down.

Colavito was a darn good player. He had very good power and a decent OBP. He was a solid OF'er defensively although I don't think he had much speed/range. A very strong but sometimes wild arm.

Frank Howard, the Washington Monument, was incredibly powerful. MLB can be very glad he was very mild mannered.
When he joined the Dodgers he gave them what they needed, power. He played RF in Dodger Stadium and had a very strong accurate throwing arm until he hurt his shoulder. His throwing was never the same again. He was traded to Washington for pitching, Claude Osteen. As a Senator, Howard was pretty much the whole show. He had some very fine years with Washington. 6'7" and built like Hercules....what a strike zone as he stood pretty much upright in the batter box.

A great story about Howard is one where the Senators officials were showing someone around RFK Stadium. The VIP asked why some individual seats in the LF 3rd deck were painted yellow instead of the usual red. A Senator official stated that was where some of Frank Howard's blasts landed. Another person then said, "And all the red seats of times the SOB struck out."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Colavito pitched a game with the Yankees in his last season. He won the game, too. Against the Tigers, who won the pennant that year.

I watched that game on TV. He threw this pitch that arched and sunk into the dirt and Phil Rizzuto, the announcer, cried out "Holy Cow! He's got a curveball!"

[Fuzzy Bear]

I love Frank Howard but he was also a "butcher" of an oufielder. Had he been an asset defensively, he may have gotten more consideration. Colavito on the other hand possessed a very strong, somewhat erratic throwing arm. He just didn't have Hall of Fame numbers.

Howard wasn't a terrible outfielder when he was younger, but he lost his speed as he aged. The Senators kept trying to find ways to have him play first, but they had Mike Epstein, and Epstein couldn't play LF, so . . .

[AlecBoy006]

It's so great that Howard is getting some love.

[brett]

I can't believe you guys are saying no to both. What did Colavito/Howard not have that other HOF'ers did?

My impression, from stats and talking with people who watched him Howard was a very bad fielder. He is in Will Clark and Don Mattingly range as an offensive player and a downright bad outfielder. Had he been an average fielder he'd be right there.

[AlecBoy006]

You don't have to be a great fielder to be in the hall. But anyway, what's wrong with a .978 FP?

[dgarza]

You don't have to be a great fielder to be in the hall. But anyway, what's wrong with a .978 FP?
His FP was actually .975. .978 was the OF League AVG during his time. So his FP is below avg.

No, you don't have be a good fielder top be in the Hall. Let's say Howard was on the same offensive level as Will Clark and Don Mattingly. Clark and Mattingly were also good fielders. Even with both those things going for Clark and Mattingly, they are both generally seen as borderline HOF candidates, just over or just under, either way. Now take away thier defensive pluses and they easily drop below the line for most, the place where many people see Howard, who was not even an average fielder.

[AlecBoy006]

I see now. Thanks :)

But, however, Mattingly would still be considered as a candidate if you take away the GG's.

[hellborn]

'
...
Frank Howard, the Washington Monument, was incredibly powerful. MLB can be very glad he was very mild mannered.
When he joined the Dodgers he gave them what they needed, power. He played RF in Dodger Stadium and had a very strong accurate throwing arm until he hurt his shoulder. His throwing was never the same again. He was traded to Washington for pitching, Claude Osteen. As a Senator, Howard was pretty much the whole show. He had some very fine years with Washington. 6'7" and built like Hercules....what a strike zone as he stood pretty much upright in the batter box.
...

One of the Bill James books had a story about Howard playing winter ball with Vic Power as a manager. Power didn't like Frank in the OF and Power, of course, played 1B, so he came upon the idea of using Howard as a pitcher, since Frank had an unbelievable arm. Everybody was scared of this huge guy throwing some rather wild heat at them, but then the Dodgers found out about it and made Power stop it.
It is hard to believe that Howard didn't play more 1B in his career, he sure would have made a good target over there. :D Maybe he just wasn't suited to the IF? Even though 1B is one of the "easiest" ML positions, some guys just can't get the footwork and scooping down very well.

[yanks0714]

One of the Bill James books had a story about Howard playing winter ball with Vic Power as a manager. Power didn't like Frank in the OF and Power, of course, played 1B, so he came upon the idea of using Howard as a pitcher, since Frank had an unbelievable arm. Everybody was scared of this huge guy throwing some rather wild heat at them, but then the Dodgers found out about it and made Power stop it.
It is hard to believe that Howard didn't play more 1B in his career, he sure would have made a good target over there. :D Maybe he just wasn't suited to the IF? Even though 1B is one of the "easiest" ML positions, some guys just can't get the footwork and scooping down very well.

I hadn't heard that story before. Thanks.

BTW, I saw Howard when with Washington play 1B. He didn't have the nimble footedness to play the position. He was very stiff...a bit clumsy. No range at all. He was better in the OF than at 1B.

Another story I've read about Frank Howard: Walt Alston, himself, was a big man. Supposedly very strong. In spring training he used to walk around with a bat and dare the rookies to pull it out of his hands as a feat of strength. None could do it.
Then Frank Howard came to Dodger training camp....Alston took one look at Howard and refused to allow Frank to even try to pull the bat from his hands.

[AlecBoy006]

Alston- jerk. But Howard should be in already.

[Cowtipper]

I think Howard would be a better choice than Colavito. Neither of them belong, in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the Bill James books had a story about Howard playing winter ball with Vic Power as a manager. Power didn't like Frank in the OF and Power, of course, played 1B, so he came upon the idea of using Howard as a pitcher, since Frank had an unbelievable arm. Everybody was scared of this huge guy throwing some rather wild heat at them, but then the Dodgers found out about it and made Power stop it.
It is hard to believe that Howard didn't play more 1B in his career, he sure would have made a good target over there. :D Maybe he just wasn't suited to the IF? Even though 1B is one of the "easiest" ML positions, some guys just can't get the footwork and scooping down very well.

When Frank Howard came up, he was athletic enough to play the outfield. In his rookie year, Norm Larker got hot and took the 1B job from an aging Gil Hodges. Larker faded in 1961, but the Dodgers decided to install Ron Fairly at 1B, rather than Howard. (Fairly, oddly enough, was shifted from the OF, and had a decent throwing arm; I wonder why the Dodgers slated Fairly for the shift.) In Howard's last year with the Dodgers, they came up with Wes Parker, who was a Gold Glove at 1B, and a better offensive player than his stats indicate.

It was the same story with the Senators. In 1965, Howard played LF, while Dick Nen and others played 1B. In 1966, it was Ken Harrelson and Dick Nen playing 1B for the Senators. But what clinched Howard's inability to shift to 1B was when the Senators acquired Mike Epstein from the Orioles. Epstein was a top flight prospect at the time who never lived up to his original billing, but he couldn't play the outfield; he HAD to play first. Howard was a poor outfielder, but not so poor as to keep him out of the lineup. The Senators put Howard in the outfield, kept him there, and overlooked any defensive shortcomings he might have had there.

Howard was like Dave Kingman; there was always another guy the team had to create ABs for, and that other guy, for one reason or another, just HAD to play first base. Kingman would have been a better player than he was if he had been given a 1B job early in his career and left there. So would Howard have been better; he also may have played longer.