For the second year in a row, there was a tie vote in the annual Circle of Greats Balloting, so we will have a run-off election between the two tied players, Carlos Beltran and Bill Dahlen.
Beltran was bested in last year’s run-off against Roy Halladay, a contest that presented the challenge of evaluating an everyday player against a pitcher. This year’s contest is equally as challenging if not more so, comparing two everyday players whose careers are separated by more than a century. More after the jump.
| Seasons | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | TB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlos Beltran | 1998-2017 | 2586 | 11031 | 9768 | 1582 | 2725 | 565 | 78 | 435 | 1587 | 312 | 49 | 1084 | 1795 | .279 | .350 | .486 | .837 | 119 | 4751 |
| per 162 games | 162 | 691 | 612 | 99 | 171 | 35 | 5 | 27 | 99 | 20 | 3 | 68 | 112 | .279 | .350 | .486 | .837 | 119 | 298 |
| Seasons | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | BB | SO | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | TB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill Dahlen | 1891-1911 | 2444 | 10438 | 9036 | 1590 | 2461 | 413 | 163 | 84 | 1234 | 548 | 1064 | 759 | .272 | .358 | .382 | .740 | 110 | 3452 |
| per 162 games | 162 | 692 | 599 | 105 | 163 | 27 | 11 | 6 | 82 | 36 | 71 | 50 | .272 | .358 | .382 | .740 | 110 | 229 |
Comparing players separated by so many decades presents an interesting challenge. Here’s a run down on some of the things that can be compared directly:
| Beltran | Dahlen | |
| Career WAR (B-R/FanGraphs) | 70.1/67.8 | 75.2/77.5 |
| Career WAA (B-R) | 34.4 | 39.4 |
| 10 Year Peak WAR/WAA (B-R) | 52.6/31.8 (age 22-31) | 47.1/28.0 (age 26-35) |
| Career oWAR/dWAR (B-R) | 66.6/2.0 | 62.5/28.5 |
| Career Rbat+Rbaser (B-R/FanGraphs) | 317/312.5 | 147/167.5 |
| Career Rfield+Rpos (B-R/FanGraphs) | 24/4.2 | 284/274.1 |
| Pennant-winning teams | 2 times | 1 time |
| World Series championships | 1 time | 1 time |
| Hall of Fame selection | No | No |
| Hall of Fame standards (B-R) 50=avg HOFer | 52 | 48 |
| JAWS Ranking (B-R) | 9th (CF) | 11th (SS) |
Here’s a look at the their Top 100 career rankings by B-R.
| Top 100 Rankings | G | PA | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | XBH | RBI | BB | SB | WAR | WAA | oWAR | dWAR |
| Beltran | 46 | 39 | 53 | 62 | 29 | 47 | 25 | 41 | 88 | 70 | 96 | 74 | |||
| Dahlen | 73 | 60 | 50 | 33 | 97 | 28 | 50 | 63 | 86 | 12 |
So, the choice is yours. However you decide, your ballot in this runoff round, unlike the usual three-name ballot, should identify only the one candidate you prefer (you will also need to add at least a little bit of extra verbiage though, because the WordPress engine that supports the site won’t accept comments of only one or two words).
All votes must be in by 11:59PM EST on Sunday night, February 12th, with vote changes allowed until 11:59PM EST on Friday night, February 10th. If the result of this runoff is still a tie, the last vote cast will be discarded to determine the winner. So, vote early to ensure your vote counts! If you would like to keep track of the vote tally for the runoff, you can check this tally spreadsheet: COG 1978 Runoff Vote Tally.
Their 10-year peaks are just about equivalent when adjusted for games played (1296 for Dahlen vs 1467 for Beltran). I’ll go with Bill Dahlen
Yikes this is a challenge. Going to go with the better JAWS ranking and pick Beltran.
You got it, Jeff. Tough to choose.
Good news is you can’t make a bad choice.
I feel a little like an interloper, since I’m casting CoG votes after more or less dropping off HHS for years. But having been a partial cause of this runoff by voting late for Bill Dahlen, I think I should vote for him now, and give an argument. Dahlen and Beltran are, in fact, very close in some key numbers, and I can see reasons to vote either way.
For several years I argued—or bloviated about—Dahlen’s case (and Bobby Wallace’s) on the basis of the stats. Rather than repeat those arguments, since Doug has presented the runoff stats fairly and in detail, I want to add something more thematic about the CoG.
The inspiration for the CoG project (from our late friend birtelcom) was that HHS could improve on the choices of the BBWAA voters, basically because we were better informed than the writers had been historically. We would be uninfluenced (or less influenced) by myth, free of personal or baseball-political connections to candidates, and equipped with advanced stats. While I think CoG voters have done well, I also think we more or less duplicated a BBWAA mistake when our original process began to move back to players born before 1880: we modified our criteria to ensure that only WAR accumulated after 1900 qualified players for candidacy.
Although it was never part of the BBWAA voting rules, from the Hall’s inception in 1936 the writers generally didn’t include 19th century baseball within their purview. The governing concept of baseball history drew a line between the centuries, viewing the modern game as beginning with the founding of the AL in 1901. 1890s star Cy Young got voted in, but only because he was also a 230-game winner in the 1900s (so little weight were his other 280 wins given that he had to wait for the second round in 1937!). Other 19th century players received very few and then, after a while, no votes. (Well, in 1939 Wee Willie Keeler barely sneaked in, probably on the strength of his anecdotal reputation.) There were two basic reasons writers avoided the 19th century: 1) They didn’t know much about it other than anecdotes and pennant winners; 2) They were unsure whether 19th century baseball was really the same game as the one they knew. So an Old Timers Committee was formed to cover the years the writers couldn’t.
However, after 1969, when the Macmillan Encyclopedia was first published, ignorance about 19th century baseball could no longer be an excuse: 19th century stats suddenly materialized in full form. The writers could have turned their attention to the gaps in their former votes, but they really didn’t have to, since the Old Timers Committee had already filled most of them. So the writers’ division of early/modern baseball at the 1901 line remained unchallenged.
As for the line itself, our new understanding of 19th century baseball demonstrated that the dividing line between “early” and “modern” eras was pretty clearly not the 1900/1901 divide, which was based on league structures, but the 1892/1893 divide, which was when the game itself dramatically changed with the relocation of the pitcher’s position on the diamond. (I made this argument in irritating detail in a three-part HHS post four or five years ago.) The period 1893-1900 was when the first generation of modern baseball stars emerged (Young and Keeler being two), and if the CoG was to repair the errors of the BBWAA, it really should have given full consideration to the stars of the period, including, for example, Ed Delahanty (just short of 70 WAR, despite dying at 35) and Kid Nichols (70+ WAR in 1893-1900 alone). By CoG rules, however, at least 20 WAR were required for the post-1900 period, so Delahanty and Nichols are ineligible.
Of the few 19th century stars who did qualify, apart from Young, we did select one: George Davis. He was definitely the right first choice. (Bill James long campaigned for Davis’s Hall admission, and once he got in, he labeled Dahlen the new “most unjustly excluded” candidate.) Dahlen and Wallace were just a step below Davis among neglected candidates qualifying under the CoG’s 1900-line rule, and momentum for them built (that’s why they’re both on the ballot, and Dahlen still has years of guaranteed eligibility), but both were repeatedly bested by new and more familiar faces, many of whom we have living memories of.
As I mentioned in the last string, there are arguments for discounting the stats of players in earlier eras, such as the color line, but the CoG’s treatment of the stars who blossomed in the 1890s is exceptional. There are 14 CoG members whose careers in the all-white MLB began in the 1920s, but only six for the 1890s, all of them starting very late in the decade (so they were, essentially, young stars of the 1900s), except for Young and Davis. That disparity isn’t explained by a difference in the color line. Of course, the quality of 1890s play was far below baseball in the 1920s, and, given nutrition, training, medicine, and equipment, probably lower than NCAA ball today, but you have to measure player quality in the context of the state of the game in which they played, which lays the foundation for the next era.
I think Carlos Beltran belongs in the CoG. I feel sure he’ll get in unless the BBWAA stops electing new Hall members. But I’m not at all sure that Dahlen (or Wallace, who has a record just as worthy) will get in because Dahlen’s case needs advocacy that brings the period of his playing days back into focus for each round. I suspect that the first reaction of some voters to seeing Dahlen’s name on the ballot is, “Who’s he?”; no one logging onto HHS is likely to ask that about Carlos Beltran. One of the flaws of the BBWAA process that the CoG can repair is inattention to a past era that no longer captures our attention. I think the CoG should take care of avoiding that flaw by prioritizing the two candidates most subject to that inattention.
So, with due respect for Beltran and awareness that a vote for him would be perfectly reasonable: Dahlen.
Bob Eno:
Here’s another voice from the past with input on Dahlen—sort of.
Another problem with the CoG that has developed over time is that, by the rules, there is an absolute necessity of electing someone, anyone, to keep the number of members even with that of the HOF writers electees. Looking at the candidates for this year, both ballots, it seems to me, as it often has in the past, that, (with the possible exception of Dahlen at the high end and the definite exception of three or four others at the low end—Simmons and Berkman and take your pick) on any given day one could argue cogently for any one of them as being a hair’s breadth better candidate than any of the others—or a hair’s breadth worse one in rebuttal.
And, as you point out, the farther away we get from the dead ball era, the less likely are new voters to understand—or care about making—adjustments for the conditions of those times. Or even later times. The fact that Ashburn, for instance, has fallen off the main ballot after having been well in the running for numerous main ballot elections, indicates an ominous trend. Drysdale similarly.
With things trending in such a direction, in other words, after another ten or twelve votes Dahlen might well be where Ashburn is now.
Always a pleasure to meet up with you here, nsb!
Just to add a quick point of clarification to my own post: Dahlen wasn’t just a 19th century player. About 45% of his WAR was compiled in the period 1901-1909.
Bob Eno: At retirement, I believe Dahlen was second in career WAR for his position, behind only Wagner
I think he was third among shortstops, Paul, but shortstops were over-represented among the leaders. The WAR leaderboard at the time Dahlen retired (1911) looks like this (to my aging eyes):
Dahlen was seventh among position players. (Worth noting that at the close of the 1911 season Wallace was #13 at 74.6, also primarily a SS.)
Where Dahlin’s quality is clearest is that he retired as all-time #1 in dWAR (28.5), although he was ultimately edged out by Wallace. Currently, Wallace is still #10 on the all-time list, and Dahlen is #11, tied with Andrelton Simmons (who may go beyond Dahlen if any team picks him up this winter–Simmons, however, has less than half Dahlen’s total WAR).
amazing that Kid Nichols had to wait till 1949 (age 79) for Cooperstown to call 45 years past retirement
As Bob Eno noted above, Dahlen was actually third in WAR among shortstops, behind Wagner and George Davis.
However, while Dahlen played 87% of his games at SS, for Davis it was only 58%.
Bob & Doug,
I should have used the 51% filter. Thanks for the correction. I think when evaluating these guys (from a general sense, not necessarily CoG) one should consider where they were in their own era(s). Though WAR certainly helps comparing guys across eras. Throw in a position difference as well as WAYYYY different eras and comparing Beltran versus Dahlen is extremely difficult.
Was Allen as good as McCovey and Stargell; Hardy Richardson versus Biddy McPhee, etc?…- these are easier questions to answer
I really don’t like comparing players whose careers are mostly pre-1901 with those who played strictly after 1900. I decided to go with Beltran due to his higher OPS+ and better JAWS ranking.
Dahlen. We shouldn’t pretend the 19 century didn’t happen.
Particularly in Dahlen’s case, since over 88% of his career was in the 1893 and later period, probably the more appropriate dividing line between the “modern” game, and the varieties that preceded it (as Bob Eno noted in his comment above).
One could argue that Dahlen and other hitters of his period benefited unduly from the rule change moving the pitcher back ten feet, particularly in 1894 and 1895. The other difference between the 1893 and 1901 dividing lines is syndicate ownership prior to 1900 that meant, in effect, that not all teams were able to compete on a level playing field.
Since distortions caused by the big rule change in 1893 are normalized, albeit imperfectly, by saber-metric stats like WAR, I’m inclined to side with Bob Eno, and treat the 1893 and later period as the real modern era. The distortions caused by syndicate ownership, resulting in some teams being deliberately uncompetitive, are also normalized by WAR and similar stats (or will be as box scores from those years become more available). Thus, tarnishing players from those years with the pejorative aspects associated with the label “19th century” seems unduly harsh, at least to this observer.
A significant change took took place after 1900. The rule of not counting foul balls as strikes was struck down. As an example under that rule if a batter fouled off the first 2 pitches the count was 0-0 instead of 0-2. The NL went to the rule of counting foul balls as strikes in 1901. And the AL did so in 1903.
Nice catch, Richard.
I hadn’t realized that that rule change happened as late as it did.
Not a surprise, then, to see so many high strikeout pitchers in the first decade of the modern era. To wit, here are the total 150 strikeout seasons:
NL 1893-1900: 8 among 12 teams (except 8 teams in 1900)
AL 1901-1902: 3 among 8 teams
NL 1901-1908: 32 among 8 teams
AL 1903-1910: 48 among 8 teams
How did it affect Dahlen? Not much. His K rate was 6.8% of PA (1891-1900) and 7.8% (1901-11).
Well, to get back into some long forgotten weeds, the upshot of the posts that I wrote a few years back was that I argued the sea-change in 1890s baseball was only partly the change in the pitcher’s box. That immediate effect (higher offense) seems to have been really short-lived. My argument was that it gave near-simultaneous rise to a new form of play in reaction, small ball, which was the start of the Dead Ball Era and a host of professionalized features that distinguished baseball from the mid-’90s through the 1910s, until overturned by the lively ball. Training, batting and fielding skill sets, team-building and field strategy: all these were transformed in the mid-’90s and carried directly into the first decades of the 20th century. The elements off small ball seem to trace back to Charlie Comisky’s powerhouse AA StL Browns in the mid-’80s and Frank Selee’s Boston Beaneaters of the early ’90s, but it was the transformation of the awful Baltimore Orioles from doormats to dominance in 1892/94 under Ned Hanlon that proved the small ball concept to all teams, just as the pitching box change seemed to be taking the game in the other direction.
Syndicate baseball had its effect in the late 1890s, but I think it was not an effect on the field game itself. And while Richard’s point about the foul third strike is good–I first learned about it from him–I don’t think that single rule change is of a magnitude to regard the before/after as a categorical shift, suddenly producing too different a game to consider together with pre-1901/1903 ball.
But this is an old hobbyhorse of mine, so I’ll acknowledge that I tend to focus through a single lens.
Seems remarkable to me that Dahlen is not in the HoF. Possibly because his career straddles the modern era boundary so evenly, the different HoF committees weren’t sure which should have jurisdiction. Or, possibly being judged primarily by his offensive numbers, I can see how he might be overlooked in the pre-WAR era. But, surely by now, one HoF committee or another ought to look at him closely and remedy the oversight.
At least Dahlen drew more attention from BBWAA voters than George Davis did. Dahlen received one vote in 1938. Davis never reached those heights. Once Bill James took up Dahlen’s cause (after Davis finally prevailed) I was sure he’d start getting some attention, but . . .
Davis and Dahlen were born 8 months and 50 miles apart in upstate New York. They possibly missed becoming teammates on the ’04 Giants, when Davis was returned by the Giants to the White Sox midway in the ’03 season (Davis was a double-jumper, going from the Giants to the White Sox in ’02, and back to the Giants in ’03). Perhaps on account of losing Davis, the Giants traded for Dahlen after the ’03 season.
Noticed something odd on George Davis’s player page. He’s identified as being on the post-season roster of the 1914 Braves, but not playing in the World Series. This was 5 years after he last played in the regular season.
Davis’s SABR bio makes no mention of any association with the 1914 Braves, a time when Davis was baseball coach at Amherst College, 94 miles from Boston.
It looks like the postseason information associated with another George Davis (nicknamed “Iron”) was mistakenly tied to the B-Ref statistics of HOFer George Davis. Iron Davis was a pitcher for the NY Highlanders in 1912 and the Boston Braves from 1913-15. His player bio mentions he was on the 1914 Braves postseason roster but did not appear in a game. As his teams didn’t win the pennant in any of the other three seasons he played, there is no postseason statistical line even shown on his page.
Great detective work, Scary! You’re surely correct, and it turns out that Iron Davis has one of the most interesting SABR biographies I’ve encountered.
Oops. I meant to say his B-R bullpen page, not his bio. So after seeing your note, Bob, I read his bio and found it fascinating.
Iron Davis also has a most interesting box score line in his career finale (click on image to bring it into focus).
There are only 20 game scores of -13 or lower in a 8+ IP complete game, including one other career finale by Harley Parker. Davis’s 24 hits allowed are the fourth most in such games.
Among CGs allowing no walks or HR and striking out none, there’s no other game remotely similar in terms of game score, or hits or runs allowed. Davis has some good company, with a few name pitchers among the lowest 25 game scores in such games.
Pretty awful outing for ol’ George. But bear in mind: 1) It was the last day of the season and a meaningless game; 2) He hadn’t piched in over a month; 3) His mind was on getting back to Harvard Law; 4) Although his ERA ballooned a full point, his FIP actually fell. One year earlier he pitched a no-hitter, extending the Miracle Braves’ one-game margin in early September. For a guy who started only 22 games, Iron George had a varied career. (And then he became a lawyer, stockbroker, and astronomer.)
That Parker game is really more of a doozy, with its game score of -42. Dahlen collected four hits off of Parker. Hard to figure the strategy for putting Parker on the mound–it was still early in the season, the Reds had been tied for the league lead two weeks earlier, and Parker hadn’t pitched in the Majors for five years . . .
Here’s the scoop from Parker’s SABR Bio.
Four days later he’d (Parker) joined the Western Association’s Louisville Colonels instead, led by none other than Walt Wilmot. After four starts, in which he was 1-2 with 4.5 runs allowed per game, Parker developed a sore arm and was sent home to rest. Four days later, on his 29th birthday, Parker’s arm felt good enough for him to sign a contract with the NL Cincinnati Reds.
In the midst of a toboggan slide,71 the Reds had gone winless in eight straight. After a 25-13 mauling by the New York Giants, Reds manager Bid McPhee had benched occasional starter Barney McFadden and demoted sore-armed Amos Rusie to Muncie of the Indiana State League.72 With lefty Doc Newton, loser of his last three starts, due to face the Brooklyn Superbas on June 21, McPhee elected to go with another Doc, the newly acquired Parker.
Five years removed from his last NL start, Parker took a pounding, losing 21-3. He allowed 21 runs on 26 hits, modern NL and major-league records, respectively, for a nine-inning game. Both still stand as of the 2021 season.73 After Willie Keeler crushed a home run to deep center for his fifth hit in as many at-bats, he “decid[ed] he had done enough execution for the day,” and withdrew. The onslaught reached its zenith in the seventh, when the Superbas plated six runs on six hits.74 Like his 1893 debut, Harley’s major-league return was just a one-night stand; he was released the next day.
Parker’s younger brother Jay was also a pitcher. His solitary major league game was a start in which he was removed after facing three batters, none of which he retired.
In that 25-13 Cincinnati game, Bill Phyle of the Giants had a game score of 2.0 with an 8,2 inning 8CG, 18 hits allowed, 13 runs (9 earned), 3 Ks, 5 walks. With that victory, Phyle ended the day with a record of 5-0, 4.92. The rest of the year, he went 2-9, 4;34.
The Reds forfeited with two outs in the bottom of the 9th. It seems that the home fans got bored and started leaving, Leaving meant they had to walk through the field.
Nice add on, Tom.
In the days when the CG was the norm, there would be no reason to replace your pitcher if you were winning, no matter the score. Had the game been completed, Phyle likely would have had the lowest game score in a 9IP CG win, a mark set earlier that season in this game (click on image to bring it into focus).
Both are worthy, but I fear Dahlen will continue to be overlooked if not elected this year. Beltran will have plenty of other opportunities.
I vote for Dahlen.
My vote is for Carlos Beltran.
Thanks!
I’ll vote Beltran.
He did everything well. Power, speed, obp, defense, longevity, post-season excellence.
It really is splitting hairs at this point. Dahlen is worthy, too. Though I am more prone to trust what Ive been able to see with my own eyes, and numbers that I feel are more complete.
Dont know what to make of Dahlen’s defensive stats, simply because they are not as complete as today’s defensive stats. Can’t discount them, just dont know EXACTLY what to do with them.
He’s 4th all-time in Assists, which says something.
Of course, he’s also 2nd all-time in Errors.
___
Beltran is 4th all time in SB%
88.506 Buxton
87.912 Alexi Casilla
87.500 Utley
86.427 Beltran
And he had more SB attempts than the top three guys combined.
He is also 9th all-time in Power/Speed, wedged between Hank Aaron and Craig Biggio.
_______
If I’m picking a team, and I have to choose between 2001-2008 Beltran and 1890’s Dahlen, Im going to take the 5-tool Centerfielder.
I was looking at the Career H/9 leaderboards:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hits_per_nine_career.shtml
And noticed that Bob Turley is 14th among Starters
(right behind some guy named George Ruth).
Just wanted to share the beauty of Turley’s 1954:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/turlebo01.shtml
178 H
181 BB
185 SO
Turley did the same thing (more K than BB, more BB than H) the next year as well, with 210/177/168. Only others to do so in a qualified season:
-Randy Johnson (1991): 228/152/151
-Nolan Ryan (1977): 341/204/198
-Sam Jones (1955): 198/185/175
Jones led his league in K, BB, K/9, H/9 and … Losses, with 20 of the last.
Dropping the bar to 125 IP adds Ryan (1970) and Bobby Witt twice, in 1986 and 1987.
Saw this extraordinary stat today:
If a rookie came up and stole 50 bases, every year, for 28 years… he would still be 6 short of Rickey.
That is amazing! I’ll go out on a limb and say Rickey’s record should be safe for awhile. No player has stolen more than 46 in any of the past five seasons, and the longest major league career has been 27 seasons.
There are so many noteworthy stats from his career. It’s remarkable that Rickey played 25 seasons while drawing lots of walks, scoring often, and retaining some speed to the end of his career. He led the league with 66 SB at age 39, and remained in the top ten the next two seasons. He averaged almost 61 steals his first 23 seasons, And though he was thrown out on only 19% of his attempts, he was caught nearly as many times (335) as the active stolen base leader has been successful. Dee Strange-Gordon has swiped 336 over 11 seasons, with Elvis Andrus next at 335 SB in 14 seasons.
While hopeful we will be electing a deserving Beltran in the near future, my vote is for Dahlen this round. I planned to choose him coming into this runoff, but as I often don’t have a good argument to present in support of my choice, I appreciated the posts from Bob and nsb to fill that void.
So who won? I dont see my vote on the spreadsheet.
Tough one to choose, to be sure.
I’ll vote for Dahlen also. I have no doubt Beltran will also make it as well before much longer.
Current tally is 6-4 for Dahlen.
Voting closes in 9 hours, at midnight Eastern tonight.
I think it’s interesting that this year’s CoG runoff drew more votes (10) than the main ballot (9). Looking back at a few runoffs, they all saw a slight dropoff in votes.
With a little bit of a “lull in the action”, figured I’d post these two contemporaries. Any idea whom these two may be?:
Games PA Rbat OPS+ BA/OBP/SLG
1,092 4,731 341 153 .341/.442/.621
1,172 4,795 313 147 .334/.426/.618
Without looking up anyone, is Lefty O’Doul 1 of them.
Actually, these guys were teammates. One set of numbers (bottom) represents the entirety of his career with the franchise, the other set is his teammate’s stats with that franchise from age 25-31
I’ll guess Jimmie Foxx and Al Simmons.
Todd Helton 1999-2005 & Larry Walker 1995-2004
Tom is correct. Todd Helton, apparently, was just as good, if not better, than Walker for a similar stretch of number of games that make up Larry’s COLO years
For context, Helton is 7 years younger than Walker, so Helton’s stretch was at age 25-31 for those seasons, compared to age 28-37 for Walker.
My favorite Helton stat: he is the only player with 100+ XBH in consecutive seasons (Chuck Klein and Lou Gehrig are the only others with 100+ XBH in any two seasons).
Not to take anything away from those two, but, let us not forget about their home park.
In 1996, the Rockies, as a team, hit .343/.408/.579 at home.
In 2000, at home, they hit .334/.401/.538.
From 1995 to 2001, they hit .328/.390/.545 at home.
Tom,
I think you are taking something away frpom those two and I agree
In 1996, COLO averaged 8 runs/game at home ?