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?

[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.