Most Deserving Players Not in the HOF; Part 152
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
I won't go on at great length about this, but I happened across something that lines up very well with the list of hitters who aren't in the HOF but I thought maybe ought to be. Baseball-reference shows some made-up stats for everybody below all the league leader appearances and right above the similar players lists. These stats were all invented by Bill James as predictors of who would (not necessarily should) make it to the HOF. One of these stats is called Gray Ink; it awards points for each appearance by the player in the top 10 of the league in various hitting categories. The retired 20th century eligible (I took out cheaters, too) players with the highest Gray Ink totals who are not in the HOF:
Sherry Magee
Minnie Minoso
Bobby Veach
George Burns
Bob Johnson
Dick Allen
Manny Ramirez
Rocky Colavito
Ed Konetchy
Mickey Vernon
Jackie Jensen
Magee must have been really, really disliked because his showing on HOF ballots back in the day makes no sense when you look at his stats. He, like Veach and Konetchy, played in the deadball era so his stats don't look much like modern players, but he was top 10 in just about everything just about every year, and he's got a handful of seasons that would make any player even today proud to claim.
And keep in mind that below these 10 players on the list there are still a lot of HOFers, including Carew and Henderson. None of these players were better than Carew and Henderson, but the list illustrates that being fantastic at a few things is a much easier path to the HOF than being very, very good at everything. Magee, Minoso, et. al. were very, very good at everything - and were better than a whole lot of HOFers - but didn't lead the league in the bright, shiny categories often enough to catch the HOF voters' eye.
Anyway, there's no player on the list that would be out of place in the HOF, and my top 10 hitters (not including fielding, just hitters) not in the HOF lines up awfully well with this list.
Comments
Funny you should post this.
I was going to ask what what others thought "should" be the cut off for HOF as far as OPS or OPS+ or a combination of stats goes.
Tony Oliva falls just short of your list and has a very nice 131 OPS+. His final great year he led the league in SLG and BA. To me it doesn't get much better that to lead in both of those categories!
For some insanely stupid reason Oliva didn't get promoted to the Majors until he was 25 and a couple of severe injuries ended his great period at 32.
3 time batting champ
5 times led the league in hits
4 times in doubles
2 time runner up in the MVP
Obviously had a short career, but his ability was far superior to a lot of guys who were good for a long time, and ended up in the HOF.
Minoso will be in soon enough. Possibly at the end of this year. Same for Oliva and Allen. At least one of these three will be voted in by their respective committee that votes at the end of this year. Maybe all three.
I think all three are deserving.
Looks like Minoso could/should have been MVP in '54. Williams had a great year as well.
I would not be surprised to someday see Manny Ramirez get in.
If they can't get in within the normal allotted time frame, then they shouldn't get in.
If i was on the Hall of Fame committee, i'd be on the soapbox at every meeting. 😉
Meanwhile rather than nitpicking with obscure stats, the one who clearly should be in, is Barry Bonds. I don't like Bonds personally, and will never like Bonds personally, but come on now, it's just plain silly that he wasn't a unanimous first ballot HOFer, let alone not even getting in years later.
I've got Bonds 4th on my all time greatest hitters list. It's conjecture, but even without the juice which almost everybody and their brother was using back then, i think Bonds still would have been 4th.
I generally agree with you. However, I think that voters are human also and can get together to keep players out whether it is warranted or not. You see it with Bonds and Clemens. I see it with a lot of AFL guys. When I worked on the Johnny Robinson campaign, some of the older voters told me that he was 100% kept out because of the anti-AFL bias among the majority of voters at the time.
I guess I would amend your statement to say that if they cannot get in with an unbiased voting process within the normal allotted time frame, then they shouldn't get in. But as voters are human and we may never have a truly unbiased vote in any sport, then I guess we are stuck where we currently reside.
Todd you're so right about being stuck where we currently reside.
Actually i first recognized biased voting during the days before the college football playoff system began. My alma mater Penn State at the time was an independent, and always had a brutal schedule against other tough football programs. Yet other schools with ridiculously soft schedules, if they were undefeated and Penn State was undefeated, invariably they would always be ahead in the polls, and at the end of the season.
It wasn't just a voting bias against Penn State, it was against all Eastern schools and many sports writers acknowledged it. But Penn State being a football powerhouse back then, was the primary target.
Oh well, nothing i can do about it and if Dallas turns out to be right, then he turns out to be right.
One other thing i will say is i've twice been to the MLB Hall of Fame, and thoroughly enjoyed every second of it. It's well worth the trip to Cooperstown, no matter where you live.
I've been to many museums in my life, I happen to like museums, including some in Europe including the Louvre, and they all had their interesting qualities. However the MLB Hall of Fame had a special aura to it, that perhaps is indescribable.
It's worth the trip just to see their magnificent baseball card collection, let alone the memorabilia and such.
If anyone is thinking about going to the Hall, i say don't think about it, just do it. You'll be glad you did.
I visited the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown in September 1997 and I agree, it is truly a great place to visit. My visit that day to the HOF plaques room gave me a big jolt, though, being a Phillies fan. They had a black arrangement on Richie Ashburn's plaque, as he had died that morning.
He deserves to be in, even though he pissed me off on how he ran himself out of Boston
Wow, what a surreal coincidence.
But that was quite thoughtful of them to do that on Richie's plaque.
In my opinion, when including his long broadcasting career, Ashburn is the most beloved sports star in Philly history.
I would put Will Clark ahead of everyone on that list as far as simply deserving of being in
the hall of fame. Not arguing gray ink or anything like that just saying Will Clark was a better
baseball player than any of those guys.
I can agree with that, as long as we recognize that there are biases for players on good teams, for RBI over runs scored, for high batting averages over high OBP, and many more, not one of which should have any role at all in deciding who the best players were. Going forward, I think enough voters understand these things now that atrocities like Bert Blyleven not being voted in on his first ballot will become much less common. But that doesn't do Sherry Magee or Minnie Minoso any good. The voters who passed on them decades ago are all gone, but their ignorance lingers on in the absence of great players from the HOF. There is no statute of limitations on fixing mistakes.
Id throw a HOF bone for Dick Allen
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It gets a lot easier to understand when you realize these are popularity votes and not based on performance, much like MVP and All-Star.
Agreed that Penn State has gotten screwed in the polls many times.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Manny Ramirez is an interesting inclusion on this list. There are several players, far better, only accused of using PED not here, but Ramirez was actually suspended for them (twice).
My bad, Manny is gone and Jackie Jensen joins the top 10. And I won't amend the OP for this, but I will say that Jackie Jensen would be out of place in the HOF. Very good player, but for only 9 full seasons, and not nearly great enough in those nine seasons to make up for the short career.
Jensen over Oliva? I certainly don't see that.
This is simply the list of the players with the highest Gray Ink scores, not the ones that are necessarily the most deserving.
The next 10 are:
Dale Murphy
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Rudy York
Dolph Camilli
Del Ennis
Todd Helton
Cy Williams
Steve Garvey
Vern Stephens
I agree that Oliva was better than Jensen, but with only 11 full seasons himself I don't see Oliva as a HOFer, either. Dick Allen also has only 11 full seasons, or close enough to full, but he was a whole lot better, per season, than anyone else in the top 20.
Dallas. You seem to have a great mind when it comes to figuring out which players belong in the hall of fame, and which ones do not. Your knowledge of statistics is commendable, and how it applies to an athletes influence in his or her sport, and how much that athlete contributes to his or her team's success. So most of us on this forum would love to hear your opinion on whether or not Gene Tenace belongs in the tennis hall of fame ?
Gene Tenace in the Tennis HOF. Absolutely. They named the sport after him.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
So here's the thing: I have a few comments: first, you're absolutely right that it's astonishing that Magee never got more than 1% of the vote.
Second, the poster child for this kind of argument is Jim McCormick. He has 220 on the grey ink test, and when you compare him in JAWS and WAR only Clemens is above him in non-HoFers, with Schilling far behind in JAWS and just slightly ahead in WAR. McCormick would be comfortably in the top half of Hall of Fame starting pitchers were he to be inducted. I can't find a ranking of RAR, but with 428, McCormick is far above the HoF standard there, too.
Third, the players listed above are like the Don Mattinglys of their day. They were never great, and very good only briefly. Magee, for example, has a best season that would be number 8 for Trout. Keep in mind that Trout has played only eight full seasons. Jim Rice would fit nicely on this list, except that few if any of these guys had a year like Rice's 1978. FWIW, Rice would be between Minoso and Veach.
Fourth, the HoF should not be, and never has been, for players better than, say, Rice. There are a number of mistakes in the Hall. Again, your number will vary. There are many fewer mistakes if you think that the likes of Fingers, Hunter, and High Pockets Kelly belong, may more if you think that the likes of Rice and Mussina should be on the outside. Still, just because someone is better than a player who is enshrined is no reason to put him in. Example: you may think very highly of Al Oliver, but it isn't a convincing argument to say that Oliver is better than Lloyd Waner. Waner is in the Hall of Fame. Therefore Oliver should be in.
Finally, I can understand the argument that overlooked players should be enshrined, especially if they are better than a lot of HoFers, but the thing is that I think we can leave out players who were very, very good from a long time ago, but have since been forgotten. I think it was a mistake to enshrine Vic Willis in 1995, not because he wasn't good enough, but because he wasn't a Great and he had long been forgotten. McCormick, Veach, Burns, and Konetchy and several others fall into this category. The others on this list aren't far off. Take Colavito, for example. He had a few very good years, and in 1961 was very, very good, but there were two players on his team (Cash and Kaline) that were Great. It's hard to vote for a guy who was, at his best, third best on his own team and a team not good enough to make the World Series, and that sixty years ago. Far better to consider the likes of Helton, Andruw Jones, Kent, and Rolen. Failing that, Whitaker, Dwight Evans, Grich, and Munson. At least some people remember them.
IMO, Magee is the only person on that list who wouldn't devalue the Hall, but I wouldn't put him in, either.
I won't really argue your points; they're all valid and the POV holding them all together is as rational as any other. I will say that I would be a bit more expansive than you. While none of the names on the list (until Jensen backed in) would be out of place in the HOF, the ones that I would absolutely vote for if given a chance are Magee, Minoso, and Allen. I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word "devalue", but Minoso and Allen were, in different ways, great players, and had they played for better teams I'm pretty confident they'd have been inducted a long time ago.
Jackie Jensen's incredible fear of flying and personal life ended his career.
He actually drove from Boston to Cleveland instead of flying with the team. When expansion came and games were scheduled on the West Coast, that did it for him.
Pete Rose. In my opinion it will be a travesty if he's not inducted before he is no longer with us.
Bonds had the best hand eye coordination I have ever witnessed on a baseball field. I think it's unfortunate that era was stained by all the doping/juicing. I remember an interview with John Smoltz years ago where he stated that he believed Bonds would intentionally swing wildly at a pitch to start an at bat to set the pitcher up so to speak. He was that good he could spot a pitcher a strike and still have the confidence he would succeed in such an at bat.
I agree. I've never seen a more seemingly effortless homerun swing in my life.
If i swing a bat like Bonds and hit the ball, it would result in a pop-up to the pitcher. LOL
Here's a related list. The names below are the non-pitchers who compiled 250 total Win Shares in a period of 10 consecutive seasons. Non-HOFers are in bold.
Honus Wagner
Nap Lajoie
Sam Crawford
Ty Cobb
Sherry Magee
Eddie Collins
Tris Speaker
HR Baker
Joe Jackson
Babe Ruth
George Burns
Rogers Hornsby
Harry Heilmann
Frankie Frisch
Goose Goslin
Al Simmons
Lou Gehrig
Paul Waner
Jimmie Foxx
Mel Ott
Charlie Gehringer
Earl Averill
Arky Vaughan
Ducky Medwick
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Lou Boudreau
Yogi Berra
Jackie Robinson
Duke Snider
Larry Doby
Richie Ashburn
Mickey Mantle
Eddie Mathews
Willie Mays
Minnie Minoso
Hank Aaron
Frank Robinson
Bob Clemente
Harmon Killebrew
Carl Yastrzemski
Ron Santo
Willie McCovey
Billy Williams
Frank Howard
Pete Rose
Dick Allen
Lou Brock
Joe Morgan
Jimmy Wynn
Willie Stargell
Reggie Jackson
Johnny Bench
Bobby Bonds
Rod Carew
Ken Singleton
Mike Schmidt
George Brett
Gary Carter
Eddie Murray
Keith Hernandez
Robin Yount
Ricky Henderson
Tim Raines
Wade Boggs
Cal Ripken
Ryne Sandberg
Barry Bonds
Will Clark
Craig Biggio
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Ken Griffey
Roberto Alomar
Mike Piazza
What many of the non-HOFers have in common is a relatively short career. HOF voters would rather a player hang around for 5 or more years after they're no longer good than retire. I don't know why, but it's what they like. In any event, the players above in bold were every bit as good as a whole lot of HOFers; some of them retired before HOF voters wanted them to, and some of them have just been overlooked (and some of them have been banned, either officially or unofficially).
And you'll note that there are quite a few HOFers not on this list. Some, like Highpockets Kelly or Jim Rice, simply weren't as good as the other players in the HOF and some of them, like Rabbit Maranville or Ozzie Smith, were inducted to honor their fielding even though they were not, by any objective measure, as valuable to their teams as Frank Howard or Ken Singleton. And some of them, like Ernie Banks or Al Kaline, never had a 10-year stretch that was all that great. Banks was great for about five years, and then good for a long time. Kaline was great for even fewer years than Banks, but then was very good for a very long time. One, Joe DiMaggio, just gets screwed by WWII depriving him of any 10-year stretches at all.
Whether you look at the Gray Ink or the Win Shares list, and especially if a player is on both, you're seeing some of the greatest players who are being royally screwed when a Harold Baines gets in the HOF, and whose legacies are being trashed when a Steve Garvey or Omar Vizquel even gets talked about.
Tony Oliva has 213 in his eight year stretch 1964-1971.
The complete list of players with an 8-year stretch of 210+ Win Shares not already on the list above:
Joe DiMaggio
Johnny Mize
Wally Berger
Ralph Kiner
Mickey Cochrane
Bill Terry
Nap Lajoie
Ernie Banks
Tony Oliva
There were a few of the 10-year/250 WS group that had the short career problem, and Oliva and Berger have the same problem but in spades. Great players, but probably too short careers to ever get serious consideration.
There is a lot to unpack in this thread, and I'm really only capable of doing it a little at a time. I'd like to examine what we mean here by "hanging around". I offer three players for consideration: Ken Griffey, Albert Pujols, and Carl Yastrzemski. Consider them at age 30. Had they retired then, Griffey and Pujols would (still) have been considered all-time greats, and, while it would take longer for Yastrzemski to reach that level, but he would still have had the career value of a Billy Williams or a Raines (in fact, on the trajectory he was on he would likely have been considered a Koufax, though he was up through age 30 far better than Koufax).
None of them were elite after 30, ironically. It is amusing that the three stopped being elite at the same age. Anyway, in the "hanging around" years, the three had varying career trajectories. Griffey was just bad. It's safe to say that Pujols was "no longer good" by almost any definition. Yastrzemski was still a solid player for much of that time, but certainly no longer great or even, usually, very good.
Of course I've stacked the deck some here because no matter what any of these three did after they were 30 (on the field) they were going into the HoF. But what do we consider "hanging around", playing at a level that is decreased at a level of 250%, 400%, or 1100%?
An obvious counterexample is another all-time great, Mike Schmidt, who was very, very good through his age 37 year, and retired 150 games later.
By "hanging around" I just mean playing at a non-HOF level. Griffey is the best example to illustrate my point. After the 2000 season, when Griffey was 30, he had 438 HR, a mantle full of Gold Gloves, and a whole lot more. He was a HOFer alerady, and everyone knew he was a HOFer alerady. What he did after that just didn't matter. He had some decent years, some good years, and some bad years - but it just didn't matter even if they were all bad years.
But to HOF voters, it does matter, not how well you play while hanging around, but simply that you hang around. Dick Allen - cover your eyes, people who don't believe in park and era effects - was better than Griffey, but he didn't hang around. Frank Howard, Jimmy Wynn, Will Clark, Bobby Bonds and a couple of the old timers were, while not as good as Griffey, HOF-level players for many years. Had any of them hung around playing like Harold Baines for another 5-10 years they'd be in the HOF, too.
That's the part that bothers me. When deciding which players to honor with membership in the HOF, I don't think "hung around for a long time after his skills diminished" should be a consideration. I don't mean to suggest that Griffey, or Yaz, or anyone else becomes less deserving of the HOF no matter how long they hang around, just that the HOF checklist should only include HOF-worthy accomplishments. If a player can check enough boxes in 10 years, then good for him.
I still remember the day Schmidt retired. No argument that he was pretty bad by then, but he was on the RBI leaders when he quit. I admit that I was young and stupid at the time and I thought being on the RBI leaders meant that he was still good, so his retirement came as a shock to me.
Unfortunately for some (Tony Oliva) they are so banged up they can't hang around long enough to "qualify".
Lance Berkman had a 10 year stretch of a 148 OPS+.
Carlos Delgado best 10 year was also 148.
Jim Edmonds 142 for a good centerfielder.
Not sure how many WinShares it equates to....but that era goes unfairly unrecognized.
Pedro Guerrero had a 10 year stretch at 148 as well. A very underrated hitter from the 80's. Guerrero's WinShares will be lower because of 1981 and he missed almost all of 1986 during that 10 year stretch.
Did i just read that Dick Allen was better than Ken Griffey Jr ??? NO WAY....NO WAY.
You'll read lots of strange things on this forum. Like Marty Brodeur was the greatest goaltender ever in the NHL.
Gene Tenace was better than Buster Posey. Dick Allen was better than Ken Griffey.
Just take it with a grain of salt. Some of these guys are looking for acceptance. Others do it because they
enjoyed getting laughed at. It's all part of the fun here.
@Goldenage said:
» show previous quotes
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
^^^^^^^^^GOLDENAGE THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS ABOVE^^^^^
Terry Forster has a lifetime OPS of .887
George Brett has a lifetime OPS of .857
I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion. I'm sure Darin may not like your assessment.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
So if we look deeper at a more complex way of measurement like you want, Forster has a better OPS than Brett....so is Forster a better hitter in that more complex measurement??
So I have to ask, if you are familiar with merit of the more complex measurements and recognize park factors(like you bring up with Santo), then.........
....... why is it such a silly notion when someone says Gene Tenace is better hitter than Buster Posey when Tenace has a lifetime 136 OPS+ and Posey is only at 128?? For a complex analyst as you claim you are, that doesn't seem so silly, does it?
Then in World Series play Tenace has a lifetime .879 OPS. Posey has a World Series OPS of .616. Hmmmmmm.
GoldenAge, your assertions are the only thing that look silly at this point. You may want to tighten up your criteria and develop a little more consistency in your evaluations.
I said Buster Posey was a better catcher than Gene Tenace. I never said it was silly to say that Gene Tenace was
a better hitter than Buster Posey. You said that. Not me.
Gene Tenace was a better hitter than Buster Posey only because of his ability to get on base via the walk.
Buster Posey is a much better defensive catcher than Gene Tenace.
Please do not put words in other people's mouths. You make yourself sound like you are unable to read
what people actually say.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
You may want tighten your methods up a bit.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
You may want tighten your methods up a bit.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth...simply using your methods. It is your inconsistency that you are seeing. You selectively apply things and conveniently forget things. Nice method.
He's going to be 80 this week
That's just silly. You can make the case he was a better hitter but not a better player. Griffey was an all-time great at a premium defensive position. Dick Allen was a bad defender at the easiest position on the field (1B) and bad at his other ones, too.
I won't make the case that Allen was the better hitter because it's unnecessary; clearly he was.
As for who was the better player, it's close and it depends a lot on how you define "better". Griffey has a whole lot more "hanging around" value, and if that matters a lot to you then Griffey will win easily. If it doesn't - and it doesn't to me, especially since he hung around no longer playing a prime defensive position - then I don't see how you could call the comparison "silly".
Using Win Shares - which includes defense - Allen's best season beats Griffey's best season. Allen's second best season beats Griffey's second best season. Allen's third best season beats Griffey's third best season. Allen's fourth best season beats Griffey's fourth best season. Allen's fifth best season beats Griffey's fifth best season. Allen's sixth best season beats Griffey's sixth best season. Allen's seventh best season beats Griffey's seventh best season.
Griffey then wins 8, 9, and 10 by a nose. Through 10 seasons, it's Allen 303, Griffey 276, and Allen trails off rapidly after that while Griffey trails off slowly. With all due respect, I think it's silly to call the claim that Allen was better "silly". If the half of Griffey's career he spent as an often-injured version of Bruce Bochte means more to you than it does to me, then so be it; that position is not silly. But it doesn't mean all that much to me, and I don't feel the least bit silly saying so.
What would you say are the main variables in WinShares?
Runs Created (runs allowed for pitchers) is the primary variable. James calculates it differently than bb-ref but it's still very similar. And all of it, of course, is park-adjusted.
For the defensive portion there is no one single common variable for all positions. Instead, what James tried to do was figure out for each position what the important plays were and backed out all the trivial plays.
For reasons that I don't understand, and I think James just made up, defense counts for 52% and offense 48%, with pitching counting for the great majority of the defense.
Does he give a specific percentage for how much the pitching accounts for the defense?
Peak vs peak, Griffey was better. That's what I was saying. And, yes, it's silly to say Allen was better peak vs peak.
The baseline is 67.5%, but teams with great pitching will be in the 70's and teams with terrible pitching could be below 60%. But, if a team has terrible pitching and also has terrible hitting and defense then the pitching will trend back up to 67.5%.
FWIW, I think James made a few mistakes in how he set up Win Shares and a couple of major ones in how he assigns them to pitchers so I don't use Win Shares to compare/rank pitchers. But, whether the WS for pitchers are right or wrong has little to no effect on how WS are assigned for the non-pitchers, so comparing WS among non-pitchers still "works". If you think that the pitching baseline should be higher than 67.5%, then it follows that you think WS gives too much credit to fielding, from which it follows that you think WS is going to favor skill position fielders over other fielders. You may be right about that, but even raising pitching to 80% - and I think that's way too high for a baseline - wouldn't change the total WS for anyone but catchers and SS enough to really notice.
You'll have to tell me what "better" means to you, but if it means that Griffey was a better hitter than Allen then I'm going to disagree. I won't call your belief silly, but I will think you're wildly underestimating how much easier it was to hit in Seattle in the 90's vs. Philly/Comiskey in the deadball era.
Better player. Griffey could actually play defense, Allen couldn't.
Also, since I haven't said it recently, Dick Allen absolutely belongs in the HOF.