ARTICLE: Hall of Fame Trial - Dick Allen

[Brian the Automator]

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=224

 

Splitterfj takes a look at Dick Allen's HOF credentials

[reillymcshane]

I love the photo. Smokin' a cigerette and juggling -- all in a baseball uniform. Don't think they'd let that one fly today.

 

He was a heck of a player. I was too young to remember him other than toward the end of his career, but I've got a friend who talks about seeing him in his hey day, and how amazing he was.

 

As for his short career, it's not a problem for me. Better that than bounce around without passion for the game. I give him credit for getting out when he wasn't happy.

[colbyjack]

Todd, your final comment wrapped it up for me, and I agree with you 100%. He had a very good career, but it was just too short of a career for me to consider him HOF worthy. Part of a HOF career to me is duration, unless you're Sandy Koufax who absolutely dominated in a short period of time.

[splitterpfj]

I don't know what happened, but there's a problem with the table that shows the stat comparisons. That "3" that's floating there is the average steals per season for the control group.

 

This one was a lot of fun, what a unique guy.

[SenatorShriv]

For me it would be different if it was an injury or health related reason that cut his career short. If he simply walked away from the game with because he was tired of playing that is a completly different story.

 

There are lots of players who have a dominating stretch of their career, but part of being a HOF player is making a truly unique mark on baseball. Allen put up dominating numbers for much longer than most were able to, but he chose to walk away from true greatness.

 

I think that the HOF should have an exhibit that tells the story of some of these borderline candidates, goofballs / characters, and others who changed the game but probably aren't HOF worthy.

 

I'm going to have to vote no for a HOF plaque, but Dick Allen certainly should be remembered.

[gregmag]

Todd, all of your HoF articles have been great, but this one was absolutely brilliant. Really an amazing job.

 

I think Colby has the standard about right, but the conclusion wrong. If we want to talk about dominance, then OPS+ and ERA+ are useful metrics. Check this out:

 

Sandy Koufax had a career ERA+ of 131, with peak seasons of 161, 187, 160, and 190 from 1963 to 1966. Those were his only four seasons with ERA+ numbers over 150.

 

Dick Allen had a career OPS+ of 156, with peak seasons of 181 and 174 in 1966-1967 and then 200 (!) and 177 in 1972-1973. He put up nine seasons of OPS+ numbers over 150.

 

Dick Allen was a more dominant player than Sandy Koufax. Sandy's numbers look more impressive because he peaked in the greatest pitcher's climate since the dead ball era, and we remember him because he pitched for some great teams in huge media markets. But air out the numbers and Allen was more impressive at his peak and for his career.

 

Like I said, I basically agree with Colby about the standard. You have to play ten years to be eligible for the Hall, so a career of "only" ten years shouldn't disqualify anyone. I'm not a fan of counting stats, and I think we sometimes overrate guys who pad their counting stats during long declines. Even so, the best players in the Hall were very good for a long time; if you don't have a long career, you have to have monster numbers over a short one.

 

Allen was basically Henry Aaron for ten years. That makes him less than Henry Aaron -- because Hank was Henry Aaron for 20 years -- but for me, it puts Allen right in line with Stargell and Killebrew. I vote yes.

 

Greg.

[reillymcshane]

gregmag,

 

Nicely put. I voted yes, but really thought about it.

 

But if you look at the numbers, he was great. If you look at the numbers of the era, he's awesome.

[splitterpfj]

Wow Greg, thanks so much.

 

Excellent post too Greg, Allen was totally dominant, in comparison to the control group, it was a no contest.

 

-Todd

[brettac1]

Here's my second favorite guy that's not in the Hall. Greg already posted the stuff I would have, but Allen was a completely dominant hitter for a long time. It just amazes me that guys like Jim Rice, who is basically a slouch compared to Dick Allen, repeatedly get mentioned as "should be" HOF guys, while hardly anyone even knows who Dick Allen is.

[LS Brewer]

Although I am someone who hardly knew who Dick Allen was prior to reading the Hall of Fame trial, I am convinced that he belongs. A period of dominance of ten years is enough in my mind to say that a player belongs in the Hall. In fact, how can you keep someone out that was one of the three best players at his position (or in Mr. Allen's case, positions) for a ten year period?

[pogokat]

I'm very undecided here....Clearly, he was a great hitter...maybe best in the league for 80% of his playing career...but someitmes you've got to play the games...

 

I actually think that this is the toughest one so far....But I think I'm going to vote No....and well, it's not fair...there's a lot of guys like this who retired in the 90's and early 00's and while Dick Allen probably peaked above them, I don't see what he does to distance himself...

 

Regardless of how he played, he played a half career...

 

Of course, I vote whole heartedly for Dale Murphy and his career isn't much prettier than Allens...

[splitterpfj]

LSBrewer, your point about ten years of dominance is interesting. While I think Allen was far more dominant at his peak, I think it's safe to say Ron Santo was the best 3B in the game from 1961-1970 - he's not in either.

 

Santo's Hall of Fame Trial thread is in the statistical analysis forum if you'd like to take a look.

[bando1234]

Ive got to vote no on Dick Allen, I think he was a very good player but not an elite player. To me if you put Allen in the Hall then you have to look at player like Dale Murphy, George Foster, Andres Galaraga, & Joe Carter.

[gregmag]

Bando, what do you base that on? Dale Murphy was nowhere near as good as Allen. He played four years longer, but his career OPS+ was only 121. He topped 140 five times, with a peak of only 156. The other guys you mentioned couldn't shine Allen's shoes. George Foster? Only 500 more career PA than Allen, career OPS+ of 126. Andres Galarraga? Same career length as Murphy, career OPS+ of 118. Joe freakin' Carter? Sixteen years, career OPS+ of 104. I'm not saying OPS+ tells the whole story, but it's a very good starting point for comparison, and the guys you mentioned don't even get out of the blocks with Dick Allen.

 

Actually, the best HoF comparison to Allen is probably Ralph Kiner. Kiner played ten years, 6256 career PA, with a career OPS+ of 149. He was a dominant hitter for six years (OPS+ over 140 each year), with a peak of 184. To me, Kiner is a very borderline Hall of Famer.

 

Allen had the same kind of career, but he was quite a bit better. Allen actually played, not counting his first cup of coffee, 14 seasons, 7314 career PA. As I noted before, his career OPS+ was 156, and he had a run of 11 seasons over 140, all but two of them over 150, peaking at 200.

 

If Kiner belongs in the HoF, then Allen obviously belongs. If Kiner doesn't -- which I tend to believe -- then the question is whether Allen's advantage over Kiner is strong enough to get Allen in. I think it is.

 

Greg.

[pogokat]

how does Allen stack up against Albert Belle??? I've been wondering...In my mind at least, they seem very similar...

 

answering my own question....Albert actually was better all the way through (his ops+ is a little bit lower, but his peak years are very close(192, 178, 171)...but with the differences for era, i think he's a fair comp..

 

and albert won't get in, methinks..

[splitterpfj]

This doesn't take the different eras into account, which is very significant in this case, but here are the numbers

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

9.5 103 182 41 2 40 130 9 .295 .933 Belle

10.7 102 171 30 7 33 104 12 .292 .912 Allen

 

I do think the two have many similarities, but Allen was far more dominant in his time.

[colbyjack]

ERA+ and OPS+ are all fine and dandy, as they seem to make their way into every argument, but I think you have to realize that some people just don't care for them, no matter how much they're proven. I like them when talking about a player from a GM's point of view to evaluate a player's worth in team building, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to use those stats too much to determine whether or not someone should be in the HOF. I agree that it does help putting a player's career in perspective. While counting stats seem to be the least favorable stat this day and age to stat-minded individuals, they still hold value to me, especially over a player's career. It's similar to how wins are important to me when considering Cy Young candidates.

 

And whenever these statistics are brought up I envision a chart that would determine whether or not a player should get in. For instance, and I'm just throwing these numbers out there, but if a player that plays SS for most to all of his career as a career OPS+ of 150 over a 10-year career, 135 over a 15-year career or 120 over a 20-year career, they're in. That to me would suck all of the life out of trying to determine who is and who is not worthy. I think many know that I am not willing to let go of the human element of baseball which has no chance of survival in an objective argument.

 

I would add that it doesn't help Allen's career that he played with five different teams. If he would have stayed with the Phillies for most of his career, or at least bridged his two stints together during his most dominant years, people would probably view him differently.

 

Just for a frame of reference, Bert Blyleven is an example of the type of player I do root for the Hall of Fame. He had a very long career, he had two separate yet shorter stints with the Twins, he never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young voting yet he is currently fifth on the all-time strikeout list, and retired third on that list.

[gregmag]

Patrick, that's a pretty nice job of dismissive mockery, but I'm really interested to know what your positive point is, if you have one to make. I was just making one effort -- and I stated pretty clearly that I didn't consider it an exclusive or conclusive method -- to put these comparisons into a perspective that could bridge our subjective views. After all, one of the objectives of the Hall of Fame -- and one of the things that makes it fun and interesting -- is to reach some kind of consensus.

 

Nobody suggested a rigid criterion for admitting people to the Hall, like the ridiculous chart you posited. What I'm saying is, here's an initial reason (and in this case, IMHO, a convincing one) to believe Dick Allen is at least as deserving of HoF consideration as Sandy Koufax and Ralph Kiner. You want to reject that methodology? More power to you. But I hope you bring to the discussion something more than "Well, darn it, I just think Sandy Koufax was a more dominant player because that's what I think; and Dick Allen just didn't play long enough, no matter how many games he played, and don't bother me with facts." Because if that's enough for you, then you can have your Hall of Fame, and I can have mine, and none of this is worth discussing.

 

Greg.

[colbyjack]

Wow greg, I tried to make my post (and all of my posts actually) as non-offending as possible, but it's clear I didn't accomplish that given your tone. I wasn't trying to mock anyone's points, and you clearly made a very good case for Allen.

 

And if you re-read my post, I wasn't suggesting that anyone would propose such strict statistcal criteria for someone to get into the Hall of Fame. I said that is what I envisioned, not anyone else, when stats like OPS+ and ERA+ were brought up, and I also pointed out that I did value those statistics to give a frame of reference for just how good a player was during the time in which he played.

 

If anything I was responding to your posts to offer you my way of thinking, since you did seem to ask, which is also why I brought Bert Blyleven back into the picture. I wasn't trying to impress my thoughts onto anyone else, just offering my own personal, humble opinion. You obviously don't think much of it in this case, and that's certainly your right.

 

Plus, I never said Allen wasn't deserving of HOF recognition. He clearly is, and as I already stated in my book he just doesn't have enough to make it.

[gregmag]

I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think much of your opinion, and I apologize for coming off that way. I always put a lot of stock in your opinions. I was feeling defensive rather than offensive -- your post read to me like a very negative critique of the basis for my argument, and I just didn't get the basis for your objection and what alternative you were pitching. Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

Let me try to move back onto more constructive footing: What do you see as the best way to use different kinds of info in evaluating players for the HoF? How does the human element figure into your thinking, and how do you weigh that kind of info with/against stats? Because I made the Allen-Koufax point, I'm especially interested in knowing whether you think something else is going on there that favors Koufax. I'm sorry if I'm just failing to get some of this from your earlier Blyleven example; your point there may be eluding me because I think the pure statistical case for Bert is so strong.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Kiner is a great example of a guy who got in based on what might be considered half a great career. He was way before my time, I don't know if he was thought of as a good guy or not, but that goes a long way for this type of player.

 

Don't forget, the writers are people too (at least I'm pretty sure) they obviously allow their personal feelings to affect their voting. Koufax had four no-hitters and had an arthritic elbow.......he got in with ease. Kirby Puckett was on a pace for 3000 hits, and lost sight in one eye..........made it with no problem. Dick Allen was thought of much like Gary Sheffield is today, and got nowhere near the invisible dividing line of 500 homers.

 

If a guy has an image problem (deserved or not) he had better get 3000 hits or 500 homers.

 

I don't ever want some BCS type formula to decide who gets into the Hall of Fame, but it does seem very wrong that a guy like Puckett can walk in easily, but a guy like Allen really isn't given serious consideration.

[colbyjack]

I do believe Koufax was more dominant because he was clearly the best pitcher in his league, and arguably all of baseball, at his peak, even if it were for a brief time. He won 3 Cy Young awards, and an MVP in one of those years. He led the NL in ERA 5 consecutive seasons, led the league in wins 3 years, strikeouts 4 times, innings pitched twice, shutouts 3 times and complete games twice. He won the triple crown of pitching in each Cy Young season. That is dominance IMO.

 

Allen on the other hand won the ROY & an MVP in his career. He led the league in slugging 3 times, OBP twice, OPS 4 times, runs once, TB once, RBI once, HR twice, 3B once and XBH 3 times. All impressive, without a doubt, and he's right on the border, but a notch below Koufax in my book. As I noted, the voters would probably view him differently had he strung a few more years together in Philly, more closely to what Kiner did with Pittsburgh (and I would agree that if Kiner is in, so should Allen, but then so should a few other people I'm guessing). And Koufax was aided by the fact that he played his entire career with the Dodgers.

 

And my case for Bert was based entirely on longevity. I wish I could think of another borderline HOF player that made it in simply by sticking around long enough to reach a few milestones, but none comes to mind at this moment.

 

And for the record, I was never a big fan of Puckett making the HOF. I believe Todd mentioned having some reverse HOF stories, debating a few players who are in that maybe shouldn't be, and he would be among those that I would argue against (but I am biased, as I never liked the guy when he was playing).

[splitterpfj]

Hi Patrick-

 

One good "sticking around long enough guy" would be Don Sutton who was good enough, long enough to top 300 wins without ever being totally dominant.

 

There are lots to pick from, I believe I'll offer up an elected Hall member next.

 

-Todd

[bando1234]

Greg, sorry I did not research this one as hard as I have on others. After further review his stats do outshine the others I had mentioned(although George Foster had a heck of a 3 or 4 year stretch & overall if I had to pick a team I would pick Murphy over Allen due to his 5 gold gloves but I was way off stat wise.).

 

Stats are one thing, peforming to help your team is another. His tirardes include numerous fights with teammates,ridiculing his manager(Chuck Tanner) behind his back, expressing hs dislikes about his teammates in a newspaper, going into voluntary retirement to force a trade.

 

He was a very talented player & like it or not talented players become leaders, good or bad. He was TO before TO.

 

I know its not called the Hall of Fame for nice guys but it sounds like he did little to help his team except with his bat. I think if your going to have an attitude like his,& make it in the Hall you have to dominate durring your era as Barry Bonds or Reggie Jackson did. I 'll stick with my no vote.