Phillies retiring Dick Allen's #15

donaldorc 2020-08-14 19:52:09 UTC #21

Totally agree with this sentiment. THE most exciting player I ever saw. Broad shoulders and very slender waist and wrists that could whip a bat faster than you could imagine. He used a 40 oz. bat (or was it 42 oz.?) I don’t remember, but he still generated an unbelievable bat speed. So glad to see this honor bestowed on him!

jimbomill 2020-08-14 21:02:45 UTC #22

Good news!

fish 2020-08-18 13:53:01 UTC #23

So, except for the 2 years Dick Allen came back to play for the Phils at the end of his career, he and Scott Rolen had pretty similar career paths and stats (Rolen had better, but i'm willing to chalk that up to era inflation).

But no way he get's his number retired i'd guess.

Philsmania 2020-08-18 15:35:41 UTC #24

Too much water under that bridge and it seems that the lack of interest in a reproachment is mutual. Putting aside the blame game and the urge to assign fault, it is undeniable there was considerable bad blood on both sides when that divorce went down. To be honest, I'll be surprised if he even ends up on the Wall of Fame. However, Rolen did have some nice things to say about Montgomery when he passed last year. And, the Phillies do have a history of kissing and making up with stars who previously left the organization in a contentious manner--See, Allen, Bowa three times, Green, Schilling, Werth, to name a few. But with Rolen, it seems that the wounds may be too deep on both sides.

zambonir 2020-08-18 15:48:09 UTC #25

They really need to get Scott on the Wall before the '08 rush starts, but it's true, he may not be interested himself. And maybe players don't need to more honored by more than one team (impractical as that is in this day and age).

I thought it was odd that this story didn't directly address Halladay

Middleton said he wrote a 3½-page policy about retired numbers. A player, Middleton said, must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player who enjoyed the majority of his major-league success in Philadelphia.

BostonRoss 2020-08-18 15:57:54 UTC #26

I don't think Rolen quite measures up to Allen as a Phillie although Rolen certainly belongs on the Wall of Fame.

Allen and Rolen came up to the Phillies at about the same age and spent about the same number of years in their first times with the Phils (Rolen was traded during his last season). Obviously Rolen was much better defensively, but Allen was way better on offense. Allens OPS+ with the Phillies was 153, even counting those last two seasons when he was a shadow of himself; Rolen's was 126. Allen was a top 10 MVP candidate with the Phils twice, and Rolen never was. Allen's WAR with the Phillies was about one per season higher than Rolen's even though he was bad defensively.

Even Allen's 1975 OPS+ was higher than Rolen's for every season he was with the Phillies except one!

andyb 2020-08-18 16:01:04 UTC #27

Maybe I am in the minority but I did not want them to retire Halladay's number. His career with the Phillies was just too short to justify it IMO. Jim Thome has almost as good a case as Halladay did if that is the standard.

Rolen would be an interesting case and I hope they do it if he does make the HOF. At the very least they should ask Rolen to come back in some way though I guess with no playoff success there are no reunion teams to celebrate. I'd have him come to Spring Training for a week to work with Bohm though. Yes there are hard feelings on both sides, but the core of the argument (a player wanting to win and an organization not spending enough money to have a shot at doing that) is really not bad enough to prevent an eventual rapprochement.

Schilling is another interesting case for different reasons. Again, he probably has a better baseball case than Halladay for the Phillies retiring his number.

zambonir 2020-08-18 16:12:43 UTC #28

They literally revised the Wall of Fame rules for Thome, and with an eye towards Halladay and Lee (who has a slightly better case), which is fine. Obviously Roy's death changed things, as did his family's decison about the Hall of Fame (a decision neither Thome nor Schilling will make, let alone Rolen).

These are all sentimental, unrigorous decisions in the end. For all the talk in that article about Middleton's research and policies, he's a fan first. It's finally happening for Allen because he loved Allen as a kid and he probably didn't have a moment's hesitation about Roy. How would you even make an objective decision about a player you knew personally and watched play for your team just a few years ago?

With Rolen it comes down to Middleton too. Did he share Giles and Green and Wade's bitterness? I would think not. Just the opposite, even: Rolen's critique of the team would have been identical to Middleton's, back then.

I do think defense and positional value (and his offense relative to all but the very greatest 3B) is the key to Rolen's candidacy, can't compare him and Allen really.

California_Dreamin 2020-08-18 16:51:18 UTC #29

zambonir...you are correct in your last sentence, you cannot compare Rolen to Allen offensively. No way. Look, I know we live in a WAR, OBP, WHIP world and to some extent that has helped Rolen in retrospect. And he was very talented, especially defensively and was probably a bit underrated offensively. Perhaps.

But sometimes, and it seems to be gaining some traction, the eye test is still pretty effective and it has always been my contention that its the eyes that often tell you instinctively when a player is a huge cut above, a Hall of Fame type talent. As a little boy my dad took me to Candlestick Park and never once had to tell me of the greatness of Willie Mays, I could see it for myself. In fact, the Giants right fielder was a good player named Willie Kirkland and I also saw Felipe Alou, Jackie Brandt and others. I was young but I could see with my own eyes that Willie Mays was special, a cut above. Same when I saw Sandy Koufax...Osteen was good, Podres was solid, even Drysdale [who did make the HOF and is a good comparison to Rolen talent wise] was very good...but Koufax? Ahhh, that was the pitcher that left you breathless.

Same with Richie Allen. Callison was solid, Gonzalez and Covington were good hitters and players like Taylor, Amaro and Dalrymple seemed decent enough. But watching Allen was like watching Pavarotti, you were watching something unique and special. Rolen? Solid, consistent and dependable. But when I watched that Phillie team it was Abreu who looked to me like the best player on the squad and as much as I liked him he was not Richie Allen. Heck, for many years I didn't believe he was Johnny Callison, though that has chanced.

Allen vs Rolen. Eye test says no contest, none.

zambonir 2020-08-18 17:17:02 UTC #30

Not comparing them offensively at all. But defense does matter, and so does not playing 3B for nearly as long. It is a moot point, they're not in competition. But the eye test really isn't useful when many of the voters didn't get to see both players, and there's not as much video, and memories are unreliable. So in the end you gotta give credence to Rolen having the 10th-highest WAR and JAWs of all 3B, with the other 9 being in the Hall. Nothing to do with Allen (though he's 17th).

Philsmania 2020-08-18 17:36:43 UTC #31

Playing for memorable teams also helps. Although they broke Philadelphia's heart at the end, I think most phans look back fondly on the '64 Phillies and appreciate the joyride they gave Philadelphia for all but the last two weeks of the season and how charmed that season was until ten (Allen's exploits, Bunning's perfect game, Callison ASG MVP, etc.). Midnight came too early for that Cinderella story. The closest Rolen came to playing for a memorable Phillies team was 2001 when they enjoyed a robust 21 win improvement from the season before and officially hung around in the NL East race until the third-to-last game of the season.

andyb 2020-08-18 17:36:59 UTC #32

The stats do actually say there was no comparison on offense. On OPS+ Allen had a career number of 156 and Rolen was 122. Rolen's dropped a tiny bit by playing longer, though one could argue Allen would have had a longer career with the DH everywhere. They were just different players and the DH would not have helped Rolen's value that much because he was still decent at 3B until the very end.

Allen is probably a 1000+ OPS monster in today's game. He already had 8 different 900 OPS years. His 33 HR seasons suddenly become 40 HR seasons in today's game and he probably clears 400 in OBP in half his seasons as pitchers would avoid pitching to him more.

I think they both deserve to be in the HOF and the unique circumstances of Allen's career certainly robbed him of some counting stats that would have helped his case.

zambonir 2020-08-18 17:45:19 UTC #33

To me there's never been a debate about Allen, his omission obviously had little to do with his play.

And Rolen is obviously on the fence, I just think he's still on the right side of it. It's true about team success mattering, had he not won a championship in St. Louis he'd probably be further behind than he already is. He only just got onto St. Louis's Wall of Fame last season. Joined by Jason Isringhausen - exclusive club, huh?

philsphan67 2020-08-18 17:47:43 UTC #34

If Edgar Martinez is in the HOF, Scott Rolen should be. I had not thought of Rolen, but that is an interesting comparison to Allen - both were unhappy in Philadelphia (Allen the 1st time) for different reasons. Both are borderline HOF - I'd vote both in to the current HOF (too easy and watered down imo).

Matt Breen wrote an article about this Sunday, I hope Middleton does not water down the Phils retired numbers.

Maybe I can see Utley, but if you add Utley, do you add Rollins?? I'd say no as much as I enjoyed the last run.

For reference, Rollins and Abreu have the same Phillies WAR.

Howard should not be in the conversation, he was mentioned in the article. Howard's war is below Mike Lieberthal's. Ruiz has a higher WAR, as does Nola and his is only going up (way up we hope!).

zambonir 2020-08-18 18:29:08 UTC #35

Edgar was an unusual case, defining the DH position played a big role in his candidacy I think, even as that was a reason some opposed it.

Middleton article is posted above. I think Howard, Utley, Rollins and Hamels are all serious candidates. And their numbers are all already functionally retired.

Howard is a pretty easy call IMO. No, his numbers don't get him into the HoF or even close to it, but he was a ROY, an MVP, a HR champion, a World Series champion. He is a Phillies all-timer and that era was carried on his shoulders (until it wasn't).

Rollins is also a no-brainer to me, his HOF candidacy is at least as legit as Utley's though both will likely fall short, but he was an MVP, franchise hit leader, perennial Gold Glover and the unquestioned heart of those teams.

Chase is the easiest one of course. And if we'd called him up a lot earlier he might be more easily bound for Cooperstown too.

Like I said, Middleton claims he's revamping the process and putting a lot of thought into it, but I think he obviously intends to put his favorite players from his favorite era in, and it's pretty easy to call all those guys "Hall of Fame caliber" without them actually being worthy of induction.

Retired numbers aside they will have to do 8-10 guys on the Wall of Fame.

Philsmania 2020-08-18 18:34:53 UTC #36

I would say yes to Rollins since his HOF resume is stronger than a lot of people realize. Phillies phans are always quick to dismiss the HOF chances of Phillies greats and I wonder if the same dynamic exists elsewhere. Hometown fans also see a player's warts which may affect their point of view as well.

Getting back to Rolen, fairly or not, the Phillies phanbase would have to be on board with any kind of decision of this magnitude. And, Rolen and the phanbase have never reconciled either, unlike most of the others who have come back (ie. Werth). A big part of that is his own doing. As intelligent and thoughtful as Rolen is, he is very tone deaf when it comes to PR. He and Schilling had the same grievances but Rolen voiced them abysmally, often casting himself as a victim which won him little sympathy and he made the mistake of including the phans amongst those grievances (whereas Schilling shared their frustrations). Refusing to take part in community outreach efforts and throwing his teammates under the bus during that infamous 2002 ST press conference was also terrible PR. He had a golden opportunity to begin making amends in October 2010 when his Reds played the Phillies in the NLDS. All he had to do was seek out a Phillies beat reporter and talk about how incredible and palpable the energy level was at Citizens Bank Park at that time, how he knew that the energy level was always there going back to his visit to the Vet back that magical summer of 1993 and then praised the Phillies for tapping that energy with the winning culture they built after moving into CBP.

I think Halladay's Phillies career was too brief to warrant his retirement though I might have thought differently if the Phillies managed to win a WS with him in either 2010 or 2011.

Howard falls short of retirmement. His peak was glorious but it was all too fleeting. Definitely gets on to the WOF, though along with Hamels, Victorino, Werth, Ruiz, Lee, Moyer (if he changes his mind on the subject), Lidge and, heck, maybe even Myers and Madson (who was a rock in the bullpen). Manuel and Burrell are already there.

I think the players should have resumes that at least get legitimate consideration by the HOF in Cooperstown. Hence, I would say Utley and Rollins make the cut, as might Hamels eventually.

el-pietro 2020-08-18 18:44:07 UTC #37

I think Utley should absolutely have his number retired, and I think he has a chance to make the Hall. He was the second best player in the NL for half a decade and while he didn't get the individual awards his play warranted he was better than Howard and Rollins the year they won their MVPs and should have 5 or 6 gold gloves but he played in the wrong time and didn't make enough flashy plays. It shouldn't matter but he also had some key post season moments. The throw out at home in the World Series, the 2009 World Series Home Run Deluge. I'm sure some Mets fans will vote against him but I think he ultimately gets in as his all around play is valued more by more statistically inclined voters in the years to come. He won't get in at first but over the course of his 10 years he'll do enough. I hope I'm able to make the trip to Cooperstown for his induction.

Rollins doesn't make the hall but I'd be happy to see his number retired. He was a near Hall of Fame quality player but there are better players than him who didn't make it. He does have the MVP, and Gold Gloves, as well as being the face of the team during its best period and for the better part of a decade as well as being of All Star Quality for ~5 years, even if he didn't actually make the team most of those years.

I love Howard but I don't think hes on the same level as those two, or Chooch or Cole Hamels. He hit a lot of home runs, won Rookie of the Year, MVP and had high finishes in other years, as well as 3 AS appearances and the Home Run Derby win, but his performances don't hold up to scrutiny knowing what we know now. He finished with 14.7 WAR according to Baseball Reference, and that is the 152nd best total for a First Baseman. Active players with higher WAR than him include Eric Hosmer (17 WAR), José Abreu (21.4), Brandon Belt (21.4), Carlos Santana (31.1). I know WAR isn't perfect and it can change as the formula is adjusted but hes not even close. Theres no argument in his favour that he is a HOF caliber player, even if you take out the defence and his post injury years.
Focusing on just Slugging, his calling card puts him at 29th best of all time at .515, just above Luke Voit and José Abreu.

Cole Hamels is an interesting case. Traditionally you need to get to about 70 WAR as a Starter to reach the Hall threshold and hes at 59.5, 10 more WAR isn't impossible for him, if he can put up another 2 or 3 years of roughly 3 wins after 2020, but I think he falls short of that level. The thing is though, Pitchers pitch less today, so the best of the best are not reaching 70 WAR all that often any more. Among players who are not yet eligible for the hall only Verlander (71.8) and Greinke (71.8) are above 70. Kershaw (68.2) is close but he'll get in no matter what. Halladay got in with 64.2, and CC is only at 62.5 Scherzer and Cole are the same age, and Max (61.0) has a better shot at getting close to 70. I don't know if Cole gets in but theres an argument that at ~60 WAR he may have done enough to get in already. The one thing he has going against him is his peak. His total WAR is 68th best among all starting pitchers but his best 7 season rank 124th with 37.4, but CC isn't that far ahead of him with 39.4. If CC gets in I think Cole has to get in. CC does have the Cy Young but Cole has a WS MVP.

Ultimately I think Cole Hamels and Chase Utley get in, or get really close and then get in on some later vote similar to the one Allen needs to get in. They and Rollins all have their numbers retired. It might seem tough on Chooch and Howard who were key parts of those teams but there has to be a line somewhere, and if you retire Howards number then you have to seriously think about retiring Kruks as well.

The other player who has a really good shout at a retired number is Abreu. He was unfortunate in that he played in the wrong era and wasn't properly valued for what he brought to the team. He put up 45.3 WAR in his 8 full seasons with the team (47.3 including the half season in 2006). He had 7 full seasons better than what Bryce or JT did last year. His 60.2 career WAR is not that far off the Hall. He has higher WAR than players like Ichiro (59.7) Vlad Guerrero HOF (59.5), Bobby Bonds (57.9), Sammy Sosa (58.6) and Chuck Klein HOF (46.0) and its not like he was doing it with his glove so I don' tknow why he didn't get the love he deserved. He was a damn good hitter. Actually the more I look at his stats the less sure am I why he wasn't appreciated. He had a .303/.416/.513 line over 8 and a half years and he played over 150 games every year he was here. Was it just because he was the opposite of Aaron Rowand? He wasn't "gritty" enough, or was it because they didn't win? Based on those stats theres an argument that he has been the Phillies best batter this century. I'm sure I'm forgetting someone, and there are definitely players who have put up better numbers over smaller spells (Thome in 2003 and 04 is the obvious answer) but in terms of pure offensive production is there anyone better? Utley before his injuries is the only one I can think of.

zambonir 2020-08-18 18:57:50 UTC #38

It will be fun to see how the Phillies decide to handle it. The Wall of Fame as well. Seems like you have to start doing two at a time, if not three. But all these players are on different clocks too of course.

Like I said, Howard's number is already functionally retired. I seriously doubt they are going to go through this whole process, put him on the Wall, and then finally give #6 to some rookie after Utley and Rollins' numbers are hung up. We know how much Monty and Middleton loved the guy (there's a check stub to prove it). And Halladay makes it an easy call, even if he himself is in Cooperstown.

el-pietro 2020-08-18 19:02:33 UTC #39

I'm curious about this. I kind of glossed over him in my post above. I stand by my feeling that hes not good enough for the Hall but I'm open to the argument.
He finished with 47.6 WAR by Baseball Reference, better than a number of HOF members but well short of the average (67.5). He finished in a similar area to the likes of Tulo (44.5) and Nomar (44.5). Tulo is still eligible but Nomar didn't make it, falling off with just 8 votes in his second year. Nomar I think based on the numbers has a better case with higher total and a significantly higher 7 year peak (Nomar 43.1 vs Jimmy 32.7). If it weren't for injuries Nomar is probably a no doubt Hall of Famer but as it is he didn't even come close.
Jimmy has the MVP and World Series in his favour but I don't think he deserved his MVP and it seems silly to give him the benefit of that award in HOF voting all these years later, and conversely punish those who deserved them at the time for not being recognised by voters who had either had less information available to them or didn't pay attention to the information at the time. Again, WAR is far from perfect but its a useful tool. If two players are close in WAR then I think you can make an argument for either. For example if one player has 9 and one has 10 then you can make your case for both. Jimmy was the 6th best hitter in the NL in 2007 according to Baseball Reference (6.1) and he was the 7th best according to Fangraphs (6.5). the two sites disagree on who the best player was but they agree on the top 4. Pujols (8.7/7.7), Wright (8.3/8.4), Utley (7.8/7.7) and Chipper Jones (7.6/6.9).

Maybe theres something I'm missing but I just don't see what the argument in favour of Jimmy is, as much as I loved his all around play, and the swagger he played with at the time.

zambonir 2020-08-18 19:09:06 UTC #40