Lou Brock's place in baseball history

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lou Brock was an instant HOFer 5 years after he retired.

Bobby Bonds has become a sort of boundary between HOFers and non-HOFers. Bill James once described the "Bonds line" for the HOF as the level of "unquestioned excellence, but marginal greatness". Some players who fit this description are in the HOF and some are not.

Was Lou Brock REALLY such an immortal as to be enshrined automatically after 5 years?

Brock has four (4) arguments in his favor:

1. Brock attained 3,000 hits (3,023, to be precise. He was 100 hits short going into 1979 and looked like he wouldn't get it, but he had an unexpectedly good year at age 40 to hit .304 in his 120 game swan song.)

2. Brock attained the record for most stolen bases, both in a season and in a career. (Both records have been broken by Rickey Henderson, although Brock holds both NL records to this day.)

3. Brock was considered the best leadoff hitter in baseball before Rickey Henderson.

4. Brock was a key player on three pennant winners. (The Cardinals would not any pennants in the 1960s without Brock). Brock was also one of the greatest World Series performers of all time, hitting .391 in 21 games, with 4 HRs in 87 ABs. (Brock hit .414 in the1967 Series and .464 in 1968).

I would also be willing to go out on a limb and say that Brock may have been the real MVP of 1967, even though Clemente had a monster season, and his teammate, Cepeda, was a unanimous choice for MVP that year. Brock led the NL with 113 runs scored in 1967, a stat that was overlooked at the time.

Brock also had his negatives.

1. He was a poor defensive outfielder, and any attempt to portray him otherwise is either revisionist history, or assuming (incorrectly) that he could field well because he had speed.

2. His OBP was only .343. He didn't walk a lot, although this was offset somewhat by his steals, his HRs (in his better years) and his overall slugging % (.410 for his career).

3. At the time of his retirement, he held the career record for strikeouts. (This doesn't phase me much as a rule, as I don't think Ks are worse than any other out; however, given Brock's role as a leadoff man with speed, I wonder how much higher his BA and OBP would have been if he were a better contact hitter, especially given that his HR power disintegrated into single digits after 1970.)

When I initially had the idea to start this thread, I believed that I would be writing of Brock as a marginal HOFer who was overrated due to 3K hits and the steals. In researching this post, I was amazed by his post-season performance, and his pivotal role in the Cardinal pennants of the 60s. I was going to compare him to Bobby Bonds. I won't even try now; Brock was better than Bobby Bonds by a significant margin.

However, I still don't think Brock was better than Carter or Santo. I was surprised that he got into the Hall right away. Eegad, even Yogi Berra had to wait a year. So I guess this thread can be about "How far above the minimum standard for a HOFer was Lou Brock?" If you want to simplify it, discuss "How much better was Lou Brock, compared to Bobby Bonds?"

[Skip]

Brock had more speed (duh), but Bonds was no slouch on the basebaths at all. Brock had a higher BA, but Bonds had a higher OBP and SLG. Bonds had a ton more power. Brock played 5 more years. Bonds had more TB per year. Bonds was known as king of the strikeout at the time, but Brock also struck out quite a bit.

Guess this is like an apples and oranges comparison, but not as much so as I first thought. Objectively it's a tough choice and I am not sure; subjectively I take Brock so long as I dont have to justify it.

[Duque]

Brock is/was the kind of player who impressed with "traditional" stats - lots of hits and SBs.

[SmedIndy]

Santo had more power, played well at a tough defensive position, and a higher on base percentage. Santo also had 260 RCAA vs. 227 for Brock, and Santo played in less seasons. Santo HANDS DOWN over Brock.

Brock really is a marginal HOF guy who hit the jackpot on cumulative stats.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Santo had more power, played well at a tough defensive position, and a higher on base percentage. Santo also had 260 RCAA vs. 227 for Brock, and Santo played in less seasons. Santo HANDS DOWN over Brock.

Brock really is a marginal HOF guy who hit the jackpot on cumulative stats.

smed, one day, and I mean this sincerely, someone will explain all these numbers to me...I often feel like i have stumbled into calculus class when I was looking for physics for poets...I see all these numbers and i am afraid to raise my hand...sigh...

[SmedIndy]

Basically, all you need to know is that Santo did more to help his team score runs than Brock did.

As long as you threw it out there pathogen, I'll stand up with you ... I've been a lifetime baseball fan, and a DEEP one, played at all levels, and I could not even begin to tell you what RCAA is ... I'm guessing something about Runs Created possibly ... but I'll throw my hand up too ... maybe someone could put a glossary thread somewhere for some of these obscure stats to be defined ...

[SmedIndy]

http://www.netshrine.com/statglossary.html

Right here on the main site.

A lot of people skip right to the discussion boards, but its there.

[Craig S.]

I've been reading a lot of the HOF arguments on here today (Brock, Kell), and all I can say is that there's a lot of love for Ron Santo in this group.

The RCAA thing threw me at first too, as did a lot of terminology used by the people posting here. Thank goodness for that glossary.

[SmedIndy]

I'd encourage everyone to subscribe to Lee's Around The Majors List, and get his sabremetric stats program. That's where I learned to love RCAA.

Lee - call my agent. We can negotiate my endorsement fee!

[KCBOOMER]

Those of you just joined us in the last couple weeks will find it interesting that Lou Brock use to be a member of the Baseball Immortals, as defined by Lee Sinins at www.baseballimmortals.net.

Lee removed him a couple/three weeks ago after a further review of his career. You might want to look up that thread.

Lou is in the HoF because he set the major league record for season and career steals (since surpassed) and getting 3,000 hits. These are pretty compelling feats to most fans. Only a deeper analysis of his career shows him to be marginal at best.

[Skip]

Agreed Brock is marginal as a HOF'er. But how do you all compare him to Bobby Bonds as listed in the original post? I still have the gut feeling (maybe I'm not as deep a thinker) that Brock outweighs Bonds. Clearly Santo (and Carter and ...) are much more compelling HOF cases than either.

[SmedIndy]

Bobby was a more effective player in his peak, but he's got no HOF case at all because of how his career ended.

[KCBOOMER]

I guess one way to look at is five of the top ten comps in hitting to Brock are in the HoF. Two of the remaining five are Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines.

Of Bobby Bonds top ten comps in hitting none are in the HoF.

[LeGrandOrange]

It is worth noting that I have grilled Sean Forman about making the similar batters formula correct since he still doesn't appear to have added the OF adjustments that are coming with the new positional OF stats. That reminds me, I'm late in reminding him again.
That said, his closest guy is sub-900, so that says a lot about his uniqueness.
Ditto with Lou. Difference is that you can make a hall of fame case for 9 of his 10 similar players. And the tenth one, Willie Davis, didn't play enough or steal enough to be considered. Gwynn will get in, Rock has to get in, Pinson needs to be in, and Ryan should be in...
However, Brock was just consistenly average, and as is established, really isn't that worthy. There are guys with better long drawn out careers in major league history...one of them had my NetShrine handle... But Staub is only a hall of famer to me. Still, he might've done more in his career then Lou.
Then again, this isn't about Staub. It's about Lou Brock.
The thing about Lou is that...it's not unprecedented. Max Carey may also has similar "credentials", or lack therein.