RealGM

Take the vote away from the guys with the typewriters...and give it to those already enshrined in the Hall of Fame


When deciding on which players should be immortalized in baseball history...I would think the opinion of Jim Palmer, Hank Aaron, Cal Ripken, Johnny Bench, Nolan Ryan and Co. is infinitely more important than someone who never played the game...


Writers have shown an inability to keep their personal feelings towards certain players out of the equation and it has resulted in far too much controversy in what should otherwise be a celebratory occasion


Case in point: Albert Belle

13th all-time in RBI per at-bat

A .564 career SLG% (14th all-time ahead of Musial, Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Griffey and Thomas)

First player to hit 50 HR and 50 doubles in the same season (only 143 games)

But the most obvious stat to enshrine him is this...

Belle lead ALL of baseball in RBI's and Total Bases during the 1990's

In a sport dominated by statistics...that is definitely an accomplishment worth recognizing

In his final season while battling a chronic hip injury which ended his career he was still able to hit .281 with 23 HR and 103 RBI in only 143 games --- even homering in his final MLB at-bat

At only 33, Belle finished with 389 HR, 1239 RBI in 1539 games


7.7% of the vote in his first year of eligibility for the Hall

The following year he didn't even receive enough votes to stay on the ballot!




Discuss...

I'm with you on this one. I think longevity should be treated as any other stat (there's something to be said for a guy who never misses games) but that, at its core, excellence is what should be strived for by the hall of fame. Albert Belle was one of the most feared hitters of his generation. He was consistently in the MVP discussion for the better part of a decade. The only things you can hold against him in terms of his actual game is that he was a relatively mediocre/bad defensive player. The other things holding him back are: longevity (He battled that hip for a very long time) and being a complete a$$hole. Even more than the longevity, I think the latter is the major reason why he's dropped off of the ballot and that, to me, is the biggest shame. If you're only letting in nice guys who've played for 15+ seasons, then you've collected an interesting list of players but not a complete list of the greatest players in the history of the game. And I think that's exactly what the purpose of a hall of fame is.

Here are some quotes about Albert "Joey" Belle by the media

Bill Madden wrote:
"Sorry, there'll be no words of sympathy here for Albert Belle. He was a surly jerk before he got hurt and now he's a hurt surly jerk....He was no credit to the game. Belle's boorish behavior should be remembered by every member of the Baseball Writers' Association when it comes time to consider him for the Hall of Fame."

Buster Olney would write:
It was a taken in baseball circles that Albert Belle was nuts... The Indians billed him $10,000 a year for the damage he caused in clubhouses on the road and at home, and tolerated his behavior only because he was an awesome slugger... He slurped coffee constantly and seemed to be on a perpetual caffeinated frenzy. Few escaped his wrath

Unfortunately, while I agree with your point, your example of Albert Belle may not be the best....sure he has the stats but do you really think the players in the Hall of Fame feel differently about him? I doubt it. Some of them are almost as bad as the writers. They feel the need to protect the game.

Basically, if it was up to the HOF'ers, I still don't think Belle would be in.

But if enshrinement was determined by stats, he would be in.

Also...remember this?

MGD24 wrote:Here are some quotes about Albert "Joey" Belle by the media

Bill Madden wrote:
"Sorry, there'll be no words of sympathy here for Albert Belle. He was a surly jerk before he got hurt and now he's a hurt surly jerk....He was no credit to the game. Belle's boorish behavior should be remembered by every member of the Baseball Writers' Association when it comes time to consider him for the Hall of Fame."

Buster Olney would write:
It was a taken in baseball circles that Albert Belle was nuts... The Indians billed him $10,000 a year for the damage he caused in clubhouses on the road and at home, and tolerated his behavior only because he was an awesome slugger... He slurped coffee constantly and seemed to be on a perpetual caffeinated frenzy. Few escaped his wrath

Unfortunately, while I agree with your point, your example of Albert Belle may not be the best....sure he has the stats but do you really think the players in the Hall of Fame feel differently about him? I doubt it. Some of them are almost as bad as the writers. They feel the need to protect the game.

Basically, if it was up to the HOF'ers, I still don't think Belle would be in.

But if enshrinement was determined by stats, he would be in.

Also...remember this?

Belle was a fierce competitor who played the game hard...as Vina found out

Let's not forget...that was a perfectly legal hit as Belle had the right of way on the basepaths...

Players would view that play no differently than they would a player who slides hard into 2B or tries to take out the catcher at the plate

It's a baseball play...


And the whole argument about character is irrelevant

Ty Cobb was openly racist and once entered the stands to attack a man in a wheelchair

He was among 5 players inducted in the Hall's first year


Buy the weigh...

The point of my OP was that Buster Olney's opinion of Belle shouldn't count for anything

I agree with the general sentiment but Belle is just not a hall of famer, his career is too short and his peak is not really better than the peak of other hall of famers with longer careers. Statistically speaking a 60 WAR is seen as a decent benchmark, Belle is only at 45.

didn't Belle have the corked bat debacle?

Avenger wrote:I agree with the general sentiment but Belle is just not a hall of famer, his career is too short and his peak is not really better than the peak of other hall of famers with longer careers. Statistically speaking a 60 WAR is seen as a decent benchmark, Belle is only at 45.

He played long enough to put up comparable stats to Puckett...who also had his career end prematurely

Puckett was a first ballot hall of famer, right?



You have to factor the injury and the numbers that Belle would have achieved had he stayed healthy....

If he averages 100 RBIs over 4 more seasons until he's 37...he finishes in the top 30 all-time...

he'd need to average just over 25 HR's to reach 500...

his track record shows those numbers were extremely likely...

Avenger wrote:I agree with the general sentiment but Belle is just not a hall of famer, his career is too short and his peak is not really better than the peak of other hall of famers with longer careers. Statistically speaking a 60 WAR is seen as a decent benchmark, Belle is only at 45.

Peak OPS+ seasons of 193, 177, and 171 is pretty damn good. He built up counting stats in 12 seasons that Jim Rice did in 20. He is only 4 WAR behind Rice. I probably wouldn't put him in my HOF but if Jim Rice can make it, why not Belle?

Neither Rice or Puckett should be in the HOF. The same goes for Belle.

Randle McMurphy wrote:Neither Rice or Puckett should be in the HOF. The same goes for Belle.

+1

Randle McMurphy wrote:Neither Rice or Puckett should be in the HOF. The same goes for Belle.

Pucket was as good a player as Gwynn, Ripken, Yount, Molitor and Brett...


Now back to Belle...

If leading ALL of BASEBALL in RBI's and TOTAL BASES for an entire decade only gets a player 8% of the vote...then something is wrong with the voting process


Career averages over 162 games (from baseball-reference)...

Belle = 103 runs, 41 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI, .933 OPS, 347 total bases

Pujols = 123 runs, 42 doubles, 42 HR, 128 RBI 1.050 OPS, 372 total bases

Manny = 109 runs, 39 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI, .998 OPS, 340 total bases

A-Rod = 124 runs, 33 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI, .958 OPS, 355 total bases

Thomas = 104 runs, 35 doubles, 36 HR, 119 RBI, .974 OPS, 317 total bases

Guerrero = 103 runs, 36 doubles, 35 HR, 115 RBI, .946 OPS, 346 total bases

Bagwell = 114 runs, 37 doubles, 34 HR, 115 RBI, .948 OPS, 317 total bases

Juan Gonzalez = 102 runs, 37 doubles, 42 HR, 135 RBI, .904 OPS, 353 total bases

Cabrera = 101 runs, 41 doubles, 34 HR, 120 RBI, .939 OPS, 336 total bases

Bonds = 121 runs, 33 doubles, 41 HR, 108 RBI, 1.051 OPS, 324 total bases

Griffey = 101 runs, 32 doubles, 38 HR, 111 RBI, .907 OPS, 320 total bases

McGwire = 101 runs, 22 doubles, 50* HR, 122, .982 OPS, 315 total bases

Sosa = 102 runs, 26 doubles, 42 HR, 115 RBI, .872 OPS, 324 total bases

Thome = 104 runs, 29 doubles, 40 HR, 110 RBI, .963 OPS, 302 total bases

Delgado = 99 runs, 38 doubles, 38 HR, 120 RBI, .929 OPS, 317 total bases

Mark Teixeira = 104 runs, 40 doubles, 37 HR, 121 RBI, .914 OPS, 330 total bases


Belle is arguably one of the top 5 power hitters of the last 25 years...and he might be the only player in history to average 40/40/130 for his career

That's a Hall of Famer


If he had won 6 Gold Gloves playing CF in the Metrodome like Puckett...this wouldn't be a debate

Pucket = 97 runs, 38 doubles, 19 HR, 99 RBI, .318 AVG


I never saw Rice play...

97 runs, 29 doubles, 30 HR, 113 RBI, .854 OPS, 320 total bases

Evermore wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:Neither Rice or Puckett should be in the HOF. The same goes for Belle.

If leading ALL of BASEBALL in RBI's and TOTAL BASES for an entire decade only gets a player 8% of the vote...then something is wrong with the voting process


Career averages over 162 games...

Belle = 41 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI

Pujols = 42 doubles, 42 HR, 128 RBI

Manny = 39 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI

A-Rod = 33 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI


Enough said

Enough said if you want to be really, really wrong.

A-Rod is a SS/3B, so having him in this discussion is absurd. Manny is an incredibly borderline case for the hall of fame if he only plays 1500 games; he will get in due to career consistency. Even without going into advanced stats, Pujols has scored fewer than 100 runs only once in his career, is probably one of the best defensive 1B of all time, plus has spent his career so far playing in a lower run environment.

Also, a decade is an arbitrary period of 10 years. Morris has the most wins in the 80s, but it doesn't make win a hall of famer either. It just means there weren't any great pitchers who played their peak across all of those 10 years.

Modern_epic wrote:

Evermore wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:Neither Rice or Puckett should be in the HOF. The same goes for Belle.

If leading ALL of BASEBALL in RBI's and TOTAL BASES for an entire decade only gets a player 8% of the vote...then something is wrong with the voting process


Career averages over 162 games...

Belle = 41 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI

Pujols = 42 doubles, 42 HR, 128 RBI

Manny = 39 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI

A-Rod = 33 doubles, 39 HR, 129 RBI


Enough said

Enough said if you want to be really, really wrong.

A-Rod is a SS/3B, so having him in this discussion is absurd. Manny is an incredibly borderline case for the hall of fame if he only plays 1500 games; he will get in due to career consistency. Even without going into advanced stats, Pujols has scored fewer than 100 runs only once in his career, is probably one of the best defensive 1B of all time, plus has spent his career so far playing in a lower run environment.

Also, a decade is an arbitrary period of 10 years. Morris has the most wins in the 80s, but it doesn't make win a hall of famer either. It just means there weren't any great pitchers who played their peak across all of those 10 years.

Sure, arbitrary...

Find another batter...from any era...with a 162 game average of 40 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI


As for A-Rod being a SS/3B...he's a hitter first and foremost

You can compare hitters...regardless of position

Evermore wrote:
You can compare hitters...regardless of position

that's not how it works, position has an incredibly important role to play in evaluating the worth of a player. You can't compare corner outfielders to middle infielders especially when the corner outfielder you're talking about is borderline horrendous in the outfield.

Hoopstarr wrote:

Avenger wrote:I agree with the general sentiment but Belle is just not a hall of famer, his career is too short and his peak is not really better than the peak of other hall of famers with longer careers. Statistically speaking a 60 WAR is seen as a decent benchmark, Belle is only at 45.

Peak OPS+ seasons of 193, 177, and 171 is pretty damn good. He built up counting stats in 12 seasons that Jim Rice did in 20. He is only 4 WAR behind Rice. I probably wouldn't put him in my HOF but if Jim Rice can make it, why not Belle?

i don't to like to justify putting in more mediocre players because someone else did that in the past. Those peak seasons are good but like i said other deserving hall of famers(his peers in the same era) have those to go along with long careers and good defence.

Avenger wrote:

Evermore wrote:
You can compare hitters...regardless of position

that's not how it works, position has an incredibly important role to play in evaluating the worth of a player. You can't compare corner outfielders to middle infielders especially when the corner outfielder you're talking about is borderline horrendous in the outfield.

I was comparing offensive production...

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that --- or is that not how it works?

Evermore wrote:

Avenger wrote:

Evermore wrote:
You can compare hitters...regardless of position

that's not how it works, position has an incredibly important role to play in evaluating the worth of a player. You can't compare corner outfielders to middle infielders especially when the corner outfielder you're talking about is borderline horrendous in the outfield.

I was comparing offensive production...

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that --- or is that not how it works?

Sure you are allowed to do it, but it doesn't make a convincing argument to anyone. A-Rod is considered one of the best players of his generation because he put up those stat while playing higher value defensive positions.

As to finding another batter from any era, you are a lot less likely to find one from another era, as Belle played in the most prolific HR era in history. It is context that makes those numbers less impressive than other people's.

Modern_epic wrote:

Evermore wrote:

Avenger wrote:that's not how it works, position has an incredibly important role to play in evaluating the worth of a player. You can't compare corner outfielders to middle infielders especially when the corner outfielder you're talking about is borderline horrendous in the outfield.

I was comparing offensive production...

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that --- or is that not how it works?

Sure you are allowed to do it, but it doesn't make a convincing argument to anyone. A-Rod is considered one of the best players of his generation because he put up those stat while playing higher value defensive positions.

As to finding another batter from any era, you are a lot less likely to find one from another era, as Belle played in the most prolific HR era in history. It is context that makes those numbers less impressive than other people's.

He AVERAGED 40 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI for his career

In any context...those are Hall of Fame numbers

Evermore wrote:

Modern_epic wrote:
Sure you are allowed to do it, but it doesn't make a convincing argument to anyone. A-Rod is considered one of the best players of his generation because he put up those stat while playing higher value defensive positions.

As to finding another batter from any era, you are a lot less likely to find one from another era, as Belle played in the most prolific HR era in history. It is context that makes those numbers less impressive than other people's.

He AVERAGED 40 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI for his career

In any context...those are Hall of Fame numbers

Any context?

If his career is three seasons long are they? If those 80 hits are the only time he gets on base all year are they? If he hurts his team by being an atrocious fielder are they (he was, by the way)?

It is all about context, and in the context of the 90s those are very good, but not unbelievable numbers.

Also, the numbers he actually averaged were 37 HRs, 38 doubles and 120 RBIs. The inability to play a full season counts against players.

Evermore wrote:

He AVERAGED 40 doubles, 40 HR and 130 RBI for his career

In any context...those are Hall of Fame numbers

lol so if someone only plays 2 seasons total and their career average is high, they should make it?

Belle should not make the Hall.