Follow us as each week as our best writers from around the Bloguin Network take aim at each other and square off on anything and everything baseball from "who was better, Mays or Mantle" to "Should MLB have a salary cap?"

Pick a side and agree or disagree. Take part in the debate by posting a comment giving your own opinion. There are no holds barred and nothing is held back in the "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate."

Today's Debaters are:

Gene Zarnick of Favre Dollar Footlongs

Bill Parker of The Daily Something

Today's Topic is:

Should Albert Belle be in the MLB Hall of Fame?

Albert Belle SHOULD Be in the MLB Hall of Fame

By Gene Zarnick, Favre Dollar Footlongs: The Annoyances of Players, Fans, the Media, and of Course Brett Favre

The criteria to become eligible for the MLB Hall of Famer is simple; play ten seasons and be retired for five. Other than that it's all a subjective based vote by the Baseball Writers Association of America. It's a long road for some, a long tedious process that eventually gives the players who deserve to be there their rightful spot. For Albert Belle, it was a process that ended much quicker than what is deserving for one the most dominating baseball players of his time.

Albert was on the 2006 ballot and he received 7.7% of the vote. Not nearly close to the 75% needed to get in, but still enough to keep his name on the ballot. The following year he only received 3.5% and therefore was removed from future ballots. Not having his name on current ballots is an injustice in itself.

Okay so by now I've basically told you nothing; except you learned that his chances are slim to none to make it, but let's examine why the writers got it wrong and why I'm right in proclaiming that Albert "Don't call me Joey" Belle should be in Cooperstown.

First, let's look at Albert's career stats and compare him to other Hall of Fame Left Fielders.

As you can see from Albert's career numbers, he is easily amongst one of the best left fielders. His slugging percentage is second best, only below Ted Williams. His home runs are in the upper half of the players inducted. Batting average and RBI's are in line with other Hall of Famers. Actually, most of all his stats are in line with other Hall of Famers. We can clearly see that Albert's numbers make him Hall worthy, but what really makes him that special type of player that deserves to be in the Hall of Fame?

Here are some facts. Albert Belle led the American League in home runs in 1995 with 50 home runs. Yes, 1995 when there was a strike. Albert was elected to five all star game appearances, won three RBI titles, and made it to one World Series. He was the first player to ever have 50 home runs and 50 doubles in the same season. He led the Major Leagues, yes, the entire major leagues in RBI's with 1,099 during the 90's. He was dominant, he was feared, but most importantly to the Hall of Fame debate, he was hated.

That's the real case against Albert Belle. He wasn't the nicest of folk. He had the corked bat incident, threw a baseball at someone, and even chased after some trick of treaters. Can you blame him? He wanted the king size candy bars. Just because Albert Belle wasn't the greatest of personalities doesn't mean he doesn't' deserve to be placed amongst the greatest. He clearly was one of the most dominating players through the 90's and without a somewhat shortened career due to hip injuries he would've put up numbers that would rival almost any left fielder to date other then Ted Williams and Barry Bonds.

The Hall of Fame is subjective, so let's look at it that way. When we see Hall of Famers we see people who were great when they played; they were the best during their time and they were feared during every at-bat. We don't have to know every single stat that Ted Williams had to know he was great. We don't have to know exactly how many stolen bases Ricky Henderson had to know he excelled on the base paths. We know these players were great because we saw it. Albert Belle has the numbers to be put in the Hall of Fame, but most of all we all witnessed his Hall of Fame abilities with our own eyes. So if we want to be subjective, then it's not about what we heard about a player or the stats we read about a player. No, the Hall of Fame is about seeing the greatness; and we saw the greatness with Albert Belle.

If you think otherwise, he will come after you!  - Gene Zarnick, Favre Dollar Footlongs

Albert Belle SHOULD NOT be in the MLB Hall of Fame

By Bill Parker, The Daily Something: The Daily Something is a general baseball blog (with a strong pro-Twins slant) that provides just that: something about baseball every day, or at least every weekday. It gets pretty heavily into the analytical and statistical side of the game, but the site also features plenty of commentary and analysis on the current season (or offseason), glimpses into baseball history, and miscellaneous nonsense.

So, Albert Belle. Great hitter. Terrifying hitter. Short career, not much of a fielder, awfully hard to like, but man, for a few years there, that was one hell of a hitter.

Hall of Famer, though? No chance.

Everybody has his or her own way of determining who is a Hall of Famer and who isn't. But if we look at all those different ways, I think it becomes clear that if there's one thing everybody should be able to agree on, it should be this: no matter what makes a Hall of Famer, Albert Belle isn't it.

Traditional Stats

Well, this is probably the most common way to look at it. Do his raw numbers stack up with the greats?

Well, no, of course they don't. Belle played 1539 games, fewer than any other Hall of Fame position player (skipping the ones in the Hall as managers or executives) except four guys who spent time in the Negro Leagues (Larry Doby, Jackie Robinson, Monte Irvin and Roy Campanella), great catcher Mickey Cochrane, a guy who gave five of his best years to World War II (Hank Greenberg), Ralph Kiner (see below), and a bunch of really questionable selections made by the Veterans' Committee thirty to fifty years after their playing days were over (Combs, Kelly, Bresnahan, Lindstrom, Hafey, Hack Wilson, Ewing, Jennings, McCarthy, Youngs).

Belle's 1726 hits are 391st all time, tied with Jim Fregosi and Steve Brodie. But of course he was known most for his power, and his 381 homers are nice, 51st all-time, and there are a lot of Hall of Famers around him...but they're Hall of Famers who had much longer careers and did other things (like play defense). Also in his general neighborhood are Frank Howard and Joe Carter. His 1239 RBI put him just 121st, behind guys like Paul O'Neill, Lee May, and Steve Garvey. Guys who have both more HR and more RBI than Belle include Harold Baines, Dwight Evans, Graig Nettles, Joe Carter, Dale Murphy, Andres Galarraga, Darrell Evans, Juan Gonzalez, and Jose Canseco.

Belle hit .295, but so did Bob Watson and Mark Loretta.

So, he put up some nice power numbers and everything, but nothing that says "Hall of Famer." What else we got?

The "Feel," "Look" or "Smell" Test

You hear it all the time. When you watched Player X play, did you feel like you were looking at a Hall of Famer? Does Player X feel like a Hall of Famer to you? Does it feel like the Hall would be missing something without Player X in it?

I believe that there are ways of phrasing that question about Albert Belle that would make the answer "yes"...and that's how you know it's a stupid question. Sure, if you watched Belle hit in 1994 or 1995, you probably thought you were looking at a Hall of Famer. His career was so short that you might remember that and still think you were looking at a Hall of Famer. If he'd played until he was 38 or 40, though, and your last memory of him was of a guy who just couldn't get it done anymore, you might not feel the same way.

Take Eddie Murray. A lot of people around my age (30ish) have said that Eddie Murray just never felt to them like a Hall of Famer. Well, Murray from 1980 to 1985 was as good a hitter as Belle was at any point in his career, and certainly "felt" like a Hall of Famer to anyone who was following his career back then. But then Murray kept playing for another 12 years. He deserves credit for being able to stay in the league and keep playing when he was less than his best, but the "feel test" punishes him for it, while unfairly boosting guys like Belle who didn't have many of those down-slope years.

So, maybe at one point Belle felt like a Hall of Famer. But so did Mark Fidrych, and Doc Gooden, and Darryl Strawberry. Next?

Advanced Metrics

As my readers know, this is where I'm a lot more comfortable. There are several players whose traditional numbers didn't reach certain milestones, but whose actual on-the-field contributions were clearly more than valuable enough to make them Hall of Famers (see, e.g., Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven). Maybe Belle is one of those guys?

Nope. Belle is 318th in career Wins Above Replacement, at just 37.1, tied with Jason Kendall and Chili Davis. He's got a few Hall of Famers around him, but they're all those questionable Veterans' Committee guys again; you have to go way, way up the list before you find a hitter who you're really sure belongs in the Hall.

But of course Belle was going to suffer in the career comparison, because his career was so short. But, I mean, that's waaaaaay short. There's nothing here that suggests he was better than his raw numbers would indicate. If anything, because of the hitting-happy era he played in and the fact that he didn't play good defense or at least take up an important defensive position, he falls even shorter. He's way behind Dwight and Darrell Evans, for example, despite similar counting numbers.

The Koufax Exception

Sandy Koufax, like Belle, played parts of twelve seasons. He won just 165 games, fewer than all but four Hall of Fame starting pitchers, only one of whom threw a pitch after 1910. He breezed into the Hall, of course, based on an amazing stretch of peak seasons. In the five seasons from 1962 to 1966, Koufax led the league in ERA each year, in wins and strikeouts three times each, and in innings and complete games twice each. He was helped by a great pitchers' park (his park-adjusted ERA+ was 167, which is still great, but he led the league in that stat in just two of those five years), but there's also no question that he was far and away the greatest pitcher alive during that time, and was having one of the greatest peaks anyone had ever had. Did Belle have a peak like that? Was he a hitter so amazing that you have to let him in on those five or six years alone, even if he hadn't had another at-bat outside of those years?

I really don't think so. If you were to pick a five-year period like Koufax's, Belle's would have to be 1994 to 1998. He was kind of pedestrian in 1997, hitting just .274/.332/.491, but was fantastic in those other four years, and for the whole stretch he hit .314/.393/.626, good for a 160 OPS+ (meaning his park-adjusted on-base plus slugging was about 60% better than average). He averaged over 40 homers and 40 doubles a season, despite the fact that both 1994 and 1995 were shortened by the strike.

That's great, but for that time, it's not that great. His 160 OPS+ over those five years falls behind McGwire (191), Bonds (177), Thomas (172), Bagwell (171), Piazza (164) and Edgar (162), and is tied with Sheffield. Now, normally I'd say that it was his performance against average, not against the cream of the crop, that matters -- especially when he's up against legendary hitters like Bonds and Frank -- but it seems to me that the Koufax Exception is built entirely around dominance. If Koufax was exactly as good as he was from 1962-66, but wasn't so clearly the best -- if, say, six guys were even better -- would Koufax even be in the Hall?

I don't think so. But in either case, I don't think Belle's peak comes anywhere close. There are only a few other guys who had an OPS+ of better than 160 in five consecutive years (Dick Allen and Frank Howard are the only ones I could find who aren't in the HOF or headed there), but his peak just doesn't have that Koufax smell. One comparable awesome-peak, short-career Hall of Famer might be Ralph Kiner...but Kiner led his league in home runs seven times in a row. There's nothing about Belle's career that really sticks out the way that that sort of factoid does.

The Puckett Exception

Belle's supporters often point to Kirby Puckett, another guy who, just like Belle, played parts of just twelve seasons. was forced to retire due to a freak injury in his mid-thirties, and had subsequent legal troubles. Now, full disclosure: I'm a Twins fan, and Kirby is my all-time favorite player. Still, being as objective as I possibly can, I don't think the comparison to Puckett does Belle any favors, and for a few reasons:

• First and foremost, Kirby was just a better player than Belle. Belle's 143 OPS+ beats Kirby's 124, But Puckett spent most of his career as a centerfielder, and was considered a very good one, winning six Gold Gloves. Even using the advanced metrics, which aren't nearly as impressed by Puckett's glove as observers were, Kirby kills Albert, picking up 45.0 WAR to Belle's 37.1. 45 is still low for a Hall of Famer, but there are more than a hundred names between Puckett and Belle on the all-time list.

• Puckett played more than Belle (which is some small part of the WAR difference). Puckett played 200 more games and picked up 1200 more plate appearances than Belle. There's really no precedent for the BBWAA to elect a position player with a career as short as Belle's.

• Kirby hit .308/.393/.518 in two World Series (both of which his team won), was the 1991 ALCS MVP and more or less single-handedly won a World Series game. Belle played very well despite a .235 batting average in his one World Series, but his team lost, and he certainly didn't have anything like the iconic moment(s) Kirby enjoyed in 1991. If that kind of thing means something to you.

• Whatever the reality, Kirby during his time was perceived as one of the good guys, a team leader and all that. Bob Costas named his kid after him. Meanwhile, nobody, least of all the media, liked Belle, who redefined the word "surly." For better or worse, voters have, occasionally, made choices on the margins based on perceptions of character. Puckett and Belle are both more or less on the margins, and the perceptions of their characters during their careers couldn't be more different.

For whatever it's worth, I think you could do the same analysis on two pitchers with short careers in the Hall: Dizzy Dean and Addie Joss. Dean might have been the best pitcher in the Majors over the first five years of his career, which was then derailed by injury. He was also a universally beloved character and an endlessly quotable interview. Addie Joss had a 1.67 ERA from 1904 to 1909, then suffered a freak injury at age 30, and died very suddenly of meningitis less than a year later. Both Dean and Joss, like Puckett, were both better players than Belle and had more compelling off-the-field stories.

Bill James' Various Toys

I don't think anybody really puts much stock in these anymore, but just for the sake of completeness, Bill James created two Hall-related statistics many years ago; one, the Hall of Fame Monitor, was intended to measure a player's likelihood of getting into the Hall, while the other, Hall of Fame Standards, attempted to measure a player's worthiness for the Hall.

Belle's Hall of Fame Monitor score is 134; a "likely" Hall of Famer hits about 100. So, finally, we have something in Belle's favor; remember, though, that that just tracks whether we should expect the writers to vote him in, not whether he actually deserves to be in. The Monitor doesn't know that Belle was a jerk who never talked to the media; for that matter, it doesn't know that Belle played in the most hitting-friendly era in history.

Belle's Hall of Fame Standards score is 36; an average Hall of Famer scores 50. That's a lot more in line with what we've been seeing so far.

James also created "Similarity Scores," which are just what they sound like -- a very rough way to gauge how similar two players are. Belle's five most similar batters are Juan Gonzalez, Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Dick Allen, and Jim Edmonds. His four most similar will never make the Hall, while the fifth might, but was also a Gold Glove centerfielder. After that comes Albert Pujols, but that just shows you the weakness inherent in the system; Pujols scores as very similar because he's got about the same HR, R, and RBI numbers as Belle had, but he's gotten there in 600 fewer plate appearances, has about 40 points of batting average and 60 points each of OBP and SLG on him, and plays a stellar first base. The Hall of Famers on Belle's similarity list are easily distinguishable; the Juan Gonzalezes and Lance Berkmans, not so much.

Better Players Who Aren't In

I'm not a big fan of the "if player X is in, player Y should be in" game, but I think there's a lot to be said for the "if player X isn't in, player Y really shouldn't be in" version. Simply put:

And so on. Those are just guys from power positions who came to mind right away, ignoring other guys who crush Belle like Raines, Lou Whitaker, and Alan Trammell.

Can you tell me how Belle is better or more deserving than any of these guys? I can't think of a way to set him apart, other than arbitrary silliness (first 50 2B, 50 HR season, more "feared," etc.). I don't think anybody would say all these guys are Hall of Famers (Santo, Edgar and maybe Evans, along with Raines, Whitaker, Trammell and Blyleven, would get my vote), but yet every single one of them has a much stronger case for the Hall than Belle. To make Belle fit in the Hall, other than with the Veterans' Committee guys like Hafey and Lindstrom, we need to totally change the whole character of the Hall. Put all these guys in, and then maybe you can start talking about finding room for Belle.

So there it is. It's not so much that I want to argue that Belle doesn't belong; it's that I don't think there's a way you can argue he does belong. - Bill Parker, The Daily Something

• You can read more on this over at The Daily Something as Bill Parker has some thoughts on all your comments.
• For a complete archived list of all our debates please visit "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate" HOME PAGE.

If you haven't voted in our poll on the site yet please do so. We are trying to get a feel for how our readers are looking at the game of MLB so we can write about things they want to hear. The poll question is, "Do you think that MLB should have a salary cap or something similar?"

Have a Fantasy Football or Rotisserie baseball question? Want to know who to pick up, who to activate and who the hot prospects are? Ask Dr. Roto. Let Dr. Roto guide your team to a league championship.

Comments (50)

...
written by ElleT, February 08, 2010

Wholly crap! I think I was just convinced that this dope should be in!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Barry174, February 08, 2010

OMG, Ron Santo better than Albert Belle? Camon....

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

If you're going to pick one name out of all those on that chart, I'd think Santo would be the one who is most obviously better than Belle. That's just not even close...Santo runs circles around him.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Kevin Hay, February 08, 2010

Wo Wo Wo Wo. Hold on a second. Bill, in exactly what offensive category was Santo a better offensive player than Belle? Per year, Belle had a higher BA, and averaged more RS, more HR's, more RBI, a higher BA and even more SB (not that it should be considered for either.)

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Jenner18, February 08, 2010

Albert Belle was a dominating force. He had a 3 year stretch where he finished no lower than 3rd in the MVP voting! Santos wasn't in that class.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by AlicnChains, February 08, 2010

I don't know what the rest of you are looking at, Belle does NOT have HOF stats. I think Bill has it right.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Kevin,
Why is it limited to offense? Players win and lose games with their gloves, too. Belle could only play left field, and he was a butcher out there, while Santo was a great defensive third baseman. If all players were held to the same offensive standards as clutzy left fielders regardless of what position they played or how well they played it, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Ryne Sandberg, Robin Yount, etc., etc., etc. would have no shot at the Hall.

Second, you can't just compare their raw numbers. A HR or RBI in 1965 was worth a lot more than it was in 1995. In 1966, Santo's best year, the average NL player in the number of PA Santo got (672) hit .256/.313/.384 with 15 HR and 68 RBI. In the same amount of playing time in the 1995 AL, the average player hit .270/.344/.427 with 18 HR and 83 RBI. It was just easier to hit in the nineties than it was in the sixties. Belle was probably a better hitter than Santo, but it's a lot closer than the raw numbers make it look. And it doesn't come close to making up for Santo's huge edge in defense or the fact that he has four full seasons worth of plate appearances on Belle.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

How did this turn into a Albert Belle versus Ron Santo debate?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

I'm a little surprised it hasn't become a Belle vs. John Olerud or Charlie Keller debate...those seemed a little more far-fetched to me.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ed Foster , February 08, 2010

Bill, I don't see Roberto Alomar on your 'should be in but isn't list.' Do you not think he was deserving either? If you are an Anti-Cleveland guy, your entire argument has to be thrown out as being disingenuous - even the parts that make sense.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Ed Foster,
I omitted Alomar only because I'm 100% certain he goes in next year, so it's hard to look at it as an omission, really. You can tack him on to the list of totally different players than Belle who were also much better than Belle, with Whitaker and Trammell.
Certainly not an anti-Cleveland guy. They and the Twins are almost never good at the same time, so it's hard to get a good rivalry going.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Micheal916, February 08, 2010

Gene, I think your argument is as compelling as can possibly. As a matter of fact, I think Belle would be well served to hire you as a PR guy.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Eric Justin, February 08, 2010

No, No, No. I can't let that go. JOHN OLERUD!!!!! Did he even have a year besides 1993 that was a HOF caliber year?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Paul Peushell, February 08, 2010

Under the circumstances, I think you both did a great job. Bill, I was with you until you came up with your list of other players that should be in ahead of him. While your "other considerations" are accurate, some of those players don't reach the bar.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Thanks, Paul.

Paul and Eric, it's important to note that I wasn't arguing that everyone on that list belongs in the Hall of Fame -- not at all -- just that they were better players than Belle was. I definitely wouldn't vote for John Olerud, but even he has a much better case than Belle.

Not sure what it means to have a "HOF caliber year" (did Puckett or Dawson or Ashburn or Perez ever have one?), but surely Olerud's 1998 would qualify (.354/.447/.551). Factoring in defense, I think his 1993 and 1998 were both better than any single year Belle ever had, and Olerud also played about four years more baseball.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by JeffH, February 08, 2010

This was truly a great debate a well presented on both sides. Great job guys. I can’t wait to read more as the year goes on….

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Mark Seal, February 08, 2010

He simply didn't do it long enough. And besides, if there was ever a guy who had ROID RAGE, he was the guy.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Yusip8, February 08, 2010

Well Gene, what about the steroids?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Walter Finnis, February 08, 2010

Dawson is in, how can Belle not be in? He put up close to the same stats in almost half the time!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Quest44, February 08, 2010

He was definitely on steroids. That's what gave him the degenerative hip problem isn't it?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Dawson is in, how can Belle not be in? He put up close to the same stats in almost half the time!

Several reasons:

(1) Dawson doesn't really belong in. If we put in all the outfielders who were better candidates than Hawk or (especially) Jim Rice, the Hall would be an unbelievably enormous place.

(2) Belle didn't put up close to the same numbers as Dawson. Dawson hit 57 more homers and had 352 more RBI and 400 more R. The way Belle was likely to continue declining, he'd have to play at least four more years to eclipse Dawson in all three.

(3) A lot more runs were scored in Belle's day than in Dawson's. Dawson's HR, R and RBI were a lot harder to come by.

(4) Dawson, in his younger days, was a very good CF. He was probably never the kind of defensive liability Belle was, even when his knees started going.

(5) All those extra years should help Dawson, not hurt him. That's 4,000 plate appearances, more than six full years, during which Dawson was good enough and healthy enough to play and Belle was not. Lots of value in that.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Chase5, February 08, 2010

Don't you hate when a good argument gets messed up with sound logic. Well thought out answer Bill.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

The thing that people are missing, and what Bill showcased with numbers is the Hall isn't all about numbers. I failed to mention it, but the best players during their time belong in the Hall of Fame. The eras were different, but fact of the matter is that Albert Belle was one of the best during his era.

He belongs in.

What happened to the Ron Santo comparisons?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

Steroids. It goes with my last post. It's part of the era. We can't change things. He probably did take roids, but so did the majority. I know, I know, it doesn't make it right. But even so, if you're one of the best during your era, whether it be the steroid era or not then you belong in.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ralph Six, February 08, 2010

Ron Santo WAS NOT one of the best players in his era!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ellen Heyne, February 08, 2010

The HOF has been so watered down over the years that it's hard to make a argument that Belle should NOT be in. You might be able to argue that others should get in first, but he should be in if we are using the basis of who else made it as the bench mark.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ellen Heyne, February 08, 2010

If they are going to let so many people in, they need two wings or two classes of inductees. One for the once in a generation type players like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams etc. and one for the Andre Dawson's of the world.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by MacyT, February 08, 2010

You are right. They aren't going to take people out an make it as exclusive as it should be, so they should have a 1st team, 2nd team etc.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Carol Simms, February 08, 2010

Agreed. There has to be some distinction between the immortals and the "good players."

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

Why do we need two classes though? Belle was one of the best players of his era. He should be in. Doesn't mean he's a top 25 baseball player. I think we can determine who is the best without having separate wings to tell us so. That would just cause a whole lot more problems.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Frank Masterson, February 08, 2010

You might not need one for Belle because for a small period of time he was an elite player. But when you have players like Bill Mazerowski in the HOF, you need to have some distinction of what reality is.

Joe Carter isn't in and look at his stats. Was his HR any different?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Ron Santo WAS NOT one of the best players in his era!

That's crazily false. It's false any way you look at it. At his peak, 1964 to 1967, he was as good a hitter as anybody in his league. Even when he wasn't at his very best, he was a very good hitter and a great defender, Brooks Robinson with a slightly less great glove and much better bat. He was an All-Star nine times and a gold glover five times. I guess it depends on how you define "one of the best," but if your group goes much beyond Mays, Aaron, and Frank Robinson, Santo's in it.

I agree with Gene that separate levels are unnecessary. We should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff on our own. I disagree, of course, on whether Belle was one of the best players of his era. Seems to me that if that's the case, either the "era" is too narrow (1994-98?) or the standards for being considered among the best are much too low.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

Bill,

You keep bringing the liquid lava. Love your facts to back up Ron Santo. At least we both agree on not having two separate halls. That truly would be the dumbest thing ever.

And you know, we have to keep defending our poin on AB. It just makes things more interesting!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ralph Six, February 08, 2010

Bill, never in my life have I ever made such an emphatic statement only to humbled with clear cut facts about Santo. I hereby rescind my opinion on Ron Santo.

BUT

The FarveDog guy has this one right. There just aren't any holes in his logic.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Meleny Carol, February 08, 2010

I’m a 74 year old recently widowed woman perhaps not as astute on the intricacies of baseball as either of the two of you fine young men gentleman. My husband and I were dedicated fans of the game of baseball for many years. I’ve had the privilege of seeing many of the players that are in the HOF play in person.

When Albert Belle came to the plate in the prime of his career he was feared by the opposition. That can’t be said of all the players inducted to HOF.

Ron Santo was in fact a very good all around player, but I do not think he belongs. While I do in fact believe that Santo is more qualified to be in the HOF than many of those who are in fact in, two wrongs don’t make a right and that should not be reason for his induction.

I would like to ask each of you – Don’t you feel that there is a difference between the “once in a generation” type player and the other players that seem to be getting in that where All-Star’s a few times in their careers? And if so, what’s so wrong with making some sort of distinction?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Francis G, February 08, 2010

I'm sitting here reading these comments and I have to agree with the people arguing on behalf of making some sort of distinction between the HOF players. Frank Masterson has it right. How do I take my kid to the HOF and show him Bill Mazerowski and Babe Ruth and explain to him that they are both HOF players? That's just silly.

Since we agree that they won't take people out, the only logical way is to somehow make a distinction. It's not fair to have some of these guys lumped into the same class as the immortals.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Sal Telsa, February 08, 2010

The old lady has it right guys. The HOF started out as being for a certain class of player and the fact that they seem to feel they have to put someone in every year takes away from it's importance. Getting elected to the HOF is not what it once was.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Mary Bloom, February 08, 2010

Meleny, you go girl! I agree with you 100%.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Meleny and concurrers:
While I really appreciate and value your perspective, I think that here it's attempting to make the Hall into something it never really was or was intended to be. This is especially directed at Sal's comment that "Getting elected to the HOF is not what it once was"; as far as I can tell, it never was that thing you think it was. At least not since 1940 or so.

I mean, yeah, the first few classes were very inner-circle. Cobb, Ruth, Mathewson, Johnson, Speaker, Wagner. They were already getting kind of questionable with the executive and manager types in the late thirties. But then in 1945, nine years into the Hall's existence, the "old timers" ushered in Hugh Duffy (hit .440 before most people knew what baseball was, but just 1500 career hits) and manager Wilbert Robinson (two pennants, but a career record of exactly .500). In '46, they somehow elected Tommy McCarthy, who played basically nine seasons of average baseball, and Jack Chesbro, who had essentially four years as a good pitcher, along with the memorable-only-because-of-the-poem Tinker, Evers and Chance.

And there's never been a period in between when the Hall was really all about the cream of the crop. Throughout the sixties and seventies, Frankie Frisch was using the Veterans' Committee as a back entrance for all his old friends. Bob Lemon was put in by the writers in 1976, Catfish Hunter in 1987. And on up through Rizzuto, Perez, Cepeda, Rice, etc. I don't think the standards have been lowered at all. They were just never as high as people like to think they were.

And I don't think they should be. As Gene says, it's about the best players of a given generation. There have been lots of missteps in determining who those are, but I don't have a problem with the actual number that get let in. And nobody has a hard time picking out Ruth, Mays, Mantle and Aaron, no matter how many Mazeroskis and Dawsons are in there with them.

I think I'm probably going to write more about this on my own site for tomorrow. Hope you folks come check it out.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by FavreDollarFootlongs, February 08, 2010

I think peoples' views now are not the same because we see all these players. We can view the box score everyday. We see every at bat and know every stat. Back in the day people were privileged if they got to see Ruth on a television screen, let alone in person. People made these people special. Some of them are, but many receive the perception because that's how we made it. Nowadays we can watch any player at any time. We aren't excited to go see Albert Pujols anymore. It's a typical game. I think we can see the distinctions in players because first, there's going to be a lot more information and memorabilia of Babe Ruth then a Bill Mazerowski and I think any student to any game learns from word of mouth. We will always hear the name Babe Ruth in conversation of best player of all time. You will never here Mazerowski.

The Hall always turned because now we discuss players based on position and compare them to fellow Hall of Famers. We didn't have that distinction back in the day. I mean maybe Ruth wouldn't have been as great if Negro leaguers were playing in his era. Maybe the players these days were all juiced. We can't fully distinction the best ever. All we can tell is who were the best players, at their positions, during their time. If we do that then we learn the history of the game through the ages and not just the concise edition of who is considered the elite.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Alex Grilli, February 08, 2010

All I know is that Belle was clutch and put put up fantastic numbers while he played. To me 12 years was enough to get him in. Yes he was a jerk but so was Ty Cobb. He should be in.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Darren Savage, February 08, 2010

Bill, how many outfielders produced more than Belle during the time he played? Even in his last year (you called declining) he had 103 RBI........

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Darren, he was obviously declining by 2000. His OPS was 9% above average, which, considering he was giving you nothing in the field (and spent about 20% of the season at DH), isn't very good at all. He got those RBI by hitting fourth every day in a lineup that was pretty good at getting on base in front of him. If you have a little power and two guys with .380 OBPs getting on base for you every day, you'll get 100 RBI.

The question of how many outfielders produced more than Belle during the time he played is too narrow, because the time he played is way too short. My answer would be Bonds, Ramirez, Griffey, Sheffield, and probably Larry Walker, but why limit it to outfielders? Belle was playing the second-easiest position on the diamond, so it's not like it's unfair to compare him to other positions. McGwire? Bagwell? Thomas? Edgar? Thome? Palmeiro? Etc. And all those guys were either still producing long after Belle was done or had been producing well before Belle came along.

And there are other guys whose careers partially overlapped with Belle who were clearly better, but didn't necessarily "produce more during the time he played" (I probably mentioned some of those guys above when they should be here, but whatever), or maybe didn't "produce" in the way you're thinking of (RBI, mostly) but were better players. A-Rod, Jeter, Will Clark, McGriff, Sosa, Puckett, Gwynn, Boggs, Biggio, Larkin, Alomar, Edmonds, Molitor, Rickey, Raines. And so on.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Mike Cardano, February 08, 2010

Bill, you are truly a walking encyclopedia of baseball facts. You know they say you only use 5% of your brain for memory. I’ve always said that I have 4% of my 5% filled with useless baseball stats. I think you’re operating on less!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 08, 2010

Haha...well, the internet is a good place for finding those facts, too, but yes, there's no question it takes up far too much of my brain space.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Erik O'Callahan, February 12, 2010

You guys had me switching sides about 6 times! I found myself arguing with myself... Nice debate.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Albert (JOEY) Belle HOF
written by Jack Hunden, February 13, 2010

Absolutely. The man suffered a career ending debilitation. He only had 10 years, but what 10 years. Averaged 39 dbls and 30 hrs and 127 RBI's a year.
Sandy Koufax didn't have HOF numbers, but he also had to leave the game.
Only an ass would argue Koufax doesn't belong in the HOF. Most guys arguing against Belle do so because they hate his guts. That means they would cheat him out of his rightful place because they hate his guts. They can't argue with the numbers. But screw him anyway. Sportswriters as a group-SUCK.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

correction-
written by Jack Hunden, February 13, 2010

39 home runs not 30.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Another Belle Blurb
written by Jack Hunden, February 13, 2010

Mickey Mantle in his career produced 2650 runs (RBI + RUNS - HRS) in 9836 plate appearances. Belle produced 1832 runs in 6536 plate appearances.
Mantle produced a run every .269 PA's. Belle produced a run in every
.280 PA's. If we throw out walks, Mantle's nr climbs to .327 and Belles to
.313 However, Mantle scored a lot of runs because he walked alot. Mantle's HR ratio is .066 and Belles .065 Do we only vote people in because of longevity? No- Kiner is in. Belle belongs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 13, 2010

Jack, did you even read what I wrote? I ask only because I specifically mentioned the comparisons to Koufax and Kiner and explained why those comparisons don't help Belle at all. Koufax spent five years as the best pitcher in the world, and the best that most people had ever seen. Kiner led his league in home runs seven years in a row and, after the legendary Stan Musial, was far and away the second-greatest hitter in the NL during that period.
Belle, on the other hand, had five or six years as maybe the sixth or eighth best hitter in baseball, with one year in there where you could maybe argue he was the best. His peak was just nowhere near those guys'. He was just a very good hitter whose numbers looked awesome because he was playing in an unbelievably high-scoring era.
R+RBI-HR doesn't really tell you anything useful about a player, but pretend it does; it definitely doesn't tell you anything useful to compare a player from the 50s and 60s and one from the 90s using that number without making an adjustment. In 1961, Mantle's greatest season, the average AL team scored 4.53 runs a game; in 1995, Belle's greatest, the average AL team scored 5.06 (and Belle's team scored 0.8 R/G more than Mantle's). It was a lot easier to "produce a run" in Belle's time than in Mantle's; for Belle to be in any way comparable to Mantle, especially given that his career was only 2/3 as long, he'd better CRUSH Mantle in that number. He doesn't. And to throw out walks is just a silly, artificial way to try to make Belle look better.
No, we don't care only about longevity, but longevity does matter. If you're going to get in with a career as short as Belle's, you'd better dominate your league a la Koufax or, arguably, Kiner (who's kind of a borderline candidate himself, but much better than Belle). Belle didn't do that, or come anywhere close.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment