Adrian Beltre

[Sockeye]

I realize this may be a bit premature but I was discussing Adrian Beltre with a few friends of mine. He's just turned 27 and is entering his 9th season. I would like to get some thoughts on his career thus far and if possible some insight on where you think his career totals will end up? I know this calls for a lot of speculation. So I'll be the first to throw some projections out there.

I think he could very well end up with

Games 3085
At-Bats 11,178
Runs 1443
Hits 3033
Doubles 582
Triples 52
Home Runs 456
RBI's 1641
Stolen Bases 178
Walks 890
AVG .271
OBP .327
SLG .455

[leecemark]

--Have you ever seen Beltre play? As a Mariner's fan I've got to see alot of him recently and I want a refund. One fluke year hasn't set him on the road to Cooperstown.

[Sockeye]

--Have you ever seen Beltre play? As a Mariner's fan I've got to see alot of him recently and I want a refund. One fluke year hasn't set him on the road to Cooperstown.

I wouldn't be so hard on Beltre just yet. Sometimes it takes a year to get adjusted to a new year. Learning the pitchers and what not. I too agree that his 2004 season was a fluke and he'll never come close to those numbers again. But I do see him as a 20-25 home run a year man that will drive in 80-90 runs a year. Maybe reaching 30+ homers/100+ RBIs a couple seasons. Over a long career providing he plays until the age of 40 and stays relatively healthy. The fact that he began playing at age 19, has been a starter since age 20, and has no history of injuries. He has a very good chance of putting up 3000+ hits, 400+ home runs, 1600+ RBIs, and 1400+ runs.

[1905 Giants]

I'm a Mariners fan and I agree that he isn't going to get another monster season like that.

I also say that he is not going to make the hall of fame

On Base percentage is below league average
OPs+ is only 106

Average Fielder

Also, according to Baseball-Reference.com the player he most resembles through this time by age has been Ron Santo, and if Santo can't make it (which he should) then Beltre isn't either.

Plus, Santo was a better fielder

[ElHalo]

I think Beltre has about as much chance of making the Hall as Rico Brogna.

[Sockeye]

I'm a Mariners fan and I agree that he isn't going to get another monster season like that.

I also say that he is not going to make the hall of fame

On Base percentage is below league average
OPs+ is only 106

Average Fielder

Also, according to Baseball-Reference.com the player he most resembles through this time by age has been Ron Santo, and if Santo can't make it (which he should) then Beltre isn't either.

Plus, Santo was a better fielder

The player he most resembles is through the age of 26 is Ron Santo. But his last season was at age 34. If Adrian Beltre only plays until age 34 then I agree that he won't make the HOF nor should he. However if he plays late until around age 40 then his career numbers will be deserving of HOF induction. If Santo would have had 2-3 more good seasons then I think we'd see him in the HOF as we will Beltre

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I actually thought his 2004 season was a beginning of a great run for Beltre and he would be a .320 hitting Mike Schmidt type. Silly me. :o

[Sockeye]

I think Beltre has about as much chance of making the Hall as Rico Brogna.

Interesting considering his numbers already dwarf Brogna's and he just turned 27

[538280]

Also, according to Baseball-Reference.com the player he most resembles through this time by age has been Ron Santo, and if Santo can't make it (which he should) then Beltre isn't either.

Plus, Santo was a better fielder

I'm so sick of similarity scores. BBRef isn't saying that Beltre most "resembles" Santo. It's simply saying their raw numbers are similar, which, considering Santo played in the 1960s and Beltre in the 2000s means just about nothing. To get an idea of the difference between them, we can adjust their stats for era. Let's use OPS+ (OPS compared to league). Look at Ron Santo and Adrian Beltre's OPS by age:

OPS+ by Age, Ron Santo/Adrian Beltre
Age.....Santo.....Beltre
20........97..........74
21.......121..........100
22........74...........116
23.......129..........93
24.......164..........98
25.......146..........89
26.......161..........163
27.......153..........90

There you go, Beltre was a match for Santo during his fluke year, and other than that couldn't hold his jockstrap. Similarity scores mean close to nothing.

[DoubleX]

I'm so sick of similarity scores. BBRef isn't saying that Beltre most "resembles" Santo. It's simply saying their raw numbers are similar, which, considering Santo played in the 1960s and Beltre in the 2000s means just about nothing. To get an idea of the difference between them, we can adjust their stats for era. Let's use OPS+ (OPS compared to league). Look at Ron Santo and Adrian Beltre's OPS by age:

OPS+ by Age, Ron Santo/Adrian Beltre
Age.....Santo.....Beltre
20........97..........74
21.......121..........100
22........74...........116
23.......129..........93
24.......164..........98
25.......146..........89
26.......161..........163
27.......153..........90

There you go, Beltre was a match for Santo during his fluke year, and other than that couldn't hold his jockstrap. Similarity scores mean close to nothing.

You beat me to it. Santo, IMO is the 5th best 3Bman of all-time and a very solid Hall of Famer (even if he isn't technically in). Beltre is a perennial disappointment who probably doesn't even rank among the 10 best 3Bman in the league right now, and I don't know if he did at any other point in his career other than 2004.

[Sockeye]

I actually thought his 2004 season was a beginning of a great run for Beltre and he would be a .320 hitting Mike Schmidt type. Silly me. :o

Can't say I was fooled by it. If it hadn't come in a free agent year then I might have believed it. Never-the-less it does show us one thing and that is that Beltre when he wants to has the ability to put up amazing numbers. So maybe as he gets older (still just turned 27 yesterday) he'll dedicate himself and we'll see his production increase and big numbers from Beltre on a consistant basis.

[1905 Giants]

Thank you, DoubleX and 538280 for your insight into similarity scores, will keep in mind

[RedSoxVT92]

Beltre doesnt stand a chance. He just had that fluke year of 48 homers and one year does not spell hof. His other years he had around 15-20 homers with not a great average. If Maris isnt in for that 61 homer fluke year than neither should he.

[jalbright]

If you're going to use similarity scores,

1) you should start with the entire list of ten, not just #1;

2) it's most useful for getting a handle on things for projections such as this;

3) That said, you've got to realize that when you compare a guy from a high offensive era like this to guys from lower offensive eras that you should downgrade the current guy a little.

The list for Beltre through age 26:

Ron Santo (946)
Ruben Sierra (907)
Eric Chavez (907)
Andruw Jones (889)
Rusty Staub (880)
Ken Keltner (872)
Johnny Callison (868)
Harlond Clift (868)
Cal Ripken (867)
Bobby Doerr (866) *

Santo should be in, Ripken will be, and Doerr is. Andruw Jones may well make it, and Chavez is active, but the rest aren't even strong candidates IMO. Keeping the points above in mind, Beltre has to step it up to really be considered a solid candidate.

Jim Albright

[Sockeye]

I'm so sick of similarity scores. BBRef isn't saying that Beltre most "resembles" Santo. It's simply saying their raw numbers are similar, which, considering Santo played in the 1960s and Beltre in the 2000s means just about nothing. To get an idea of the difference between them, we can adjust their stats for era. Let's use OPS+ (OPS compared to league). Look at Ron Santo and Adrian Beltre's OPS by age:

OPS+ by Age, Ron Santo/Adrian Beltre
Age.....Santo.....Beltre
20........97..........74
21.......121..........100
22........74...........116
23.......129..........93
24.......164..........98
25.......146..........89
26.......161..........163
27.......153..........90

There you go, Beltre was a match for Santo during his fluke year, and other than that couldn't hold his jockstrap. Similarity scores mean close to nothing.

OPS+ is a flawed stat. Look at Ron Santo's sheer numbers in his best season of 1964. .312 AVG, 94 runs, 185 hits, 30 homers, 114 RBI's, .398 OBP, .564 SLG compared to Beltre's best season in 2004. .334 AVG, 104 runs, 200 hits, 48 home runs, 121 RBI's, .388 OBP, .629 SLG. But yet Santo's OPS+ was 164 and Beltre's was 163. Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?

The logic is simple here. Offensive numbers are so high these days (partially due to steroid use) that you aren't going to see OPS+ numbers nearly as high as they were in the past especially compared to pitcher friendly eras such as the 60's.

[Sockeye]

If you're going to use similarity scores,

1) you should start with the entire list of ten, not just #1;

2) it's most useful for getting a handle on things for projections such as this;

3) That said, you've got to realize that when you compare a guy from a high offensive era like this to guys from lower offensive eras that you should downgrade the current guy a little.

The list for Beltre through age 26:

Ron Santo (946)
Ruben Sierra (907)
Eric Chavez (907)
Andruw Jones (889)
Rusty Staub (880)
Ken Keltner (872)
Johnny Callison (868)
Harlond Clift (868)
Cal Ripken (867)
Bobby Doerr (866) *

Santo should be in, Ripken will be, and Doerr is. Andruw Jones may well make it, and Chavez is active, but the rest aren't even strong candidates IMO. Keeping the points above in mind, Beltre has to step it up to really be considered a solid candidate.

Jim Albright


Here is how I see it

Doerr is in
Ripken will be in
Jones and Chavez are still active
Santo and Staub a case could easily be made for
Sierra injuries ruined a very promising career.
Keltner retired at the age of 33
Callison retired at the age of 34
Clift retired at the age of 32

If Beltre is often injured or retires at the age of 32-34 then he won't make the HOF nor should he. If he stays healthy and plays until age 40 then He'll have a better career than Santo or Staub which both have a strong argument for induction or even Doerr who is in the HOF.

[DoubleX]

OPS+ is a flawed stat. Look at Ron Santo's sheer numbers in his best season of 1964. .312 AVG, 94 runs, 185 hits, 30 homers, 114 RBI's, .398 OBP, .564 SLG compared to Beltre's best season in 2004. .334 AVG, 104 runs, 200 hits, 48 home runs, 121 RBI's, .388 OBP, .629 SLG. But yet Santo's OPS+ was 164 and Beltre's was 163. Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?

The logic is simple here. Offensive numbers are so high these days (partially due to steroid use) that you aren't going to see OPS+ numbers nearly as high as they were in the past especially compared to pitcher friendly eras such as the 60's.

In the context of 1964, when pitchers dominated, I would be thrilled with Santo's numbers. That's why OPS+ is a good stat because it shows us how the player dominated in his era and how Beltre's superficially better numbers are not as good as they appear in the context of his era, whereas Santo's are better than they appear. In short, I'll take Santo anyday of the week over Beltre.

[leecemark]

--I was hard on Beltre earlier and he does merit nothing but criticism in a HoF context, but I actually do like him. He is overpaid and he will never match 2004, but he is a good defender and should average 25 or more HR over the life of his contract. His problem is his pitch recognition is horrible and he wastes a huge chunk of his talent as a result. Its probably way too optimistic to hope he'll correct that after as many years in the league as he has already had.
--Sockeye is probably correct that he will have some good counting numbers by the end of his career, due to his early start. His career upside is Andre Dawson without the speed. Worse he'll have similar numbers in a much higher offensive environment.

[DoubleX]

Where do people rank Beltre among his contemporaries at 3B? I'm thinking that I have the following ahead of him (in no special order):

Alex Rodriguez
Troy Glaus
Melvin Mora
Eric Chavez
Hank Blalock
Chipper Jones
David Wright
Scott Rolen
Morgan Ensberg
Aramis Ramirez
Chad Tracy

Chone Figgins - I'm wavering on whether or not to put him ahead of Beltre also.

We're definitely in an era of high-quality 3Bman, especially from an offensive standpoint. Has there ever been an era so rich with so much offensive talent at 3B across the board? The 70s and 80s maybe (Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Bando, Cey, Bell, Wallach, Harrah, Madlock, Johnson)?

[ElHalo]

OPS+ is a flawed stat. Look at Ron Santo's sheer numbers in his best season of 1964. .312 AVG, 94 runs, 185 hits, 30 homers, 114 RBI's, .398 OBP, .564 SLG compared to Beltre's best season in 2004. .334 AVG, 104 runs, 200 hits, 48 home runs, 121 RBI's, .388 OBP, .629 SLG. But yet Santo's OPS+ was 164 and Beltre's was 163. Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?

The logic is simple here. Offensive numbers are so high these days (partially due to steroid use) that you aren't going to see OPS+ numbers nearly as high as they were in the past especially compared to pitcher friendly eras such as the 60's.

There's the tiniest, li'lest smidgeon of logic that I actually agree with embedded in this argument, but it's hidden way down deep. So deep, in fact, that I'm not even going to get into it at all other than to say that, yes, I do agree that, just because of numerical boundaries, it's probably harder put up high OPS+'s in an offensive era, or ERA+'s in a defensive era.

However... that little recital you did of Santo's raw numbers against Beltre's? When you ask "Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?", you seem to be expecting that people will answer: "Beltre's." That's not the case. Context plays a very key role here. (I'm killing my boy Chuck Klein here): For example, hitting .400 with 150 R, 50 HR, and 150 RBI for the 1930 Philadelphia Phillies might not be anywhere near as impressive as hitting .350 with 110 R, 20 HR, and 110 RBI for the 1910 Philadelphia A's. In that case, the season with the "worse" numbers is the better season, and it's handy to have a number that quickly and easily reflects that.

Looking at the Santo and Beltre example, and knowing what years they put those numbers up in, I'd have to say I'd take Santo's offensive year over Beltre's. In a heartbeat.

[DoubleX]

There's the tiniest, li'lest smidgeon of logic that I actually agree with embedded in this argument, but it's hidden way down deep. So deep, in fact, that I'm not even going to get into it at all other than to say that, yes, I do agree that, just because of numerical boundaries, it's probably harder put up high OPS+'s in an offensive era, or ERA+'s in a defensive era.

However... that little recital you did of Santo's raw numbers against Beltre's? When you ask "Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?", you seem to be expecting that people will answer: "Beltre's." That's not the case. Context plays a very key role here. (I'm killing my boy Chuck Klein here): For example, hitting .400 with 150 R, 50 HR, and 150 RBI for the 1930 Philadelphia Phillies might not be anywhere near as impressive as hitting .350 with 110 R, 20 HR, and 110 RBI for the 1910 Philadelphia A's. In that case, the season with the "worse" numbers is the better season, and it's handy to have a number that quickly and easily reflects that.

Looking at the Santo and Beltre example, and knowing what years they put those numbers up in, I'd have to say I'd take Santo's offensive year over Beltre's. In a heartbeat.

Any hope in convincing you now that Pie Traynor's BA was not all that impressive? :)

[ElHalo]

Any hope in convincing you now that Pie Traynor's BA was not all that impressive? :)

If the only reason I thought so highly of Pie Traynor was his BA, then maybe. Unfortunately (I guess?), that's not even the tiniest fraction of a fraction of the reasons to be in awe of Pie.

[iPod]

Beltre, a .270 hitter, is going to reach 3000 hits? People do this kind of stuff all the time, and I never understand it. You can't just take his career averages and extrapolate them out to age 40 and say there's a good chance of that happening 'cause all he has to do is keep pace. Playing 20+ years in the majors is a huge accomplishment, yet people just take it for granted constantly when they do these things, let alone assuming no big injuries, no half seasons, no natural deceleration...

[jalbright]

Here is how I see it

Doerr is in
Ripken will be in
Jones and Chavez are still active
Santo and Staub a case could easily be made for
Sierra injuries ruined a very promising career.
Keltner retired at the age of 33
Callison retired at the age of 34
Clift retired at the age of 32

If Beltre is often injured or retires at the age of 32-34 then he won't make the HOF nor should he. If he stays healthy and plays until age 40 then He'll have a better career than Santo or Staub which both have a strong argument for induction or even Doerr who is in the HOF.

Staub won't get in without a massive change in the election process. Let's review the three guys you list as retiring in their 30's:

1) Keltner had one good season after age 29, and was washed up by the time he retired;

2) Callison really did almost nothing after age 31

3) Clift was lousy in his last three years, and in a wartime league at that.

Those three and Sierra are examples of why you can't count on Beltre playing well until age 40. Ripken was so extraordinarily durable that I doubt he'll be anything like a reasonable comparison when all is said and done. Actually, Santo isn't in at least in part because he finished in his mid thirties as well. Part of what the method is hinting at is players like Beltre don't seem to have aged well. Past may not be prologue, but you can only ignore the past at your own peril.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Okay, so I woke up, walked the dog and went out to breakfast, came home checked my e-mail and rotated my fantasy teams. Up until that point, I was pretty sure I wasn't still bombed from last night. Then I come here and see Adrian Beltre's name in the HOF forum, and I'm not so sure anymore.

1. Similarity scores: Keith Hernandez made $16,000 is 1974, today that's below the poverty line for a family of four. Extrapolate.

2. Sockeye, why do you keep projecting players out to 40 years old. A player playing, and being productive, until the age of forty is like me living to be 95. Its possible, but its pretty silly to take it as a given.

3. Here are the results of the Current Top 10 3B poll.

1. Alex Rodriguez (179) nearly unanimous
2. Scott Rolen (150)
3. Miguel Cabrera (111)
4. David Wright (104)
5. Eric Chavez (96)
6. Morgan Ensberg (75)
7. Aramis Ramirez (70)
8. Troy Glaus (57)
9. Chipper Jones (50)
10. Melvin Mora (49)
11. Hank Blalock (34)
12. Adrian Beltre (21)
13. Chone Figgins (7)
14. Dallas McPherson (1)
14. Ryan Zimmerman (1)

[tonjes]

...my reaction when i saw where this thread is located:

"WHHHAAAAAAT?"

[Sockeye]

In the context of 1964, when pitchers dominated, I would be thrilled with Santo's numbers. That's why OPS+ is a good stat because it shows us how the player dominated in his era and how Beltre's superficially better numbers are not as good as they appear in the context of his era, whereas Santo's are better than they appear. In short, I'll take Santo anyday of the week over Beltre.

Ahh but in the 60's the talent level isn't what it is today. The OPS+ stat is not as much about Santo vs Beltre but about the average 60's player vs the average 00's player. A player today would have to put up Mantle like numbers to achieve the same OPS+ numbers that a good (not great) Ron Santo put up. With the exception of a player like Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, or Manny Ramirez there are very few players capable to reaching such numbers. So if that's the only stat you think is worth looking at there are just a handful of players playing today that you consider HOF worthy.

[Sockeye]

--Sockeye is probably correct that he will have some good counting numbers by the end of his career, due to his early start.

Finally someone who grasps the concept of what I'm saying. Adrian Beltre due to the fact he began his career at the age of 19, has been a starter since the age of 20 with reasonably high production is going to put up HUGE career totals in most offensive catagories.

[leecemark]

--Actually there have been alot more historically high OPS+ and ERA+ posted in the last 10 years than their were in the 1960s. The 90s/00s deviate from a downward trend that had been in progress for the last century.

[leecemark]

--Sockeye, you had to do some serious cutting of my post to get the line that sort of supports your case. I don't think there is a chance in hell he makes the Hall of Fame. I do think he could stick around long enough for 2,500 or more hits and 400+ HR, which would give him some of the highest counting totals of any player not to make it. There is a long time to go and he could do some things to alter this but I expect he'll be bounced off the ballot in his first year of eligiblilty.

[Sockeye]

Where do people rank Beltre among his contemporaries at 3B? I'm thinking that I have the following ahead of him (in no special order):

Alex Rodriguez
Troy Glaus
Melvin Mora
Eric Chavez
Hank Blalock
Chipper Jones
David Wright
Scott Rolen
Morgan Ensberg
Aramis Ramirez
Chad Tracy

Chone Figgins - I'm wavering on whether or not to put him ahead of Beltre also.

We're definitely in an era of high-quality 3Bman, especially from an offensive standpoint. Has there ever been an era so rich with so much offensive talent at 3B across the board? The 70s and 80s maybe (Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Bando, Cey, Bell, Wallach, Harrah, Madlock, Johnson)?

Alex Rodriguez: obviously

Troy Glaus: for sure

Eric Chavez: yes

Chipper Jones: definitely

Scott Rolen: without a doubt

Aramis Ramirez: absolutely

Hank Blalock: Probably, too soon to say. Need another season to evaluate properly.

David Wright: Possibly, way too soon to say. Need another 2+ seasons before being able to judge.

Melvin Mora: No way! His numbers through the age of 33...860 games, 2925 at-bats, 466 runs, 822 hits, 168 doubles, 11 triples, 103 home runs, 400 RBI's, 65 steals, 315 walks, .281 AVG, .363 OBP, .452 SLG. Adrian Beltre's career numbers are much better and Mora is on the downside of his career at age 34 now.

Morgan Ensberg: Absolutely not! His numbers through the age of 30...461 games, 1461 at-bats, 220 runs, 408 hits, 72 doubles, 9 triples, 74 home runs, 246 RBI's, 21 steals, 187 walks, .279 AVG, .365 OBP, .493 SLG. Adrian Beltre is almost 4 years younger than Ensberg and more than double him in virtually every catagory.

Chad Tracy: Unproven! His numbers through the age of 25...288 games, 984 at-bats, 118 runs, 292 hits, 63 doubles, 7 triples, 35 home runs, 125 RBI's, 5 steals, 80 walks, .297 AVG, .351 OBP, .482 SLG. One good seasons does not a career make. It's way too early to put him among the elite 3B's in baseball. He's only 1 year younger than Beltre but his career stats are 1/4 that of Beltre's.

[digglahhh]

Finally someone who grasps the concept of what I'm saying. Adrian Beltre due to the fact he began his career at the age of 19, has been a starter since the age of 20 with reasonably high production is going to put up HUGE career totals in most offensive catagories.

20 Buicks don't equal one Bentley.

[digglahhh]

David Wright: Possibly, way too soon to say. Need another 2+ seasons before being able to judge.


Yeah, back in '92 they probably said that Nas needed a couple of albums to prove he was better than Young MC...:rolleyes:

[Sockeye]

There's the tiniest, li'lest smidgeon of logic that I actually agree with embedded in this argument, but it's hidden way down deep. So deep, in fact, that I'm not even going to get into it at all other than to say that, yes, I do agree that, just because of numerical boundaries, it's probably harder put up high OPS+'s in an offensive era, or ERA+'s in a defensive era.

However... that little recital you did of Santo's raw numbers against Beltre's? When you ask "Now you tell me which set of numbers would you rather have?", you seem to be expecting that people will answer: "Beltre's." That's not the case. Context plays a very key role here. (I'm killing my boy Chuck Klein here): For example, hitting .400 with 150 R, 50 HR, and 150 RBI for the 1930 Philadelphia Phillies might not be anywhere near as impressive as hitting .350 with 110 R, 20 HR, and 110 RBI for the 1910 Philadelphia A's. In that case, the season with the "worse" numbers is the better season, and it's handy to have a number that quickly and easily reflects that.

Looking at the Santo and Beltre example, and knowing what years they put those numbers up in, I'd have to say I'd take Santo's offensive year over Beltre's. In a heartbeat.


I disagree wholeheartily. I don't care what decade the numbers came in. Give me a guy that batted .400, with 150 runs, 50 homers, 150 RBI's over a guy that batted .350 with 110 runs, 20 homers, and 110 RBI's. He still batted .400, hit the ball out of the park 50 times, and created many more runs with his 150/150 runs/RBI's performance. The fact of the matter is this. You can't punish a guy that puts up huge offensive numbers just because he happened to do it in an offensive era. If Babe Ruth played today do you honestly think his numbers would be all that much better than they were in the 1920's? What do you think he would do bat .400 with 200 runs, 100 homers, 250 RBI's. I mean c'mon stats like that just aren't reasonable. Same thing goes for Ron Santo. Does anyone honestly think his numbers would be all that much better if playing today than they were in the 60's? I have a hard time believing he'd do anything much better than .300, 100 runs, 30 homers, 100 RBI's. The same thing can be said for Adrian Beltre if he played back in the 1960's. I still think his numbers would be about the same as they have been.
About a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, 80 RBI's.

[538280]

Ahh but in the 60's the talent level isn't what it is today. The OPS+ stat is not as much about Santo vs Beltre but about the average 60's player vs the average 00's player. A player today would have to put up Mantle like numbers to achieve the same OPS+ numbers that a good (not great) Ron Santo put up. With the exception of a player like Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, or Manny Ramirez there are very few players capable to reaching such numbers. So if that's the only stat you think is worth looking at there are just a handful of players playing today that you consider HOF worthy.

This just is flatly untrue. Let's ask ourselves: if what you say is true, what else would be true? I think what would have to be true is that there have been less great OPS+ years in the last 10 years than there were in the 60s. And if you look at the facts, it's the opposite way. There have been far more great OPS+ seasons in the last 10 years than there were in the 60s.

Let's use the top 100 OPS+ years of all time, and see how many of those were posted 1996-2005 (the past 10 years). In that time, 12 of the top 100 OPS+ years have been posted. There have been 130 years of baseball, so dividing 100 by 130 means the "expected" number of top OPS+ seasons in each year is about .77. Multiplying that by 10, that means we would expect 7.7 of those seasons to be posted in the last 10 years, which means the past 10 years have beat that expectation by 4.3

There have actually been MORE great OPS+ posted in today's game that the average through baseball history.

Now let's do the 1960s. In that ten years there were 6 of the top 100 OPS+ seasons posted. That's under the expectation by 1.7.

So, your statement is completely false. There have been far more great OPS+ years in the past 10 years than there were in the 1960s.

[DoubleX]

I disagree wholeheartily. I don't care what decade the numbers came in. Give me a guy that batted .400, with 150 runs, 50 homers, 150 RBI's over a guy that batted .350 with 110 runs, 20 homers, and 110 RBI's. He still batted .400, hit the ball out of the park 50 times, and created many more runs with his 150/150 runs/RBI's performance. The fact of the matter is this. You can't punish a guy that puts up huge offensive numbers just because he happened to do it in an offensive era. If Babe Ruth played today do you honestly think his numbers would be all that much better than they were in the 1920's? What do you think he would do bat .400 with 200 runs, 100 homers, 250 RBI's. I mean c'mon stats like that just aren't reasonable. Same thing goes for Ron Santo. Does anyone honestly think his numbers would be all that much better if playing today than they were in the 60's? I have a hard time believing he'd do anything much better than .300, 100 runs, 30 homers, 100 RBI's. The same thing can be said for Adrian Beltre if he played back in the 1960's. I still think his numbers would be about the same as they have been.
About a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, 80 RBI's.

Going by this logic, the Hall of Fame would soon double in size as all the Adrian Beltres and Shawn Greens of the 90s would make it in.

[Sockeye]

Beltre, a .270 hitter, is going to reach 3000 hits? People do this kind of stuff all the time, and I never understand it. You can't just take his career averages and extrapolate them out to age 40 and say there's a good chance of that happening 'cause all he has to do is keep pace. Playing 20+ years in the majors is a huge accomplishment, yet people just take it for granted constantly when they do these things, let alone assuming no big injuries, no half seasons, no natural deceleration...

The projected stats take all of that into consideration. Obviously they are dependant upon his staying healthy. Injuries are always a variable that can never been predicted. All we can do is to make judgements according to his past history. For Beltre he has no real history of injuries playing in at least 156 games in each of his past 4 seasons. The At-bat total I used to project out his next 14 seasons is just over 508 AB's per season. A very reasonable total considering he has averaged better than 552 at-bats per season over the past 7 seasons, better than 586 at-bats per season over the past 4 seasons and given his age (27) he should have another 6+ seasons in his prime. Also a players numbers tend to be better between the age of 28-32 than at any other point in their career. So I anticipate a slight increase production wise over his next 6 seasons which will then be offset by a downward trend caused by aging. Overall though I see his career splits being very close to what they are at this point of his career.

[BoSox Rule]

Does your dream Hall of Fame have 300-400 players in it?

[538280]

Does your dream Hall of Fame have 300-400 players in it?

No, it can't because he himself said Jackie Robinson doesn't belong in the HOF.

Wait a second-now that I remember that. Are you honestly trying to tell us that Adrian Beltre is a HOFer, but Jackie Robinson isn't?

[Sockeye]

Okay, so I woke up, walked the dog and went out to breakfast, came home checked my e-mail and rotated my fantasy teams. Up until that point, I was pretty sure I wasn't still bombed from last night. Then I come here and see Adrian Beltre's name in the HOF forum, and I'm not so sure anymore.

1. Similarity scores: Keith Hernandez made $16,000 is 1974, today that's below the poverty line for a family of four. Extrapolate.

2. Sockeye, why do you keep projecting players out to 40 years old. A player playing, and being productive, until the age of forty is like me living to be 95. Its possible, but its pretty silly to take it as a given.

3. Here are the results of the Current Top 10 3B poll.

1. Alex Rodriguez (179) nearly unanimous
2. Scott Rolen (150)
3. Miguel Cabrera (111)
4. David Wright (104)
5. Eric Chavez (96)
6. Morgan Ensberg (75)
7. Aramis Ramirez (70)
8. Troy Glaus (57)
9. Chipper Jones (50)
10. Melvin Mora (49)
11. Hank Blalock (34)
12. Adrian Beltre (21)
13. Chone Figgins (7)
14. Dallas McPherson (1)
14. Ryan Zimmerman (1)


Playing until the age of 40 is a lot more common place today than at any other time in baseball history. Just look at Julio Franco playing at age 47-48. Players are in better shape and much more productive late into their 30's and even into their 40's. And according to my projections Beltre doesn't necessarily even need to remain all that productive past the age of 37-38. I could even see him as being a part time player towards to end of his career similar to that of a Ruben Sierra. The DH also allows players to play longer today than say 35 years ago. That also factors in. If I ever get a chance to finish them I'll post the season by season projections for Beltre which will show precisely what I mean.

[Sockeye]

--Sockeye, you had to do some serious cutting of my post to get the line that sort of supports your case. I don't think there is a chance in hell he makes the Hall of Fame. I do think he could stick around long enough for 2,500 or more hits and 400+ HR, which would give him some of the highest counting totals of any player not to make it. There is a long time to go and he could do some things to alter this but I expect he'll be bounced off the ballot in his first year of eligiblilty.

Wow! 2500+ hits and 400+ homers and off the ballot in his 1st year of eligibility?? Too bad I'm not a betting man I'd lay some serious money against that happening seeing as how it would be a first. I'd also be shocked if he only averages 100 hits per season for the remainder of his career. I think 135 hits per season is far more reasonable to expect. That will land him 3000 career hits. Oh but I'm sure he'll be the first player in history with 3000+ hits and 400+ homers to be "bounced off the ballot" in his first year of eligibiliy since career totals all of a sudden no longer matter to the voters. Wish I knew when that started as I wasn't aware of such a thing.

[Edgartohof]

With the exception of a player like Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, or Manny Ramirez there are very few players capable to reaching such numbers.

And Alex Rodriguez, AND Derek Lee, AND David Ortiz, AND Vladimir Guerrero, AND Travis Hafner, AND AND AND... the list does go on.

[Sockeye]

This just is flatly untrue. Let's ask ourselves: if what you say is true, what else would be true? I think what would have to be true is that there have been less great OPS+ years in the last 10 years than there were in the 60s. And if you look at the facts, it's the opposite way. There have been far more great OPS+ seasons in the last 10 years than there were in the 60s.

Let's use the top 100 OPS+ years of all time, and see how many of those were posted 1996-2005 (the past 10 years). In that time, 12 of the top 100 OPS+ years have been posted. There have been 130 years of baseball, so dividing 100 by 130 means the "expected" number of top OPS+ seasons in each year is about .77. Multiplying that by 10, that means we would expect 7.7 of those seasons to be posted in the last 10 years, which means the past 10 years have beat that expectation by 4.3

There have actually been MORE great OPS+ posted in today's game that the average through baseball history.

Now let's do the 1960s. In that ten years there were 6 of the top 100 OPS+ seasons posted. That's under the expectation by 1.7.

So, your statement is completely false. There have been far more great OPS+ years in the past 10 years than there were in the 1960s.

That is true BUT 5 of the 10 recorded between 1996-2005 were BARRY BONDS, 2 by Mark McGwire, and 1 each by Sammy Sosa, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and Jason Giambi So that is a total of 7 different players.

In the 1960's you had 2 by Mickey Mantle and 1 each by Willie McCovey, Norm Cash, Frank Robinson, and Carl Yastrzemski. That is 5 different players.

Now lets look at the names on the list from 1996-2005. How many of those players are suspected of sterioud use? Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi....That leaves 2 seasons one by Jim Thome and one by Manny Ramirez.

Interesting when you really break it down is eh? Another interesting tidbit here is no Albert Pujols....Does that mean (a) he isn't a great player? Or (b) does it support my stance that it is indeed more difficult to obtain higher OPS+ numbers from 1996-2005 than it was in the 1960's

I think I missed my calling. I shoulda been a lawyer. lol

[Sockeye]

Going by this logic, the Hall of Fame would soon double in size as all the Adrian Beltres and Shawn Greens of the 90s would make it in.

Look at the numbers of baseball teams in 1960 compared to the number of teams today. There are twice as many teams, twice as many players, twice as many great players, shouldn't that mean twice as many players deserving of HOF induction? If the numbers are there then yes a player should be in the HOF.

[digglahhh]

I disagree wholeheartily. I don't care what decade the numbers came in. Give me a guy that batted .400, with 150 runs, 50 homers, 150 RBI's over a guy that batted .350 with 110 runs, 20 homers, and 110 RBI's. He still batted .400, hit the ball out of the park 50 times, and created many more runs with his 150/150 runs/RBI's performance. The fact of the matter is this. You can't punish a guy that puts up huge offensive numbers just because he happened to do it in an offensive era. If Babe Ruth played today do you honestly think his numbers would be all that much better than they were in the 1920's? What do you think he would do bat .400 with 200 runs, 100 homers, 250 RBI's. I mean c'mon stats like that just aren't reasonable. Same thing goes for Ron Santo. Does anyone honestly think his numbers would be all that much better if playing today than they were in the 60's? I have a hard time believing he'd do anything much better than .300, 100 runs, 30 homers, 100 RBI's. The same thing can be said for Adrian Beltre if he played back in the 1960's. I still think his numbers would be about the same as they have been.
About a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, 80 RBI's.

If your boss doubled your salary, but the supermarket tripled its prices, would you be coming out ahead?

Many of the greats of yesteryear who compiled some of the most impressive statistical seasons did so in the other great offensive period in baseball history.

Offensive envirnoment not all that important? So I guess Richie Sexson is just a better RBI man than George Brett...

Without context we'd have to elect half of the freaking league. Luis Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Hank Blalock, Magglio Ordonez.

I haven't even seen any of these threads for Brian Giles and Adrian Beltre should have to pay for Giles' autograph...

At this point, it might be more efficient to just name all the players who don't warrant induction...

[digglahhh]

Look at the numbers of baseball teams in 1960 compared to the number of teams today. There are twice as many teams, twice as many players, twice as many great players, shouldn't that mean twice as many players deserving of HOF induction? If the numbers are there then yes a player should be in the HOF.

Sockeye, how many current players do you think are locks for the HOF? How many do you feel have a 50/50 chance at least?

Don't be shy, Sean says we have plenty of bandwith....

[Sockeye]

Does your dream Hall of Fame have 300-400 players in it?

Never actually took the time to sit down and make a list of who all would be included in my dream HOF. Something tells me that it would look a lot different and a lot smaller than the actual HOF.

[Sockeye]

No, it can't because he himself said Jackie Robinson doesn't belong in the HOF.

Wait a second-now that I remember that. Are you honestly trying to tell us that Adrian Beltre is a HOFer, but Jackie Robinson isn't?

Jackie Robinson is the most overrated player of all time IMO. Not that he wasn't a good player. Not what I'm saying. Production wise he was a very good player. His career just wasn't long enough to deserve being inducted into the HOF IMO.
If Adrian Beltre retired today I'd say the same thing. He wouldn't deserve HOF induction. I put more emphasis on longevity than I do production over a short career. I think Adrian Beltre will have a long successful career and his career totals will deserve HOF induction.

[Edgartohof]

I disagree wholeheartily. I don't care what decade the numbers came in. Give me a guy that batted .400, with 150 runs, 50 homers, 150 RBI's over a guy that batted .350 with 110 runs, 20 homers, and 110 RBI's. He still batted .400, hit the ball out of the park 50 times, and created many more runs with his 150/150 runs/RBI's performance. The fact of the matter is this. You can't punish a guy that puts up huge offensive numbers just because he happened to do it in an offensive era. If Babe Ruth played today do you honestly think his numbers would be all that much better than they were in the 1920's? What do you think he would do bat .400 with 200 runs, 100 homers, 250 RBI's. I mean c'mon stats like that just aren't reasonable. Same thing goes for Ron Santo. Does anyone honestly think his numbers would be all that much better if playing today than they were in the 60's? I have a hard time believing he'd do anything much better than .300, 100 runs, 30 homers, 100 RBI's.

Do you not understand the concept of adjusting for era's? There's a reason people aren't hitting .400 every other year, I mean come on now - this isn't THAT difficult to understand.


The same thing can be said for Adrian Beltre if he played back in the 1960's. I still think his numbers would be about the same as they have been.
About a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, 80 RBI's.

Yeah, and a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, and 80 RBI all add up to the HOF how? Any Johnny-get-lucky can do that on a good year nowadays, that isn't anything special, and definitely not worthy of induction to the Hall.

How many 3Bmen HOF'ers can you name that hit .270 and averaged only 20 HR's? Not too many are there?

Here's a quick look at what we have:

Eddie Matthews - .271 BA; has 512 HR's as well, led twice in HR's and has a .376 OBP
Brooks Robinson - .267 BA; has 268 HR's, had 16 consecutive GG's at 3B
Harmon Killebrew - .256 BA; has 573 HR's, led in HR's 6 times
Mike Schmidt - .267 BA; has 548 HR's, led in HR's 8 times, has 10 GG's at 3B

So what I see, if you want to get into the HOF at 3B, you need great power, and/or a great glove, and be able to last a long time. Well, Beltre MAY last a while, but even that is unlikely, he doesn't have good power, especially for this era, where 20-25 HR's does not make someone a power hitter, it makes them...Raul Ibanez. And Beltre's glove is decent, but it's not spectacular by any means. He's nowhere near the top glovemen of his own league, let alone of all time.

So tell me again, how a .270 hitter with minimal power, who has a HORRIBLE OBP, and will probably end up with a career OPS+ below 100, and doesn't have a great glove, will be good enough to get into the HOF?

[Sockeye]

And Alex Rodriguez, AND Derek Lee, AND David Ortiz, AND Vladimir Guerrero, AND Travis Hafner, AND AND AND... the list does go on.

None of their OPS+ ever reached that of Norm Cash's in 1961. Does that mean he was better than any of them? If OPS+ is such an all fire important stat the isn't that what it would indicate?

[Sockeye]

If your boss doubled your salary, but the supermarket tripled its prices, would you be coming out ahead?

Many of the greats of yesteryear who compiled some of the most impressive statistical seasons did so in the other great offensive period in baseball history.

Offensive envirnoment not all that important? So I guess Richie Sexson is just a better RBI man than George Brett...

Without context we'd have to elect half of the freaking league. Luis Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Hank Blalock, Magglio Ordonez.

I haven't even seen any of these threads for Brian Giles and Adrian Beltre should have to pay for Giles' autograph...

At this point, it might be more efficient to just name all the players who don't warrant induction...

Well the doubles of salary but supermarket triples prices gets in the the minimum wage debate and that's a whole nother can of worms right there.

Comparing Richie Sexson to George Brett is like comparing apples to oranges.
I'd liken Richie Sexson more to that of a Reggie Jackson or Mike Schmidt.

And no we wouldn't have half the league. Luis Gonzalez still has a lot of work to be done before he'd deserve HOF consideration and at his age I don't think he'll reach that plataeu. Same thing for Magglio Ordonez, Hank Blalock is still a bit to young to speculate on. Give him one more season and then I'll run some numbers and have a better idea of to his future HOF potential. Giles...good production but too many injuries throughout his career. I doubt he'll warrent serious HOF consideration unless he can display amazing health and productivity and for anotyher 4-5 season then maybe but not likely.

[Sockeye]

Sockeye, how many current players do you think are locks for the HOF? How many do you feel have a 50/50 chance at least?

Don't be shy, Sean says we have plenty of bandwith....

At this time there are 31 active players that I will argue for there future HOF credenials

[Edgartohof]

Jackie Robinson is the most overrated player of all time IMO. Not that he wasn't a good player. Not what I'm saying. Production wise he was a very good player. His career just wasn't long enough to deserve being inducted into the HOF IMO.

1.) Robinson would have been inducted whether he had a great career or not, as he was the central figure in breaking the color line in baseball, and

2.) Did you ever think about the fact that the reason he didn't play long enough to suit you was because he wasn't allowed to play in the majors until age 28 due to RACISM! How dense can you be? He was a thousand time better than Beltre, he dealt with more pressure than most can imagine, and he handled it with grace, on top of putting up great numbers while playing, and did more in his career than Beltre ever will, numbers aside.

Hey, if you feel you can extrapolate Beltre's numbers out to age 40, maybe I should extrapolate Robinson's numbers out to if he had played since age 20, and then we'll see how that ends up.

[digglahhh]

Comparing Richie Sexson to George Brett is like comparing apples to oranges.
I'd liken Richie Sexson more to that of a Reggie Jackson or Mike Schmidt.

Well therein lies the problem, because I would liken him more to Jason Thompson.

[Sockeye]

Do you not understand the concept of adjusting for era's? There's a reason people aren't hitting .400 every other year, I mean come on now - this isn't THAT difficult to understand.




Yeah, and a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, and 80 RBI all add up to the HOF how? Any Johnny-get-lucky can do that on a good year nowadays, that isn't anything special, and definitely not worthy of induction to the Hall.

How many 3Bmen HOF'ers can you name that hit .270 and averaged only 20 HR's? Not too many are there?

Here's a quick look at what we have:

Eddie Matthews - .271 BA; has 512 HR's as well, led twice in HR's and has a .376 OBP
Brooks Robinson - .267 BA; has 268 HR's, had 16 consecutive GG's at 3B
Harmon Killebrew - .256 BA; has 573 HR's, led in HR's 6 times
Mike Schmidt - .267 BA; has 548 HR's, led in HR's 8 times, has 10 GG's at 3B

So what I see, if you want to get into the HOF at 3B, you need great power, and/or a great glove, and be able to last a long time. Well, Beltre MAY last a while, but even that is unlikely, he doesn't have good power, especially for this era, where 20-25 HR's does not make someone a power hitter, it makes them...Raul Ibanez. And Beltre's glove is decent, but it's not spectacular by any means. He's nowhere near the top glovemen of his own league, let alone of all time.

So tell me again, how a .270 hitter with minimal power, who has a HORRIBLE OBP, and will probably end up with a career OPS+ below 100, and doesn't have a great glove, will be good enough to get into the HOF?

Do you not understand the concept of adjusting for era's? There's a reason people aren't hitting .400 every other year, I mean come on now - this isn't THAT difficult to understand.

So you are actually saying the higher average are harder to obtain in the game today than is past eras? I agree...if Beltre was playing in the 10's or 20's he'd be a .300 career hitter easy.

Yeah, and a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, and 80 RBI all add up to the HOF how? Any Johnny-get-lucky can do that on a good year nowadays, that isn't anything special, and definitely not worthy of induction to the Hall.

Nope, again you are missing my point. Yeah anybody can do that for one season! The point is not everybody can average that over the course of a 20+ season career? Very few players can do that.

Harmon Killebrew played 22 seasons and averaged 58 runs, 94 hits, 13 doubles, 1 triple, 26 home runs, 72 RBI's, .256 AVG. Can anybody put up those numbers for one season? Absolutely! But what makes Harmon Killebrew a HOFer is the fact that he averaged that over the course of 22 seasons. Do you see what I'm saying now? Big difference between doing it for one season and doing it for 20+ seasons.

So what I see, if you want to get into the HOF at 3B, you need great power, and/or a great glove, and be able to last a long time. Well, Beltre MAY last a while, but even that is unlikely, he doesn't have good power, especially for this era, where 20-25 HR's does not make someone a power hitter, it makes them...Raul Ibanez. And Beltre's glove is decent, but it's not spectacular by any means. He's nowhere near the top glovemen of his own league, let alone of all time.

Adrian Beltre doesn't have good power? The guy hit 48 home runs in 2004. while playing half his games in one the the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball today. If that doesn't tell show great power then I don't know what does. And keep in mind that he played his first 4 seasons at the ages of 19-22 when most players are still in the minor leagues at that age developing their skills and power.

So tell me again, how a .270 hitter with minimal power, who has a HORRIBLE OBP, and will probably end up with a career OPS+ below 100, and doesn't have a great glove, will be good enough to get into the HOF?

Okay one more time and please be sure to write this down so I won't need to explain it to you again. Adrian Beltre does not have minimal power. I can't fo the life of me figure out how a player that will end up with over 400 career home runs can have minimal power. Scott Posednik has minimal power, Luis Castillo has minimal power, Omar Vizqual has minimal power, Adrian Beltre has hit 166 home runs in 8 seasons. He has A LOT of power! His career OPS+ will not fall to below 100 for the fact he is just entering his prime. When a player enters their prime there numbers typically go UP. Not down. Not always but 95% of the time. His glove has also improved quite a bit. When he came up he struggled defensively for his first 3 seasons (98-00), He then improved and became an average fielder his next 3 seasons (01-03), his last two seasons were very good defensively.. His fielding % was .978 in 04 compared to a league average of .956 his fielding % was .967 in 05 compared to a league average of .957. So both years he's been quite above average. His range is also well above the league average.

[Sockeye]

1.) Robinson would have been inducted whether he had a great career or not, as he was the central figure in breaking the color line in baseball, and

2.) Did you ever think about the fact that the reason he didn't play long enough to suit you was because he wasn't allowed to play in the majors until age 28 due to RACISM! How dense can you be? He was a thousand time better than Beltre, he dealt with more pressure than most can imagine, and he handled it with grace, on top of putting up great numbers while playing, and did more in his career than Beltre ever will, numbers aside.

Hey, if you feel you can extrapolate Beltre's numbers out to age 40, maybe I should extrapolate Robinson's numbers out to if he had played since age 20, and then we'll see how that ends up.

I know all about Jackie Robinson. I'm fully aware of all that he had to go through and it's a shame. If he would have broken the color barrier and played 1 season should he be in the HOF just for that? You seem to think so. I think that is rediculous!!. If Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier than someone else would have. More of being in the right place at the right time. I think he was elected more for breaking the color barrier than anything else. So instead of being listed in the HOF as a player perhaps he should be listed as a pioneer. That would make more sense to me.

[Sockeye]

Well therein lies the problem, because I would liken him more to Jason Thompson.

And how many times did Jason Thompson hit 30+ homers and drive in 100+ RBI's? So far Richie Sexson has done each 5 times.

[DoubleX]

I know all about Jackie Robinson. I'm fully aware of all that he had to go through and it's a shame. If he would have broken the color barrier and played 1 season should he be in the HOF just for that? You seem to think so. I think that is rediculous!!. If Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier than someone else would have. More of being in the right place at the right time. I think he was elected more for breaking the color barrier than anything else. So instead of being listed in the HOF as a player perhaps he should be listed as a pioneer. That would make more sense to me.

Right place at the right time? Jackie was the right person at the right time. Breaking the color barrier was an enormous deal and a great deal of thought was put into which player should have that distinction. It wasn't just mere chance that Jackie broke the color barrier, it had a lot to do with his ability on the ballfield and his makeup as a person.

I hate to say things like this, but IMO, you discredit yourself the more you argue that Jackie does not belong in the Hall. He is perhaps the single most important player in the history of the game, and his induction not only honors his achievements as a ballplayer and what he symbolizes in the grand scheme of the game, but also honors the memory of the many great players we never got to fully appreciate because of the ignorance of segregation before Robinson broke the barrier.

As for your arguments that Richie Sexson and Adrian Beltre are so great (you wouldn't happen to be a Mariners fan by any chance? I suppose you think that Rob Deer, Jay Buhner, Jamie Moyer, and Mark Langston should be in the Hall as well?), which player do you think is more valuable? The player that hits 35-40 homeruns a year in a league when 15-20 guys a year are doing it, or the player that hits 35-40 homeruns in a league when no more than 5 guys are doing it? The player in the second example will have far more value because what he does is truly at a premium.

[ElHalo]

Melvin Mora: No way! His numbers through the age of 33...860 games, 2925 at-bats, 466 runs, 822 hits, 168 doubles, 11 triples, 103 home runs, 400 RBI's, 65 steals, 315 walks, .281 AVG, .363 OBP, .452 SLG. Adrian Beltre's career numbers are much better and Mora is on the downside of his career at age 34 now.

Yet again: We're talking in that post about who the best players are right now, and career totals have less than nothing to do with that. Melvin Mora in his last three years has been a fantastic player, completely unlike the Melvin Mora in his previous years, and as a result it's completely unfair to compare him to anyone on a career basis when we're talking about who's best right now.

[Sockeye]

Right place at the right time? Jackie was the right person at the right time. Breaking the color barrier was an enormous deal and a great deal of thought was put into which player should have that distinction. It wasn't just mere chance that Jackie broke the color barrier, it had a lot to do with his ability on the ballfield and his makeup as a person.

I hate to say things like this, but IMO, you discredit yourself the more you argue that Jackie does not belong in the Hall. He is perhaps the single most important player in the history of the game, and his induction not only honors his achievements as a ballplayer and what he symbolizes in the grand scheme of the game, but also honors the memory of the many great players we never got to fully appreciate because of the ignorance of segregation before Robinson broke the barrier.

As for your arguments that Richie Sexson and Adrian Beltre are so great (you wouldn't happen to be a Mariners fan by any chance? I suppose you think that Rob Deer, Jay Buhner, Jamie Moyer, and Mark Langston should be in the Hall as well?), which player do you think is more valuable? The player that hits 35-40 homeruns a year in a league when 15-20 guys a year are doing it, or the player that hits 35-40 homeruns in a league when no more than 5 guys are doing it? The player in the second example will have far more value because what he does is truly at a premium.

As the great communicator once said "Now there you go again" Putting words in my mouth. My statement was the Jackie Robinson is the most overrated player in history. I never said he didn't deserve to be in the HOF. Based on the numbers. The numbers he put up on the field are not HOF caliber. Nice numbers for a 10 year career but not HOF caliber numbers. If he was elected as a pioneer for breaking the color barrier then that's fine. I have no problem with that. Lets just be honest as to why he is in the baseball hall of fame.

A mariners fan?? LOL oh that's rich. I've been a life long Angels fan and loath the Mariners with a passion ever since the 1995 season. Deer, Buhner, Moyer, or Langston are none HOF worthy. Although I did always like Rob Deer as a player and use to collect his baseball cards when I was younger.
If you want to know who I like for the HOF. Players with lots of home runs, players with lots of hits, players with lots of RBI's, players with lots of runs scored, players with lots of wins.

[ElHalo]

I disagree wholeheartily. I don't care what decade the numbers came in. Give me a guy that batted .400, with 150 runs, 50 homers, 150 RBI's over a guy that batted .350 with 110 runs, 20 homers, and 110 RBI's. He still batted .400, hit the ball out of the park 50 times, and created many more runs with his 150/150 runs/RBI's performance. The fact of the matter is this. You can't punish a guy that puts up huge offensive numbers just because he happened to do it in an offensive era. If Babe Ruth played today do you honestly think his numbers would be all that much better than they were in the 1920's? What do you think he would do bat .400 with 200 runs, 100 homers, 250 RBI's. I mean c'mon stats like that just aren't reasonable. Same thing goes for Ron Santo. Does anyone honestly think his numbers would be all that much better if playing today than they were in the 60's? I have a hard time believing he'd do anything much better than .300, 100 runs, 30 homers, 100 RBI's. The same thing can be said for Adrian Beltre if he played back in the 1960's. I still think his numbers would be about the same as they have been.
About a .270 AVG, 75 runs, 20 homers, 80 RBI's.

Sorry; this is just wrong.

Maybe, if you transported Babe Ruth to today's game, his numbers wouldn't be all that different. But if you transplanted him to the 1960's, his BA would drop by 20 points, and his HR, R, and RBI totals would all dip by 15% or so. If you took Mickey Mantle and transported him to the late 90's, he'd hit .400 with 70+ RBI's. If you took Mark McGwire and transplanted him to 1910, he'd hit about 20 homers a year.

This is just the way things are. Different eras have different conditions that cause players of equal skill to put up wildly different numbers. This is just a fact of life.

[ElHalo]

None of their OPS+ ever reached that of Norm Cash's in 1961. Does that mean he was better than any of them? If OPS+ is such an all fire important stat the isn't that what it would indicate?

You're not doing yourself any favors here. Norm Cash's 1961 season was one of the greatest of all time, corked bat or no corked bat. He was a whole lot more deserving of the MVP award than Roger Maris was that same year, and that season was a whole lot better than, say, anything Pujols has done yet (though, of course, Cash never came anywhere near those heights again).

[ElHalo]

So you are actually saying the higher average are harder to obtain in the game today than is past eras? I agree...if Beltre was playing in the 10's or 20's he'd be a .300 career hitter easy. Again, you're missing the point. You can't say "the 10's or 20's." Maybe Beltre would have been able to hit .300 in the 20's. But certainly not in the 10's. There are fundamental differences between different time periods that need to be accounted for.


Adrian Beltre doesn't have good power? The guy hit 48 home runs in 2004. while playing half his games in one the the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball today. If that doesn't tell show great power then I don't know what does. And keep in mind that he played his first 4 seasons at the ages of 19-22 when most players are still in the minor leagues at that age developing their skills and power.

Yeah, and Brady Anderson hit 50 homers in 1996. So what? That doesn't mean he had great power. Beltre had 48 homers in 2004, and has never at any other point in his career topped 23. I think that that leaves him firmly and solidly outside the "power hitter" category.

[ElHalo]

If you want to know who I like for the HOF. Players with lots of home runs, players with lots of hits, players with lots of RBI's, players with lots of runs scored, players with lots of wins.

I guess this is one way of looking at it. But, honestly, career totals really, really don't mean much in determining who was a greater player. Pete Rose is not even remotely close to being as good of a contact hitter as Ty Cobb... like, not within miles. Hank Aaron is not a better power hitter than Babe Ruth.

If ARod retired tomorrow, he'd have less hits, HR, and RBI than Juan Gonzalez.

You go out there and try and find me ONE person who would say ARod wasn't as good of a hitter as Juan Gonzalez. Or that Gonzalez was even close enough to lick ARod's bootstraps.

[538280]

That's it, guys. I'm done posting on this thread.

[yanksfan80]

I'll echo most other people's opinions here. Beltre is not someone I would ever project to go to the HOF. Too many good players ahead of him. I would have chosen Albert Belle before Beltre. He had one great year for the Dodgers, but followed it up with a pretty poor season last year. I know he's got more years to come in his career, since he's only around 27, but a lifetime average of .271 with only one great year in 8 years? There are many players who I think are on the cusp of making the HOF, but IMO Beltre doesn't even make that list.

[Sockeye]

Again, you're missing the point. You can't say "the 10's or 20's." Maybe Beltre would have been able to hit .300 in the 20's. But certainly not in the 10's. There are fundamental differences between different time periods that need to be accounted for.




Yeah, and Brady Anderson hit 50 homers in 1996. So what? That doesn't mean he had great power. Beltre had 48 homers in 2004, and has never at any other point in his career topped 23. I think that that leaves him firmly and solidly outside the "power hitter" category.

excuse me instead of the 1910's I meant 1890's I mispoke. Brady Anderson wasn't a bad player but he's no Adrian Beltre.

[DoubleX]

excuse me instead of the 1910's I meant 1890's I mispoke. Brady Anderson wasn't a bad player but he's no Adrian Beltre.

And Adrian Beltre is no Hall of Famer, or even an All-Star for that matter (not one All-Star appearance yet for Beltre), so what does that make Anderson?

[Sockeye]

I guess this is one way of looking at it. But, honestly, career totals really, really don't mean much in determining who was a greater player. Pete Rose is not even remotely close to being as good of a contact hitter as Ty Cobb... like, not within miles. Hank Aaron is not a better power hitter than Babe Ruth.

If ARod retired tomorrow, he'd have less hits, HR, and RBI than Juan Gonzalez.

You go out there and try and find me ONE person who would say ARod wasn't as good of a hitter as Juan Gonzalez. Or that Gonzalez was even close enough to lick ARod's bootstraps.

I consider a great player to be one who combines production + longevity.

For instance if you have two players that averaged the following numbers over the following amount of years they would be compared as follows.

Player "A" averages...50 Runs, 100 Hits, 15 Doubles, 1 Triple, 10 Home Runs, 50 RBI's, and 10 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 30 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 10 seasons.

These 2 players would be equal. Player "B" was TWICE as productive as was Player "A" however he only played for HALF as long. So it evens out.

Now if Player "A" averaged those numbers while only playing 19 seasons or Player "B" would have averaged those number while playing 11 seasons then Player "B" would be ranked ahead of Player "A" even though he still played 8 seasons less because Player "B"'s productivity outweighs Player "A"'s longevity.

Now if Player "A" would have either played 21 seasons or Player "B" would have only played 9 seasons then it would be reversed and Player "A"'s longevity would outweigh Player "B"'s production.

The only fair way though to compare longevity to that of production is by the TOTAL STATS.

Now obviously truly great players are the ones the combine the two. Are productive for a long period of time. Those are the ones that become legends.

[DoubleX]

I consider a great player to be one who combines production + longevity.

For instance if you have two players that averaged the following numbers over the following amount of years they would be compared as follows.

Player "A" averages...50 Runs, 100 Hits, 15 Doubles, 1 Triple, 10 Home Runs, 50 RBI's, and 10 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 30 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 10 seasons.

These 2 players would be equal. Player "B" was TWICE as productive as was Player "A" however he only played for HALF as long. So it evens out.

Now if Player "A" averaged those numbers while only playing 19 seasons or Player "B" would have averaged those number while playing 11 seasons then Player "B" would be ranked ahead of Player "A" even though he still played 8 seasons less because Player "B"'s productivity outweighs Player "A"'s longevity.

Now if Player "A" would have either played 21 seasons or Player "B" would have only played 9 seasons then it would be reversed and Player "A"'s longevity would outweigh Player "B"'s production.

The only fair way though to compare longevity to that of production is by the TOTAL STATS.

Now obviously truly great players are the ones the combine the two. Are productive for a long period of time. Those are the ones that become legends.

So then by your criteria, Sandy Koufax was not a great player, for example?

[jalbright]

At this point, we've got one voter out of 26 who thinks Beltre will make the HOF. I think we all know who the one pro vote came from. Outside of starting at age 19 and an excellent 2004 season, Beltre has done nothing to date to make anyone think he's on a HOF trajectory. The dissenter is convinced Beltre will show great longevity and reach key career marks. The rest of us believe that scenarion falls in a range somewhere between unlikely to snowball in hell. It's pretty clear we won't persuade the dissenter, nor that anything short of a) a few all-star/MVP candidate seasons out of Beltre or b) the passage of time shows Beltre to be the remarkably consistent player the dissenter projects will change any minds on the other side. Since even the dissenter isn't making the case for Beltre through the big season approach, my own feeling is to let some time pass and see what develops, seeing as Beltre is only 26. Doing otherwise will only leave the opposing "camps" feeling that interacting with the opposite side is about as fruitful as discussions with a brick wall.

Jim Albright

[iPod]

I consider a great player to be one who combines production + longevity.

For instance if you have two players that averaged the following numbers over the following amount of years they would be compared as follows.

Player "A" averages...50 Runs, 100 Hits, 15 Doubles, 1 Triple, 10 Home Runs, 50 RBI's, and 10 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 30 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 10 seasons.

These 2 players would be equal. Player "B" was TWICE as productive as was Player "A" however he only played for HALF as long. So it evens out.

Now if Player "A" averaged those numbers while only playing 19 seasons or Player "B" would have averaged those number while playing 11 seasons then Player "B" would be ranked ahead of Player "A" even though he still played 8 seasons less because Player "B"'s productivity outweighs Player "A"'s longevity.

Now if Player "A" would have either played 21 seasons or Player "B" would have only played 9 seasons then it would be reversed and Player "A"'s longevity would outweigh Player "B"'s production.

The only fair way though to compare longevity to that of production is by the TOTAL STATS.

Now obviously truly great players are the ones the combine the two. Are productive for a long period of time. Those are the ones that become legends.

You seriously would pass up on having an all-star for 10 years so that you could have a decent bench player for 20? Essentially this means you put 100% of the value in counting stats, because that is literally the only thing players A and B have in common... identical counting stats. If you just stopped and thought about it, you'd realize that doesn't make any sense at all. We look at batting average, for example, because we all realize that just looking at total hits is biased toward players with lots of at-bats. Given 200 hits, you'd rather take a player with 550 at-bats than 600, because batting outs are bad, and the guy with 600 at-bats made 50 more batting outs... we know this because they had the same amount of hits, which is why you don't just look at total hits. Players A and B had exactly the same amount of hits, RBI, and so forth, but player A had to play twice as long to accumulate those numbers. In order for "longetivity" to have any relevance to anything whatsoever, the player with the longer career has to have more counting numbers.

[RuthMayBond]

Sockeye, let's see if you can grasp this.
Beltre has had one actual season with an adjusted OPS more than 16% better than the league average.
Then he's had exactly one more season with an adjusted OPS better than dead-even average.
Two out of EIGHT seasons over average. One of his last FIVE. Does this sound like a Hall of Famer to you?

[oscargamblesfro]

Beltre is an above average player overall, with one very good season, but although his comparables for his age are rather good, he really has virtually no shot at getting in, and I don't think he made a particularly wise choice as far as who he signed with in terms of his statistics. Seattle can't be a very helpful park for him to play in.

[Sockeye]

So then by your criteria, Sandy Koufax was not a great player, for example?

He was a great pitcher for a "short" period of time. He isn't the caliber of a Walter Johnson or Pete Alexander or Roger Clemens since he wasn't able to do it over a long career.

[runningshoes]

It's funny how new guys get in here and by their 1000th post they manage to get a grip.

I know; it happened to me....somewhat. :D

[RuthMayBond]

It's funny how new guys get in here and by their 1000th post they manage to get a grip.

I know; it happened to me....somewhat. :DAnd then by the time one reaches 10,000 . . . :eek: :rolleyes: :noidea ;) :hp :crazy :laugh

[Sockeye]

Sockeye, let's see if you can grasp this.
Beltre has had one actual season with an adjusted OPS more than 16% better than the league average.
Then he's had exactly one more season with an adjusted OPS better than dead-even average.
Two out of EIGHT seasons over average. One of his last FIVE. Does this sound like a Hall of Famer to you?

Considering that Adrian Beltre put up those numbers between the ages of 19-26 and given the average statistical increase of a player entering his prime if he stays healthy yes absolutely those numbers are very likely deserving of his induction into the HOF.

[runningshoes]

And then by the time one reaches 10,000 . . . :eek: :rolleyes: :noidea ;) :hp :crazy :laugh

They start picking fights with nice Canadian guys? :eek: :D

[RuthMayBond]

They start picking fights with nice Canadian guys? :eek: :DNah, 3000 is enough for fake Philippine guys to start fights themselves :waving :waving :waving

[RuthMayBond]

Considering that Adrian Beltre put up those numbers between the ages of 19-26 and given the average statistical increase of a player entering his prime if he stays healthy yes absolutely those numbers are very likely deserving of his induction into the HOF.It looks like his only statistical increase is when a new contract is looming :D

[Sockeye]

You seriously would pass up on having an all-star for 10 years so that you could have a decent bench player for 20? Essentially this means you put 100% of the value in counting stats, because that is literally the only thing players A and B have in common... identical counting stats. If you just stopped and thought about it, you'd realize that doesn't make any sense at all. We look at batting average, for example, because we all realize that just looking at total hits is biased toward players with lots of at-bats. Given 200 hits, you'd rather take a player with 550 at-bats than 600, because batting outs are bad, and the guy with 600 at-bats made 50 more batting outs... we know this because they had the same amount of hits, which is why you don't just look at total hits. Players A and B had exactly the same amount of hits, RBI, and so forth, but player A had to play twice as long to accumulate those numbers. In order for "longetivity" to have any relevance to anything whatsoever, the player with the longer career has to have more counting numbers.

No, again you're reading more into it than what I'm saying. Obviously I'd rather have player B for a shorter period of time because what's ultimately the most important any given year is production. However if looking at it from a who had the best career standpoint which would you rather have. A guy who has a few very productive seasons then suffers a career ending injury or a guy who is a consistant sold performer over a long career? I'm going to remember a player who played 20 seasons a lot more than I'll remember a player who played 10 seasons. And remember I said these players are even. If player "B" would have played 11 seasons or Player "A" only played 19 seasons then Player "B" would get the nod. And keep in mind the numbers posted there were "average" seasons. Over the course of a 20 year career some seasons are going to be better than others. So during player "A" prime he was a lot more than a bench player. He was a very solid performer maybe even an allstar caliber player once or twice his his career and one of the best players on his team for a 8-12 year stretch. Player "B" was maybe a 8 time allstar 2 time mvp that was out of baseball by age 31.

[Sockeye]

Beltre is an above average player overall, with one very good season, but although his comparables for his age are rather good, he really has virtually no shot at getting in, and I don't think he made a particularly wise choice as far as who he signed with in terms of his statistics. Seattle can't be a very helpful park for him to play in.

Now that is very true. Of course he didn't exactly leave a hitters heaven in Dodger Stadium either. I think I'd be more concerned about a statistical drop off if he had been playing in Houston, Texas, or Colorado.

[Sockeye]

It looks like his only statistical increase is when a new contract is looming :D

Strange isnt it....but a fairly common occurance in the game of baseball today. Players always seem to put up better numbers in a contract year. Now imagine if Beltre dedicated himself like that every season...something tells me this debate wouldn't be taken place and everyone would agree with me. The nice thing is that Beltre is still just 27 so there is still time for him to do just that which will only add to his credentials

[DoubleX]

No, again you're reading more into it than what I'm saying. Obviously I'd rather have player B for a shorter period of time because what's ultimately the most important any given year is production. However if looking at it from a who had the best career standpoint which would you rather have. A guy who has a few very productive seasons then suffers a career ending injury or a guy who is a consistant sold performer over a long career? I'm going to remember a player who played 20 seasons a lot more than I'll remember a player who played 10 seasons. And remember I said these players are even. If player "B" would have played 11 seasons or Player "A" only played 19 seasons then Player "B" would get the nod. And keep in mind the numbers posted there were "average" seasons. Over the course of a 20 year career some seasons are going to be better than others. So during player "A" prime he was a lot more than a bench player. He was a very solid performer maybe even an allstar caliber player once or twice his his career and one of the best players on his team for a 8-12 year stretch. Player "B" was maybe a 8 time allstar 2 time mvp that was out of baseball by age 31.

Player B sounds an awful lot like Sandy Koufax, and I'd take Sandy Koufax over all but about a dozen pitchers ever based on entire career, and for peak performance, I might take Koufax above everyone else.

[Sockeye]

Player B sounds an awful lot like Sandy Koufax, and I'd take Sandy Koufax over all but about a dozen pitchers ever based on entire career, and for peak performance, I might take Koufax above everyone else.

Be my guest. I'll take any member of the 300 win club (all 22 of them) as well as Bob Feller, Jim Palmer, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson, Al Spalding, Pedro Martinez, Whitey Ford, and perhaps a few others because not only were their prime nearly as good as Koufax they were still productive later on in their careers.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It looks like his only statistical increase is when a new contract is looming :D
Maybe Beltre should only sign one year contracts. :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

Nah, 3000 is enough for fake Philippine guys to start fights themselves :waving :waving :waving
I don't know how marrying a Phillipino and moving there makes one fake, but, hey, it's your perch, RMB.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't know how marrying a Phillipino and moving there makes one fake, but, hey, it's your perch, RMB.Living in the Philippines would appear to make that his country, but maybe my perch is fried

[switch_hitter]

Hopefully, by the time it comes around to Beltre's turn on the ballot, and he maybe does follow his current rate (.270, 25, etc.), and he does play 'til 40 or whatever, the voters will realize that his (impressive) counting stats would be more of a result of him getting such an incredibly early start, and not necessarily quality production. *That is if he keeps up the middling track record that is being projected*. If he has a few more 2004-esque seasons and such, and/or his teams win championships, well then maybe it could be reconsidered. But as of right now, he's got a no from me.

[DoubleX]

Be my guest. I'll take any member of the 300 win club (all 22 of them) as well as Bob Feller, Jim Palmer, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson, Al Spalding, Pedro Martinez, Whitey Ford, and perhaps a few others because not only were their prime nearly as good as Koufax they were still productive later on in their careers.

You actually made me laugh out loud. Early Wynn over Sandy Koufax? Don Sutton over Sandy Koufax? Phil Niekro over Sandy Koufax? Fergie Jenkins over Sandy Koufax? Mickey Welch over Sandy Koufax? Pud Galvin over Sandy Koufax? None of these pitchers could sniff Koufax at peak, and only a very small handfull could stake a claim to Koufax based on peak performance. The fact that you would say all 22 of the 300 game winners had primes nearly as good as Koufax tells me that you don't really appreciate just how amazing Koufax's peak was. Koufax also didn't retire because he couldn't hack it anymore, he retired at the age of 30, after arguably his best season and one of the best of all-time, due to severe arm-troubles. Give him some help of modern surgery, and he could have dominated for another 5+ years.

Anyway, enough about Koufax. This thread is supposed to be why Beltre will likely never sniff the Hall. :) Though I do agree with others, that given Beltre's still young age, if he were to suddenly blossom (which is still possible given his age) and have a 10 year period of All-Star level play, he could definitely make his Hall candidacy a realistic conversation.

[digglahhh]

And how many times did Jason Thompson hit 30+ homers and drive in 100+ RBI's? So far Richie Sexson has done each 5 times.

THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!

If I made my annual current annual salary in Sub-Saharan Africa, I'd be living like Jay-Z, but I don't live there- I live in NYC where people spend an Indonesian textile workers weekly paycheck on a Starbucks mocha latte.

If Richie Sexson played in the 70's he would probably have none of either. That's what you don't seem to get.

[Sockeye]

Maybe Beltre should only sign one year contracts. :laugh

He may be the next Hank Aaron is he did

[Sockeye]

Hopefully, by the time it comes around to Beltre's turn on the ballot, and he maybe does follow his current rate (.270, 25, etc.), and he does play 'til 40 or whatever, the voters will realize that his (impressive) counting stats would be more of a result of him getting such an incredibly early start, and not necessarily quality production. *That is if he keeps up the middling track record that is being projected*. If he has a few more 2004-esque seasons and such, and/or his teams win championships, well then maybe it could be reconsidered. But as of right now, he's got a no from me.

Something similar to that of Al Kaline. Beltre is slightly less productive at this point in time but his counting stats may very well end up very similar to that of Kaline who began his career at age 18 and played until age 39

[Chisox]

Be my guest. I'll take any member of the 300 win club (all 22 of them) as well as Bob Feller, Jim Palmer, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson, Al Spalding, Pedro Martinez, Whitey Ford, and perhaps a few others because not only were their prime nearly as good as Koufax they were still productive later on in their careers.
This has to be one of, if not the single most amazing thing I've ever seen.
Al Spalding had FIVE seasons in the National Association and TWO in the National League. Yes, he certainly pitched longer than Koufax.:rolleyes:
Not to mention all of the things in his favor like throwing underhand from 45' in an unorganized league in the beginning of a sport.

[Chisox]

Something similar to that of Al Kaline. Beltre is slightly less productive at this point in time but his counting stats may very well end up very similar to that of Kaline who began his career at age 18 and played until age 39
MAYBE if he finds some god to give him the ability to Kaline's level for the next dozen years he MIGHT be able to be stay on the ballot.

[Sockeye]

THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!

If I made my annual current annual salary in Sub-Saharan Africa, I'd be living like Jay-Z, but I don't live there- I live in NYC where people spend an Indonesian textile workers weekly paycheck on a Starbucks mocha latte.

If Richie Sexson played in the 70's he would probably have none of either. That's what you don't seem to get.

That is all speculation with not an ouch of facts to back it up

[RuthMayBond]

That is all speculation with not an ouch of facts to back it upLet's try this again. Are statistical levels for the years 1894, 1930, or 2001 comparable with stats from 1908 or 1968?

[RuthMayBond]

Something similar to that of Al Kaline. Beltre is slightly less productive at this point in time but his counting stats may very well end up very similar to that of Kaline who began his career at age 18 and played until age 39Someone please do a gray ink comparison of both, up through the same age as Beltre now

[RuthMayBond]

And how many times did Jason Thompson hit 30+ homers and drive in 100+ RBI's? So far Richie Sexson has done each 5 times.If you're talking both at the same time he's BETTER than MANTLE :clapping

[wamby]

1
2.) Did you ever think about the fact that the reason he didn't play long enough to suit you was because he wasn't allowed to play in the majors until age 28 due to RACISM! How dense can you be? He was a thousand time better than Beltre, he dealt with more pressure than most can imagine, and he handled it with grace, on top of putting up great numbers while playing, and did more in his career than Beltre ever will, numbers aside.

.

Robinson also missed time becuase of the war.

[iPod]

No, again you're reading more into it than what I'm saying. Obviously I'd rather have player B for a shorter period of time because what's ultimately the most important any given year is production. However if looking at it from a who had the best career standpoint which would you rather have. A guy who has a few very productive seasons then suffers a career ending injury or a guy who is a consistant sold performer over a long career? I'm going to remember a player who played 20 seasons a lot more than I'll remember a player who played 10 seasons. And remember I said these players are even. If player "B" would have played 11 seasons or Player "A" only played 19 seasons then Player "B" would get the nod. And keep in mind the numbers posted there were "average" seasons. Over the course of a 20 year career some seasons are going to be better than others. So during player "A" prime he was a lot more than a bench player. He was a very solid performer maybe even an allstar caliber player once or twice his his career and one of the best players on his team for a 8-12 year stretch. Player "B" was maybe a 8 time allstar 2 time mvp that was out of baseball by age 31.

I clearly understood you because you just repeated exactly the same thing. The only thing they have in common in the entire world is identical counting stats. If they have identical numbers but had different career lengths, they clearly can't have the same value. You say A was one of the best on his team for an 8-12 year stretch. With career averages as pitiful as the ones you gave, I'm inclined to believe that's a very favorable prediction, but I'll even concede it. But, player B was one of the best players in baseball for a 10 year stretch. Essentially, you're saying you'd take an "8 time allstar 2 time MVP", and willingly shrink him down to only a pretty good player, if only you could squeeze 6 or 7 more lousy years out of him. If that were forced on you, for example, you wouldn't be mad, because his total value would be the same. That makes no sense. The opportunity cost for lousy years in the majors is pretty low.

[DodgerBlue81]

I think Beltre has about as much chance of making the Hall as Rico Brogna.

:laugh

And I certainly have a better chance of winning the lottery than Beltre has of making the Hall of Fame. :D

[ElHalo]

Be my guest. I'll take any member of the 300 win club (all 22 of them) as well as Bob Feller, Jim Palmer, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson, Al Spalding, Pedro Martinez, Whitey Ford, and perhaps a few others because not only were their prime nearly as good as Koufax they were still productive later on in their careers.

So you're telling me -- just so we're clear -- that you'd rather have Early Wynn than Sandy Koufax?

You might be the only person on the planet who shares that opinion.

[RedSoxVT92]

Someone please do a gray ink comparison of both, up through the same age as Beltre now

........Kaline.........................Beltre..... .........(through age 26)
Grey Ink...Black Ink........Grey Ink....Black Ink
...198..........12..................20...........4 .........

Kaline also had 7 All star apperances up to 26 while Beltre has none. Kaline had 4 gold gloves while Beltre has none. Beltres only award to this point is a sliver slugger. Kaline is light years ahead of Beltre in talent, no comparison.

[ElHalo]

Enough. This is the stupidest conversation ever.

Listen up: First, no it's not speculation. Different eras have different conditions, some more tenable to offense, and some to defense. Hitting 30 homers in 1998 is just not the same as hitting 30 homers in 1968. There's very definite, concrete reasons as to why this is so.

Second, the player with the longer career in your example made FAR, FAR more outs in his career. Outs are a negative thing. If one guy hits 40 homers with 300 outs, and one guy hits 40 homers with 600 outs, the first guy is FAR, FAR more valuable. This isn't hard.

[Sockeye]

Let's try this again. Are statistical levels for the years 1894, 1930, or 2001 comparable with stats from 1908 or 1968?

You didn't compare it to 1908 or 1968 you said 70's. There were a number of huge home runs seasons in the 1970's including George Foster's 52 in 1977. Richie Sexson would put up big home run numbers no matter what year he played in as long as it wasn't in the deadball era.

[Sockeye]

So you're telling me -- just so we're clear -- that you'd rather have Early Wynn than Sandy Koufax?

You might be the only person on the planet who shares that opinion.

That is an entirely different debate but one I would be glad to enter into on a different thread. Would prefer to keep this one about Adrian Beltre and his HOF chances

[Sockeye]

I clearly understood you because you just repeated exactly the same thing. The only thing they have in common in the entire world is identical counting stats. If they have identical numbers but had different career lengths, they clearly can't have the same value. You say A was one of the best on his team for an 8-12 year stretch. With career averages as pitiful as the ones you gave, I'm inclined to believe that's a very favorable prediction, but I'll even concede it. But, player B was one of the best players in baseball for a 10 year stretch. Essentially, you're saying you'd take an "8 time allstar 2 time MVP", and willingly shrink him down to only a pretty good player, if only you could squeeze 6 or 7 more lousy years out of him. If that were forced on you, for example, you wouldn't be mad, because his total value would be the same. That makes no sense. The opportunity cost for lousy years in the majors is pretty low.

Okay so lets try a slightly different set of numbers and tell me which you'd rather have

Player "A" averages...75 Runs, 150 Hits, 25 Doubles, 2 Triple, 20 Home Runs, 75 RBI's, and 15 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 30 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 5 seasons.

Well player "B" was clearly the more productive player. So what if he only played 5 seasons. I assume you want him in the HOF. So what is Player "A" was a very good player for a very long time he doesn't deserve to make the hall of fame since he loved the game of baseball, stayed healthy, and stuck around for 20 seasons. That is exactly what youi are saying right? Since longevity means nothing and only hurts a players argument for the HOF since everyone knows it's harder to average the same numbers while playing 20 years than it is to average them over a 5 year time span.

[DoubleX]

You didn't compare it to 1908 or 1968 you said 70's. There were a number of huge home runs seasons in the 1970's including George Foster's 52 in 1977. Richie Sexson would put up big home run numbers no matter what year he played in as long as it wasn't in the deadball era.

Gah? Foster's 52 in '77 was the only 50+ homer season between Willie Mays' 52 in 1965 and Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990. Doesn't that tell you something about the era when only one player in 25 years hit more than 50 homeruns? Doesn't that suggest that such a feat is historically hard to achieve and make you wonder why like half a dozen players in the late 90s were doing every year? Here are some reasons that explain the huge rise in homeruns in the 90s:

1) Newer and smaller ballparks.
2) Expansion thinning out pitching staffs.
3) Modern emphasis on weight training (this is a recent phenomenon in the game, only really got going in the 80s).
4) Juiced Balls.
5) Steroids.

Now if MLB raised the mounds again, like it did in the 60s, all hitter's numbers would drop across the board, and might drop pretty dramatically.

[Sockeye]

........Kaline.........................Beltre..... .........(through age 26)
Grey Ink...Black Ink........Grey Ink....Black Ink
...198..........12..................20...........4 .........

Kaline also had 7 All star apperances up to 26 while Beltre has none. Kaline had 4 gold gloves while Beltre has none. Beltres only award to this point is a sliver slugger. Kaline is light years ahead of Beltre in talent, no comparison.

Quoting Baseball reference

Gray-Ink Test

"Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8."

Mmmmm try again

[jalbright]

So you're telling me -- just so we're clear -- that you'd rather have Early Wynn than Sandy Koufax?

You might be the only person on the planet who shares that opinion.

Well, maybe Early's family, though they probably would think twice if they were major league GMs ;)

[DoubleX]

You didn't compare it to 1908 or 1968 you said 70's. There were a number of huge home runs seasons in the 1970's including George Foster's 52 in 1977. Richie Sexson would put up big home run numbers no matter what year he played in as long as it wasn't in the deadball era.

To follow-up on my last post, here's a look at the number of 50 homerun seasons by decade (starting with the 1920s). Then try to explain to me why there was such a jump in the last 15 years? It's not because players were suddenly so much better. It's a combination of several factors that make the game much more conducive to hitting today than at any time since the late 1920s.

1920s
Babe Ruth (1927) - 60
Babe Ruth (1921) - 59
Babe Ruth (1920) - 54
Babe Ruth (1928) - 54

1920s Total 50 HR Seasons: 4
No. of Players from 1920s that Hit 50+: 1

1930s
Jimmie Foxx (1932) - 58
Hank Greenberg (1938) - 58
Hack Wilson (1930) - 56
Jimmie Foxx (1938) - 50

1930s Total 50 HR Seasons: 4
No. of Players from 1930s that Hit 50+: 3

1940s
Ralph Kiner (1949) - 54
Ralph Kiner (1947) - 51
Johnny Mize (1947) - 51

1940s Total 50 HR Seasons: 3
No. of Players from 1940s that Hit 50+: 2

1950s
Mickey Mantle (1956) - 52
Willie Mays (1955) - 51

1950s Total 50 HR Seasons: 2
No. of Players from 1950s that Hit 50+: 2

1960s
Roger Maris (1961) - 61
Mickey Mantle (1961) - 54
Willie Mays (1965) - 52

1960s Total 50 HR Seasons: 3
No. of Players from 1960s that Hit 50+: 3

1970s
George Foster (1977) - 52

1970s Total 50 HR Seasons: 1
No. of Players from 1970s that Hit 50+: 1

1980s

1980s Total 50 HR Seasons: 0
No. of Players from 1980s that Hit 50+: 0

1990s
Mark McGwire (1998) - 70
Sammy Sosa (1998) - 66
Mark McGwire (1999) - 65
Sammy Sosa (1999) - 63
Mark McGwire (1997) - 58
Ken Griffey Jr (1998) - 56
Ken Griffey Jr (1997) - 56
Mark McGwire (1996) - 52
Cecil Fielder (1990) - 51
Brady Anderson (1996) - 50
Albert Belle (1995) - 50
Greg Vaughn (1998) - 50

1990s Total 50 HR Seasons: 12
No. of Players from 1990s that Hit 50+: 7

2000s
Barry Bonds (2001) - 73
Sammy Sosa (2001) - 64
Luis Gonzalez (2001) - 57
Alex Rodriguez (2002) - 57
Alex Rodriguez (2001) - 52
Jim Thome (2002) - 52
Andruw Jones (2005) - 51
Sammy Sosa (2000) - 50

2000s Total 50 HR Seasons: 8
No. of Players from 2000s that Hit 50+: 6

So in 85 years, why is it that 20 of the 37 50+ HR seasons have come in the last 15 years? Doesn't that seem kind of odd?

[Sockeye]

Gah? Foster's 52 in '77 was the only 50+ homer season between Willie Mays' 52 in 1965 and Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990. Doesn't that tell you something about the era when only one player in 25 years hit more than 50 homeruns? Doesn't that suggest that such a feat is historically hard to achieve and make you wonder why like half a dozen players in the late 90s were doing every year? Here are some reasons that explain the huge rise in homeruns in the 90s:

1) Newer and smaller ballparks.
2) Expansion thinning out pitching staffs.
3) Modern emphasis on weight training (this is a recent phenomenon in the game, only really got going in the 80s).
4) Juiced Balls.
5) Steroids.

Now if MLB raised the mounds again, like it did in the 60s, all hitter's numbers would drop across the board, and might drop pretty dramatically.


There were still a number of 40+ homer seasons during the 70's. It wasn't like it was the deadball era. A 39 year old Hank Aaron hit 40 home runs in just 392 at-bats in 1973.

1) Has more effect on the little guys than true power hitters that can hit the ball a mile.
2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game.
3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it??
4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory.
5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.

[Sockeye]

To follow-up on my last post, here's a look at the number of 50 homerun seasons by decade (starting with the 1920s). Then try to explain to me why there was such a jump in the last 15 years? It's not because players were suddenly so much better. It's a combination of several factors that make the game much more conducive to hitting today than at any time since the late 1920s.

1920s
Babe Ruth (1927) - 60
Babe Ruth (1921) - 59
Babe Ruth (1920) - 54
Babe Ruth (1928) - 54

1920s Total 50 HR Seasons: 4
No. of Players from 1920s that Hit 50+: 1

1930s
Jimmie Foxx (1932) - 58
Hank Greenberg (1938) - 58
Hack Wilson (1930) - 56
Jimmie Foxx (1938) - 50

1930s Total 50 HR Seasons: 4
No. of Players from 1930s that Hit 50+: 3

1940s
Ralph Kiner (1949) - 54
Ralph Kiner (1947) - 51
Johnny Mize (1947) - 51

1940s Total 50 HR Seasons: 3
No. of Players from 1940s that Hit 50+: 2

1950s
Mickey Mantle (1956) - 52
Willie Mays (1955) - 51

1950s Total 50 HR Seasons: 2
No. of Players from 1950s that Hit 50+: 2

1960s
Roger Maris (1961) - 61
Mickey Mantle (1961) - 54
Willie Mays (1965) - 52

1960s Total 50 HR Seasons: 3
No. of Players from 1960s that Hit 50+: 3

1970s
George Foster (1977) - 52

1970s Total 50 HR Seasons: 1
No. of Players from 1970s that Hit 50+: 1

1980s

1980s Total 50 HR Seasons: 0
No. of Players from 1980s that Hit 50+: 0

1990s
Mark McGwire (1998) - 70
Sammy Sosa (1998) - 66
Mark McGwire (1999) - 65
Sammy Sosa (1999) - 63
Mark McGwire (1997) - 58
Ken Griffey Jr (1998) - 56
Ken Griffey Jr (1997) - 56
Mark McGwire (1996) - 52
Cecil Fielder (1990) - 51
Brady Anderson (1996) - 50
Albert Belle (1995) - 50
Greg Vaughn (1998) - 50

1990s Total 50 HR Seasons: 12
No. of Players from 1990s that Hit 50+: 7

2000s
Barry Bonds (2001) - 73
Sammy Sosa (2001) - 64
Luis Gonzalez (2001) - 57
Alex Rodriguez (2002) - 57
Alex Rodriguez (2001) - 52
Jim Thome (2002) - 52
Andruw Jones (2005) - 51
Sammy Sosa (2000) - 50

2000s Total 50 HR Seasons: 8
No. of Players from 2000s that Hit 50+: 6

So in 85 years, why is it that 20 of the 37 50+ HR seasons have come in the last 15 years? Doesn't that seem kind of odd?

There is no question that more home runs have been over the past 10 years than at any point in baseball history. That doesn't mean that a player like Sexson, Rodriguez, Thome, Bonds, Jones, McGwire, or Griffey Jr wouldn't be a great home run hitter in another era.

[DoubleX]

There were still a number of 40+ homer seasons during the 70's. It wasn't like it was the deadball era. A 39 year old Hank Aaron hit 40 home runs in just 392 at-bats in 1973.

1) Has more effect on the little guys than true power hitters that can hit the ball a mile.
2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game.
3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it??
4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory.
5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.

You do realize that back in the 70s, 10 out of 20 HR titles were won by a player hitting less than 40 homeruns? Yes 40 homeruns was done in the 70s, but not by a dozen players a year like in the late 90s. There were three years in the 70s when the AL HR title was won with only 32 homeruns, and another with just 33.

1) Are you kidding that park effects don't effect power hitters? Joe DiMaggio, for example, was killed by Yankee Stadium. Willie Stargell for another example, was killed by Forbes Field. Bigger stadiums have a huge effect on power hitters because instead of long fly balls getting out of there for homeruns, they would be caught or would stay in the park for doubles. I don't think you realize just how much smaller parks are today than in past generations.

2) Speciliazation is overrated, IMO. It's basically created roles for a bunch of AAA quality players because managers nowadays have this mindset that they have to over-coddle their pitchers and micro-manage their pitching staffs instead of just letting their best guy go out there and get the job done for 7, 8, or 9 innings. So what you get are managers taking out their quality starters and putting in many mediocre, AAA quality relievers, because they believe specialization is the way to go. That's not to say there aren't quality relievers, as there are, but almost every team has at least a few guys that makes a handful of appearances each week that really aren't much better than AAA quality.

3) He shouldn't be penalized by working out, but there is a totally different approach to training today than there was in the past. There is a huge emphasis on muscle building. And it's not just about the mindset, players today have modern technology and science helping them build their bodies. Players in the past didn't have these advantages. There is also much better medicine available today. Tommy John surgery for example has saved so many careers. There are so many pitchers playing today that would have been out of baseball years ago if not for Tommy John surgery. If modern medicine was avaiable to someone like Bob Feller or Sandy Koufax, they could have dominated for even longer.

4) The balls are juiced today. They are more tightly wound causing them to fly farther.

5) You think only a dozen players used steroids? Where have you been?! Listen to guys from inside the game, guys like Ken Caminiti, Curt Schilling, David Wells, Kevin Towers, Wally Joyner, and others (Joyner in particular), steroids was extremely prevalent in the game in the last 15 years. Just because more players haven't been caught, doesn't mean it wasn't prevalent (and more players weren't caught because we didn't have serious testing until last year).

6) I should have added this earlier. There is more of a mentality now to try to hit homeruns than before, but at the expense of making more outs. Too many players nowadays would rather swing for the fences and put themselves in a great position to strike or fly out, then to put themselves in a position to get a base hit. Sure, they hit a couple more homeruns over the course of a season, but in doing so, they also make a ton more outs than they would have if they just went up there looking to get a hit instead of a homerun everytime. In essence a player is sacrificing consistent production for one big hit every few days, and that causes and overall drop in value. I bet Ted Williams could have hit 60 homeruns in a year if he wanted to, but his average would have dropped dramatically and his strikeouts would have gone way up. Playing to hit a HR every time, just results in more outs overall.

[RuthMayBond]

Quoting Baseball reference

Gray-Ink Test

"Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8."
While that much is true
1) I wouldn't think it would be so much a problem if Beltre is as great as you say he is, and
2) Sockeye, we're not talking close, we're talking 198-20, a factor of almost TEN TIMES :eek:

[ElHalo]

There were still a number of 40+ homer seasons during the 70's. It wasn't like it was the deadball era. A 39 year old Hank Aaron hit 40 home runs in just 392 at-bats in 1973.

1) Has more effect on the little guys than true power hitters that can hit the ball a mile.
2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game.
3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it??
4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory.
5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.

First: no, smaller parks don't just affect "the little guys." Babe Ruth hit a whole lot of 400+ foot outs to left center.

Second: Not gonna argue that one.

Third: No, shouldn't be penalized for it, but you shouldn't penalize earlier era guys for not doing it. Just like you can't penalize guys from 1950 for not getting Tommy John surgery.

Four: No, not really.

Five: Are you out of your mind? Dozen or so players used steroids? The conservative estimates I've seen on steroid use would say that 10% or so of players used steroids, which would mean that about 75 major leaguers used steroids. Some estimates put it as high as 60%.

[RuthMayBond]

There were still a number of 40+ homer seasons during the 70's. It wasn't like it was the deadball era. A 39 year old Hank Aaron hit 40 home runs in just 392 at-bats in 1973.

1) Has more effect on the little guys than true power hitters that can hit the ball a mile.
2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game.
3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it??
4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory.
5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.And you're forgetting smaller strike zones, more sophisticated bats (thinner, harder), less tolerance for chin music ...

[Edgartohof]

Harmon Killebrew played 22 seasons and averaged 58 runs, 94 hits, 13 doubles, 1 triple, 26 home runs, 72 RBI's, .256 AVG. Can anybody put up those numbers for one season? Absolutely! But what makes Harmon Killebrew a HOFer is the fact that he averaged that over the course of 22 seasons. Do you see what I'm saying now? Big difference between doing it for one season and doing it for 20+ seasons.


WHAT!!!!????!!!???

Harmon Killebrew did not average just 26 HR's over 22 seasons, he in fact has a 162 game average of 38!!! HR's, not 26!

That's a HUGE difference. What you did, was take his career totals and divided by 22, which would be fine if he played full time for 22 years, but he did not, since in his first 5 seasons, he only played 113 games and only hit 11 HR's.

His 162 game average over his career is actually:

85 Runs, 139 Hits, 19 doubles, 2 triples, 38 HR's!!!, 105 RBI, and 104 walks

So enough with this 94 hits, 26 HR's junk.

So not only did Killebrew hit more HR's, both per season, and in his career than Beltre has and will (even assuming he plays till 40), he also had a MUCH better OBP, and OPS, and led in HR's, not just once, but SIX times!!!


And you say that Beltre is a good power hitter, well, maybe in the '80's or so, but not now. He has only hit more than 23 HR's ONCE in his career. Can you tell me the last time that someone has hit been in the top 10 in HR's with 23 HR's? It's been a while, hasn't it? So he isn't even good enough to be in the top 10 or even 20 in HR's, year in year out, so how is he so good? I'd say he had good power if he played in the '10's, but if you want to be considered a power hitter in the 2000's, you need 35+ HR's. I'd personally doubt he'll ever hit more than 35 HR's in a single season past this point, let alone AVERAGE that amount over any length of time. In fact, if he played until 40, and he wanted to AVERAGE 30 HR's/season, he'd have to hit around 35 HR's a year for the next 14 years - and THAT ain't happening.

[Sockeye]

While that much is true
1) I wouldn't think it would be so much a problem if Beltre is as great as you say he is, and
2) Sockeye, we're not talking close, we're talking 198-20, a factor of almost TEN TIMES :eek:

Kaline also played nearly 3 times as many seasons as Beltre so far (22-8) and 102 of his 198 came in his first 9 seasons where he played with half as many teams. Only 7 of his grey ink total came in his last 7 seasons. So when you factor that down the numbers are quite comparible.

[Sockeye]

Five: Are you out of your mind? Dozen or so players used steroids? The conservative estimates I've seen on steroid use would say that 10% or so of players used steroids, which would mean that about 75 major leaguers used steroids. Some estimates put it as high as 60%.


So if that amount of players are using steroids in this era that alone explains and backs up my arguments as to the difference in the OPS+ stat from this era compared to past eras making it totally useless. Thanks for proving that point for me.

[Sockeye]

WHAT!!!!????!!!???

Harmon Killebrew did not average just 26 HR's over 22 seasons, he in fact has a 162 game average of 38!!! HR's, not 26!

That's a HUGE difference. What you did, was take his career totals and divided by 22, which would be fine if he played full time for 22 years, but he did not, since in his first 5 seasons, he only played 113 games and only hit 11 HR's.

His 162 game average over his career is actually:

85 Runs, 139 Hits, 19 doubles, 2 triples, 38 HR's!!!, 105 RBI, and 104 walks

So enough with this 94 hits, 26 HR's junk.

So not only did Killebrew hit more HR's, both per season, and in his career than Beltre has and will (even assuming he plays till 40), he also had a MUCH better OBP, and OPS, and led in HR's, not just once, but SIX times!!!


And you say that Beltre is a good power hitter, well, maybe in the '80's or so, but not now. He has only hit more than 23 HR's ONCE in his career. Can you tell me the last time that someone has hit been in the top 10 in HR's with 23 HR's? It's been a while, hasn't it? So he isn't even good enough to be in the top 10 or even 20 in HR's, year in year out, so how is he so good? I'd say he had good power if he played in the '10's, but if you want to be considered a power hitter in the 2000's, you need 35+ HR's. I'd personally doubt he'll ever hit more than 35 HR's in a single season past this point, let alone AVERAGE that amount over any length of time. In fact, if he played until 40, and he wanted to AVERAGE 30 HR's/season, he'd have to hit around 35 HR's a year for the next 14 years - and THAT ain't happening.


Hmmm okay then lets compare Adrian Beltre's 162 game averages to that of Al Kaline

Kaline.... 578 at-bats...93 runs...172 hits...28 doubles...4 triples...23 home runs... 90 RBI's...8 steals.... .297 AVG... .376 OBP.... .480 SLG

Beltre...587 at-bats....76 runs...159 hits...31 doubles.... 3 triples...24 home runs... 86 RBI's...9 steals.... .271 AVG... .327 OBP.... .455 SLG

Edge to Kaline but the numbers are strikingly similar

[DoubleX]

Hmmm okay then lets compare Adrian Beltre's 162 game averages to that of Al Kaline

Kaline.... 578 at-bats...93 runs...172 hits...28 doubles...4 triples...23 home runs... 90 RBI's...8 steals.... .297 AVG... .376 OBP.... .480 SLG

Beltre...587 at-bats....76 runs...159 hits...31 doubles.... 3 triples...24 home runs... 86 RBI's...9 steals.... .271 AVG... .327 OBP.... .455 SLG

Edge to Kaline but the numbers are strikingly similar

That's hardly a fair comparison. Major era considerations aside that you refuse to acknowledge (that work against Kaline and in favor of Beltre) this comparison is a complete misrepresentation. You are comparing Beltre's first 8 seasons to Kaline's entire 22 year career in which he batted 6000 more times than Beltre has thus far! First, it's difficult to keep up rate stats over a longer period of time. Second, Kaline's are further diluted because they include his decline period, whereas Beltre hasn't had a decline period. If you want this to be fair, then you can only compare the first 8 years of each player's career.

Also, in 8 years, Beltre has an OPS+ of 106. In 22 years, including a decline period, Kaline has an OPS+ of 134. It's not even remotely close.

Just out of curiosity, could you list who you think are the say 50 greatest players ever (don't worry about exact order)?

[iPod]

Okay so lets try a slightly different set of numbers and tell me which you'd rather have

Player "A" averages...75 Runs, 150 Hits, 25 Doubles, 2 Triple, 20 Home Runs, 75 RBI's, and 15 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 30 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 5 seasons.

Well player "B" was clearly the more productive player. So what if he only played 5 seasons. I assume you want him in the HOF. So what is Player "A" was a very good player for a very long time he doesn't deserve to make the hall of fame since he loved the game of baseball, stayed healthy, and stuck around for 20 seasons. That is exactly what youi are saying right? Since longevity means nothing and only hurts a players argument for the HOF since everyone knows it's harder to average the same numbers while playing 20 years than it is to average them over a 5 year time span.

I'm not saying longetivity is bad at all; I'd almost certainly take player A now. Career totals are absolutely important. But they're not everything. Most days I'd even say they're not the MOST important thing, but, of course they are very important. I doubt anyone here will tell you anyone who was only around 5 years deserves to be in the Hall, unless they were just so outstandingly amazingly "best player in the game by a mile" good that you have to override the normal rules of what makes a HoF career. Your original example was totally wrong and made no sense at all, for the reasons I outlined earlier. I didn't therefore imply that longetivity had no value.

[iPod]

Hmmm okay then lets compare Adrian Beltre's 162 game averages to that of Al Kaline

Kaline.... 578 at-bats...93 runs...172 hits...28 doubles...4 triples...23 home runs... 90 RBI's...8 steals.... .297 AVG... .376 OBP.... .480 SLG

Beltre...587 at-bats....76 runs...159 hits...31 doubles.... 3 triples...24 home runs... 86 RBI's...9 steals.... .271 AVG... .327 OBP.... .455 SLG

Edge to Kaline but the numbers are strikingly similar

.271/.327/.455 and .297/.376/.480 are "strikingly similar"? This also includes Kaline's decline phase, and it doesn't adjust at all for era, which I guess I might as well not even bring up because you just refuse to believe that an era adjustment is necessary. Kaline battled against a larger strike zone, a higher mound, a league that was indifferent about the beanball, but just nevermind all that. It's all just a huge coincidence that home runs are hit about 50% more often today than in the 1960s.

[Sockeye]

I'm not saying longetivity is bad at all; I'd almost certainly take player A now. Career totals are absolutely important. But they're not everything. Most days I'd even say they're not the MOST important thing, but, of course they are very important. I doubt anyone here will tell you anyone who was only around 5 years deserves to be in the Hall, unless they were just so outstandingly amazingly "best player in the game by a mile" good that you have to override the normal rules of what makes a HoF career. Your original example was totally wrong and made no sense at all, for the reasons I outlined earlier. I didn't therefore imply that longetivity had no value.

Okay so 5 years isn't long enough but 10 years is?. Where do you draw the line at? How about if the numbers were put up over an 8 yr career? Then is the player deserving?

[leecemark]

--Well 10 years is actually the minimum requirement to even be considered for the Hall of Fame, so no 8 years is not enough. I'll give you credit for persistence Sockeye. Too bad its in such a misguided cause.

[Sockeye]

--Well 10 years is actually the minimum requirement to even be considered for the Hall of Fame, so no 8 years is not enough. I'll give you credit for persistence Sockeye. Too bad its in such a misguided cause.

Okay I think I'm getting it

Player "A" averages...75 Runs, 150 Hits, 20 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 75 RBI's, and 15 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 25 Doubles, 2 Triples, 25 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 10 seasons.

Player "C" averages...110 Runs, 210 Hits, 30 Doubles, 3 Triples, 30 Home Runs, 110 RBI's, and 25 Stolen Bases while playing for 9 seasons.

The only one that is deserving of the HOF is Player "B". That's what you are saying right?

[leecemark]

--I'm not saying that any of them deserve the Hall of Fame. With player A, maybe he does if he had some great seasons mixed in there. Probably he does whether I think he deserves it or not with 3,000 hits and 400 HR. Player B it depends on why his career was so short, but I would be inclined to support him. Player C is only eligible if he missed 10 years due to some tragedy and an exception to the rules is made for him. What I am saying is that projecting Beltre's current pace and assuming he'll stil be on it or even in the league for 20 years is a reach.

[Sockeye]

--I'm not saying that any of them deserve the Hall of Fame. With player A, maybe he does if he had some great seasons mixed in there. Probably he does whether I think he deserves it or not with 3,000 hits and 400 HR. Player B it depends on why his career was so short, but I would be inclined to support him. Player C is only eligible if he missed 10 years due to some tragedy and an exception to the rules is made for him. What I am saying is that projecting Beltre's current pace and assuming he'll stil be on it or even in the league for 20 years is a reach.

When projecting a players stats a lot depends on the players age as to whether or not his current career averages can be used as a projection tool. For instance if you take a player at the age of 35 it's harder to assume that his last 5 years are going to be as productive as his first 14-15.

Why is this? Because history shows us that the older players get the less productive the players are.

History also shows us that players are usually not as productive early in their career up until about the age of 25.

So a players prime (and it varies from player to play, but generally speaking) is 25-35 with a peak prime coming from 28-32.

So for a player such as Beltre who started as such a young age where most of his career to date has occured before the age of 25 who just turned 27 and will spend the majority of his remaining career in his prime years it would be statistically incorrect not to assume somewhat of an increase in production over his next 8 seasons followed by a decrease for the last part of his career. Overall when you take the increase in his prime minus the decrease in his late years you get basically the same production on average as what he has showed to date. \

Do you see what I'm saying now? The projection formula has to be adjusted to allow for the players age at the time of the projection.

[leecemark]

--I see what you're saying alright. I agree its possible that Beltre will grow into a Hall of Famer, if unlikely. What I am saying is Beltre has done nothing in his career to date that makes him worth discussing as a Hall of Fame candidate. Kudos on getting on going anyway.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--I see what you're saying alright. I agree its possible that Beltre will grow into a Hall of Famer, if unlikely. What I am saying is Beltre has done nothing in his career to date that makes him worth discussing as a Hall of Fame candidate. Kudos on getting on going anyway.
I agree. I'm amazed that we've spent six pages and over 130 posts discussing a player that except for one year has not shown any ability to produce HoF seasons. I think a lot people run with the fact that Beltre reached the majors as a teenager and he played well as a 20 and 21 year year old. It is true that when players reach the majors as teenagers a lot of them become superstars and HoFers. But some of them simply stagnate. For all this talk about Beltre why does no one mention Aramis Ramirez another third baseman with similar skills. Both players reached the majors in 1998 and Ramirez has posted three All-star type caliber years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Aramis Ramirez: .277/.329/.481
Adrian Beltre: .271/.327/.455

Aramis has had three good years

2001: .300/.350/.536, 34 HR, 112 RBI, 83 R, 40 doubles, 181 H, 125 OPS+
2004: .318/.373/.568, 36 HR, 103 RBI, 99 R, 32 doubles, 174 H, 136 OPS+
2005: .302/.358/.578, 31 HR, 92 RBI, 72 R, 30 doublesm 140 H, 137 OPS+

And his 2003 season, he was slightly above average

2003: .272/.324/.465, 27 HR, 106 RBI, 75 R, 32 doubles, 165 H, 106 OPS+

Ramirez has accomplished much more so far.

[switch_hitter]

To reiterate the common thread for those who may have just begun reading: NO, Adrian Beltre is NOT a Hall of Famer.

[digglahhh]

There were still a number of 40+ homer seasons during the 70's. It wasn't like it was the deadball era. A 39 year old Hank Aaron hit 40 home runs in just 392 at-bats in 1973.

1) Has more effect on the little guys than true power hitters that can hit the ball a mile. SPECULATION
2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game. SPECULATION
3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it?? SO A GUY HAS TO WORK AS A FARMER IN THE OFFSEASON, SHOULD WE PENALIZE HIM FOR IT?
4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory. ARE YOU GEORGE BUSH? MAYBE ADRIAN BELTRE IS A PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.SPECULATION, AND INCREDIBLY SPECIOUS AT THAT

I can't help but to think that Sockeye will soon reveal his true identity to be Ashton Kutcher...

If Adrian Beltre makes the HOF, I will no longer watch baseball and turn my attention to women's college lacrosse...

[digglahhh]

Do you realize how meaningless 20 HRs is in a season at this point?

Last year, Beltre hit 19 HR, that was tied for 79th in the league! Not to mention, while hitting .255.

Its not worth much but, the 79th leading scorer in the NBA this season is averaging 13.5 ppg.

[Sockeye]

I agree. I'm amazed that we've spent six pages and over 130 posts discussing a player that except for one year has not shown any ability to produce HoF seasons. I think a lot people run with the fact that Beltre reached the majors as a teenager and he played well as a 20 and 21 year year old. It is true that when players reach the majors as teenagers a lot of them become superstars and HoFers. But some of them simply stagnate. For all this talk about Beltre why does no one mention Aramis Ramirez another third baseman with similar skills. Both players reached the majors in 1998 and Ramirez has posted three All-star type caliber years.

Aramis Ramirez is another player that I happen to think rather high of in terms of his HOF chances. But that is a whole nother debate.

[Sockeye]

I can't help but to think that Sockeye will soon reveal his true identity to be Ashton Kutcher...

If Adrian Beltre makes the HOF, I will no longer watch baseball and turn my attention to women's college lacrosse...

2) Is offset by the specialization. Seldom does a player face a pitcher 4 times in a game. SPECULATION....we see a lot of complete games nowadays don't we?

3) So a guy works out year around therefore he should be penalized for it?? SO A GUY HAS TO WORK AS A FARMER IN THE OFFSEASON, SHOULD WE PENALIZE HIM FOR IT? Shouldn't speculate that he'd had performed like Barry Bonds if he didn't either.

4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory. ARE YOU GEORGE BUSH? MAYBE ADRIAN BELTRE IS A PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN Nah...I'm far more conservative than Bush.

5) Only effects the dozen or so players that used it.SPECULATION, AND INCREDIBLY SPECIOUS AT THAT. Either that's true or it proves my theory on OPS+ meaning very little.

I wonder how popular woman's college lacrosse will be 20 years from now. I hope for your sake it has it's own channel!!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Aramis Ramirez is another player that I happen to think rather high of in terms of his HOF chances. But that is a whole nother debate.
Yes, and Ramirez has accomplished far more so far than Beltre has.

[Dudeman]

I thought thismay have been a April Fools Days joke.....He has zero chance.

[Sockeye]

Do you realize how meaningless 20 HRs is in a season at this point?

Last year, Beltre hit 19 HR, that was tied for 79th in the league! Not to mention, while hitting .255.

Its not worth much but, the 79th leading scorer in the NBA this season is averaging 13.5 ppg.

You seem to be good with stats. Perhaps you can tell me. How many players in the history of baseball have hit 166 through the age of 26? How many of them are in the HOF?

And hitting 20 home runs in a season is no big deal. AVERAGING 20 home runs over a 20 YEAR career. Now that is an incredible accomplishment.

[oscargamblesfro]

Beltre's a pretty good player, but another way of viewing his coming up so young is that maybe he was rushed, and not a case of ' this guy is so good we have to have him here RIGHT now'. I'll agree that his counting stats, his 04 season, and the comparable career players for his age are pretty impressive, but I think that a best case scenario is that he may turn out to be one of these guys who were simply brought up way too soon, and he may very well be spending his prime years in the wrong place for him anyway. I think he'll have a decent to good career if he stays healthy, but his chance at a HOF worthy career is very, very faint.

[csh19792001]

You seem to be good with stats. Perhaps you can tell me. How many players in the history of baseball have hit 166 through the age of 26? How many of them are in the HOF?.

How many guys have played in an environment remotely as conduscive to homeruns at that of 1993-present? Not many. We have 130 years of professional baseball....and homeruns were almost impossible to hit in huge numbers year in, year out prior to 1920......so that thins things even more.

And hitting 20 home runs in a season is no big deal. AVERAGING 20 home runs over a 20 YEAR career. Now that is an incredible accomplishment.

Over 20% of the guys in the top 100 in career homeruns are currently active. 40 guys have hit 400 homeruns in 130 years of professional baseball, and 11 of them have played the vast majority of their career games since the inception of the HR boom beginning in the early 90's. If that doesn't scream overrepresentation, I don't know what does.

20 homers in a season means nothing anymore, and honestly, in today's offensive context, would averaging 20 for 20 years really be that incredible? I don't see how it would. In the 60's, 70's, or 80's (or way back) it might have been, but not anymore. The game is too skewed.

[Chisox]

How many guys have played in an environment remotely as conduscive to homeruns at that of 1993-present? Not many. We have 130 years of professional baseball....and homeruns were almost impossible to hit in huge numbers year in, year out prior to 1920......so that thins things even more.



Over 20% of the guys in the top 100 in career homeruns are currently active. 40 guys have hit 400 homeruns in 130 years of professional baseball, and 11 of them have played the vast majority of their career games since the inception of the HR boom beginning in the early 90's. If that doesn't scream overrepresentation, I don't know what does.

20 homers in a season means nothing anymore, and honestly, in today's offensive context, would averaging 20 for 20 years really be that incredible? I don't see how it would. In the 60's, 70's, or 80's (or way back) it might have been, but not anymore. The game is too skewed.
I don't have the real numbers handy right now, but the AVERAGE player, givin a full season's worth of ABs, would hit 20 a year now given his HR%, which I believe, is around .030. It used to be that was a pretty decent power hitter and .050 fantastic. Times have changed.

[iPod]

Okay so 5 years isn't long enough but 10 years is?. Where do you draw the line at? How about if the numbers were put up over an 8 yr career? Then is the player deserving?

It's not that simple... how big were his big seasons? How consistent was he? What position did he play? What was the condition of the game during his career? How did his home park affect his play? That's the whole point, assessing value isn't just a process of blending season averages with career length. There's a lot more to it than that.

[STLCards2]

Okay I think I'm getting it

Player "A" averages...75 Runs, 150 Hits, 20 Doubles, 2 Triples, 20 Home Runs, 75 RBI's, and 15 Stolen Bases while playing for 20 seasons.

Player "B" averages...100 Runs, 200 Hits, 25 Doubles, 2 Triples, 25 Home Runs, 100 RBI's, and 20 Stolen Bases while playing for 10 seasons.

Player "C" averages...110 Runs, 210 Hits, 30 Doubles, 3 Triples, 30 Home Runs, 110 RBI's, and 25 Stolen Bases while playing for 9 seasons.

The only one that is deserving of the HOF is Player "B". That's what you are saying right?

The only way any of the three make it for me is if they are very good defensively.

[digglahhh]

You seem to be good with stats. Perhaps you can tell me. How many players in the history of baseball have hit 166 through the age of 26? How many of them are in the HOF?

And hitting 20 home runs in a season is no big deal. AVERAGING 20 home runs over a 20 YEAR career. Now that is an incredible accomplishment.

Steve Finley has averaged 20hr/162 over 17 seasons. Somehow, I doubt he's writing his HOF acceptance speech right now. Let me kill two birds with one stone here, once he hits three this year he will also become a member of the "elusive" 300/300 HR/SB club, that also won't mean much.

[DodgerBlue81]

Kaline also played nearly 3 times as many seasons as Beltre so far (22-8) and 102 of his 198 came in his first 9 seasons where he played with half as many teams. Only 7 of his grey ink total came in his last 7 seasons. So when you factor that down the numbers are quite comparible.

:crazy :eek:

Are you seriously trying to say that Beltre is on the same level as Kaline as a player? Beltre isn't even on the same planet.

[DodgerBlue81]

Just out of curiosity, could you list who you think are the say 50 greatest players ever (don't worry about exact order)?

LOL, that would be interesting. I'm afraid Beltre would be on the list! :crazy

[digglahhh]

Probably not, but we might have a Juan Gonzalez sighting.

[DodgerBlue81]

This is so absurd I can't believe there's a 150 replies.

Beltre isn't even one of the top 10 3rd basemen in baseball. He's 11th at best. The following are all clearly better and some others are close

A-Rod
Glaus
Mora
Chavez
Blalock
Wright
Chipper
Rolen
Ensberg
Aramis Ramirez

[Brad Harris]

How many players in the history of baseball have hit 166 through the age of 26?

Twenty-three other players have hit 166 through their age-26 season.

How many of them are in the HOF?

12 are in the Hall of Fame
6 are still active
1 is retired, but not yet eligible
4 have been passed over by the voters

Which of these will Beltre wind up as? My guess is the latter, but who can say?

One interesting aspect of this list that might be telling...

Let's look at these players' ratio of home runs to league average, to put them in some context. Well, I did. Only three of the 24 players have a HR total less than 200% over league average. One is a gold glove third baseman who the voters have passed on over the years. One is a gold glove center fielder who is still active and led the league in home runs last year. The worst? Adrian Beltre. His 166 homers represent only 32% more than league average. The next lowest ratio? Andruw Jones at 76% above league average.

Not promising for our little friend in Seattle.

[Brad Harris]

Sockeye...looking at the poll (40-to-1), I have to say this: I certainly admire your conviction. :clapping

[Sockeye]

Twenty-three other players have hit 166 through their age-26 season.



12 are in the Hall of Fame
6 are still active
1 is retired, but not yet eligible
4 have been passed over by the voters

Which of these will Beltre wind up as? My guess is the latter, but who can say?

One interesting aspect of this list that might be telling...

Let's look at these players' ratio of home runs to league average, to put them in some context. Well, I did. Only three of the 24 players have a HR total less than 200% over league average. One is a gold glove third baseman who the voters have passed on over the years. One is a gold glove center fielder who is still active and led the league in home runs last year. The worst? Adrian Beltre. His 166 homers represent only 32% more than league average. The next lowest ratio? Andruw Jones at 76% above league average.

Not promising for our little friend in Seattle.

Thank you for your research. Very interesting numbers indeed. Will be fun to watch and see how the rest of his career pans out.

[Sockeye]

Sockeye...looking at the poll (40-to-1), I have to say this: I certainly admire your conviction. :clapping

Make that 41-1. I wonder how different the results would be if this would have been posted before the start of the 2005 season. I can't help but think that it's the flavor of the month. I keep hearing that Mora and Ensberg are better than Beltre. I question if that was the public opinion going into the 05 season or if anyone has actually looked at Mora or Ensberg's career numbers expecially as it relates to age. Mora is 7 years older than Beltre and only has 2/3 the career numbers. Ensberg is 4 years older than Beltre and only has 1/3 the career numbers. Sure they might be coming off a better season or might even have a better season this year. But will they go down in history as having a better career than Beltre? Unless Beltre retires at the 06 season their is no chance of it happening.

[jalbright]

Bill James' 2006 Handbook has several things which are relevant to this discussion. First, James has a projection of Beltre's career marks. They are:

AB.10359
H....2779
2B,,,,567
3B.....31
HR...448
R,,,.1306
RBI.1571
BB...818
Avg.268
obp.324
slg..459
ops.783

It also assesses his chance of 500 HR at 20%, 600 HR at 4%; and his chances of 3000 hits at 20%.

Jim Albright

[Sockeye]

Bill James' 2006 Handbook has several things which are relevant to this discussion. First, James has a projection of Beltre's career marks. They are:

AB.10359
H....2779
2B,,,,567
3B.....31
HR...448
R,,,.1306
RBI.1571
BB...818
Avg.268
obp.324
slg..459
ops.783

It also assesses his chance of 500 HR at 20%, 600 HR at 4%; and his chances of 3000 hits at 20%.

Jim Albright

Ahh very interesting. So since no player in history has ever reached 500+ home runs or 3000+ hits and not been elected to the HOF wouldn't that mean that Adrian Beltre has AT LEAST a 20% of making the HOF? Which makes this whole discussion reasonable and not nearly as outlandish as it has been made out to be?

I really do need to get me one of those books but while you have it handy could you do me a favor and look up his career projections for Melvin Mora and Morgan Ensberg?

[DoubleX]

Ahh very interesting. So since no player in history has ever reached 500+ home runs or 3000+ hits and not been elected to the HOF wouldn't that mean that Adrian Beltre has AT LEAST a 20% of making the HOF? Which makes this whole discussion reasonable and not nearly as outlandish as it has been made out to be?

I really do need to get me one of those books but while you have it handy could you do me a favor and look up his career projections for Melvin Mora and Morgan Ensberg?

Palmeiro has 500+ homeruns ad 3000+ hits, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't make the Hall.

I'm sure there have been dozens, if not over 100 players, that at some point in their careers had a 20% chance of reaching 500+ homeruns and 3000+ hits. The fact that only four have done it (and only three without juicy help) is a testament to 1) How difficult it is to do; and 2) How unlikely it is to do.

Plus, it is way to early to make these projections with any reasonableness for Beltre. I'll wait until he hits 30 and see where's at.

[Brad Harris]

I wonder how different the results would be if this would have been posted before the start of the 2005 season. I can't help but think that it's the flavor of the month.

While you're quite right...there would be more sympathy for your position had this question been asked in the months following Beltre's "career year," I would think without additional seasons of impressive production by Beltre, he is the "flavor of the month." You're just a few months too late.

I keep hearing that Mora and Ensberg are better than Beltre. I question if that was the public opinion going into the 05 season or if anyone has actually looked at Mora or Ensberg's career numbers expecially as it relates to age. Mora is 7 years older than Beltre and only has 2/3 the career numbers. Ensberg is 4 years older than Beltre and only has 1/3 the career numbers. Sure they might be coming off a better season or might even have a better season this year. But will they go down in history as having a better career than Beltre? Unless Beltre retires at the 06 season their is no chance of it happening.

Without knowing where you're hearing that from, or in what context it's coming, I would tend to assume that people mean that Mora and Ensberg, at this time, are better than Beltre, which are entirely reasonable assertions.

Frankly, I don't expect any of the three to even be a blip on the Hall-of-Fame radar in, say, 5 years.

[RuthMayBond]

Bill James' 2006 Handbook has several things which are relevant to this discussion. First, James has a projection of Beltre's career marks. They are:

AB.10359
H....2779
2B,,,,567
3B.....31
HR...448
R,,,.1306
RBI.1571
BB...818
Avg.268
obp.324
slg..459
ops.783

It also assesses his chance of 500 HR at 20%, 600 HR at 4%; and his chances of 3000 hits at 20%.

Jim AlbrightBill picked the wrong month to quit amphetamines :laugh

[jalbright]

Ahh very interesting. So since no player in history has ever reached 500+ home runs or 3000+ hits and not been elected to the HOF wouldn't that mean that Adrian Beltre has AT LEAST a 20% of making the HOF? Which makes this whole discussion reasonable and not nearly as outlandish as it has been made out to be?

I really do need to get me one of those books but while you have it handy could you do me a favor and look up his career projections for Melvin Mora and Morgan Ensberg?

It certainly does not mean it's 20% likely. If the two variables were completely independent, the chances of both occurring would be 4% (0.20 * 0.20). They're not completely independent, but I'd hazard a guess that for both to happen, it's no better than a 10% chance, probably lower. OTOH, if both variables were independent, there would be a 64% chance neither event would come to pass. In reality, I think the math would tell us the odds are even higher, say maybe 70%. If you want to play those odds, go ahead, but smart money wouldn't. Remember, a 10% chance of it happening is a 90% chance it won't.

My own take is that it buttresses your point about the importance of his early start, but it buttresses everyone else's points about 1) his talent level, and b) his prospects of lasting that long. I'm not sure how well the formulas have accounted for the higher offensive output lately, which could easily make things look better for Beltre than they should be.

I'm not going to turn this into the request line, but

...............AB....,,H......2B...3B...HR....BB.. ...avg/obp/slg
Mora.......6169...1704..346...15..222..952....276/358/445
Ensberg...5993...1608..292...21..290..817....268/360/469

Jim Albright

[Sockeye]

It certainly does not mean it's 20% likely. If the two variables were completely independent, the chances of both occurring would be 4% (0.20 * 0.20). They're not completely independent, but I'd hazard a guess that for both to happen, it's no better than a 10% chance, probably lower. OTOH, if both variables were independent, there would be a 64% chance neither event would come to pass. In reality, I think the math would tell us the odds are even higher, say maybe 70%. If you want to play those odds, go ahead, but smart money wouldn't. Remember, a 10% chance of it happening is a 90% chance it won't.

My own take is that it buttresses your point about the importance of his early start, but it buttresses everyone else's points about 1) his talent level, and b) his prospects of lasting that long. I'm not sure how well the formulas have accounted for the higher offensive output lately, which could easily make things look better for Beltre than they should be.

I'm not going to turn this into the request line, but

...............AB....,,H......2B...3B...HR....BB.. ...avg/obp/slg
Mora.......6169...1704..346...15..222..952....276/358/445
Ensberg...5993...1608..292...21..290..817....268/360/469

Jim Albright


No player that has reached 3000 hits OR 500 home runs has ever NOT made the HOF. So if Beltre reaches 3000 hits of which James says he has a 20% chance OR reaches 500 home runs of which James says he has a 20% chance either one would virtually guarantee his induction into cooperstown. So if your math is right and there is indeed a 36% chance of one OR the other happening that makes his HOF chances 36%

As for the Mora & Ensberg stats. As I was sure would be the case. No comparison to that of the future HOFer Adrian Beltre.

[DodgerBlue81]

No comparison to that of the future HOFer Adrian Beltre.

:laugh You are funny :crazy


And actually there is a comparison
162 game average
AVG HR RBI OB% SLG
Beltre .271 24 86 .327 .455
Ensberg .279 26 86 .365 .493
Mora .281 19 75 .363 .452

Beltre is younger and has played more seasons, so he'll compile better stats, but that doesn't mean he's a better player than the other two; and none of those 3 players has a prayer of making the Hall of Fame.

[jalbright]

No player that has reached 3000 hits OR 500 home runs has ever NOT made the HOF. So if Beltre reaches 3000 hits of which James says he has a 20% chance OR reaches 500 home runs of which James says he has a 20% chance either one would virtually guarantee his induction into cooperstown. So if your math is right and there is indeed a 36% chance of one OR the other happening that makes his HOF chances 36%

As for the Mora & Ensberg stats. As I was sure would be the case. No comparison to that of the future HOFer Adrian Beltre.

If Palmiero and/or McGriff (or maybe Sosa, McGwire or Sheffield due to reactions to steroids) miss out, I think the idea that 500 HR in current times makes him a lock is flawed at best. I also indicated reasons James may have overestimated the likelihood of certain events--i.e. 20 HR a year in past days with a .270 average would keep everybody but first basemen, LF and DH guys with competition in a job. Under current circumstances, that is not the case. Even if Beltre has a 36% chance of doing one of those things, there's a 64% chance he won't, and I agree with the sentiment it is unlikely he will until proven much more definitively than by a method known as "The Favorite Toy". If he steps it up relative in absolute terms, he might--but I think most of us beleive that 2004 was a fluke which will not be repeated--and the methods used do not discount 2004's results like common sense dictates we should.

Actually, you are misreading my math--64% would only apply if the stats were independent (which they are not, since home runs are hits). My guess was the percentage is actually over 70% that neither will come to pass. In fact, at his current pace, Beltre would have to have over 3000 hits to have 500 homers, as he has hit only one homer per 6.64 hits. He'll have to pick up his homer pace to 1 homer every 5.68 hits until he reached 3000 to make it to 500 HR at 3000 hits.

Also, if Beltre can't make an all-star team, I doubt very much he'll make it no matter his counting stats.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Did a little digging into the "Favorite Toy", and Beltre's 2004 counts for 1/3 of the determination of his established homer and hit levels. The bottom line is, the method sees his established levels as 29.3 HR per year and 166 hits per year. Beltre certainly exceeded these levels in 2004, but if you took his career second bests instead, they'd be 154 hits and 23 homers. Using those numbers to calculate Beltre's odds of reaching 3000 hits, his chances drop to 15%. His drop in his chances of 500 HR is even more dramatic, to 5%. So when a guy has a fluky looking year like Beltre's 2004, be very careful about using that method--and consider using career second bests for your established hit levels if you really want the info.

Another problem with Beltre is he's only had two seasons with 20 or more wins shares, which is the floor for what James describes as "all-star" level. Indeed, Beltre's career win shares per 162 games is 18.77, which would be exceptionally low for a HOF third baseman. In fact, that number would not rank in the top 60 all-time among third basemen.

Jim Albright

[ElHalo]

Nah...I'm far more conservative than Bush.

Mmhmm. Makes sense.

[KingJ]

Adrian Beltre's 2004 season was the extended version of Shane Spencer 1998. It was just a flash in the pan.

[digglahhh]

Mmhmm. Makes sense.

Well he's certainly not interested in "conserving" space in the Hall...:D

[DodgerBlue81]

For those who haven't noticed, the "future Hall of Famer" Adrian Beltre is off to a wonderful start. He's hitting .109 with 0 HRs and 0 RBI. Get the plaque ready in Cooperstown! :laugh

[digglahhh]

Don't you know, all future HOFers go in like the 17th round of fantasy drafts during their "primes."

[dl4060]

2)

4) Just like global warming, nice theory, but no solid proof to support the theory. ARE YOU GEORGE BUSH? MAYBE ADRIAN BELTRE IS A PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN Nah...I'm far more conservative than Bush.



Wow. That is the most amazing thing I have read on this website. It really does explain alot.

[STLCards2]

I can't wait for the Chris Shelton Hall of Fame poll.:crazy

After all, if you project his career totals...

[W_Marone]

I think Beltre has about as much chance of making the Hall as Rico Brogna.

I liked Rico Brogna back in his days as a Phil, one of my favorite players of the time. But yeah, he's no hall of famer.:D Beltre, he had one good year, and I dont think he will have a season like that ever again, is he going to make the HOF? Anything is possibly, although almost completely unlikely, crazier things have happened.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not banking on Adrian Beltre making the HOF someday, but it's not a ridiculous notion. In fact, Beltre may be moving into the stage of his career where he does some things that will rocket him forward toward the HOF significantly.

Beltre has done several things that are very important for his HOF chances. One thing he had done is crank out 25 HRs a year pretty consistently. This is important because of Beltre's youth; he's up to 242 HRs for his career at age 29. This isn't eye-popping, but it's pretty good for a third baseman, and it's a level at which Beltre is capable of staying at for another 4-5 years at least.

Beltre has kept up his power while stabilizing his offense at a higher level than he has played at in the past. Beltre came into the majors at about a .530-ish OWP level, but he dropped to under .450 OWP beginning in 2001, and stayed there, with the exception of his .749 OWP in 2004, which certainly seems to be a fluke. Beltre, however, has taken it up a notch; he's been at .510 OWP over the last 3 years (.523 last year) and appears to be improving.

More importantly, Beltre has solidified his reputation as an excellent DEFENSIVE third baseman. He's won the Gold Glove at 3B the last two years, and is now considered the best defensive 3rd baseman in the AL. His defensive stats aren't overwhelming, and one wonders how he'd have done in 2008 if Scott Rolen didn't have a bad back, but those Gold Gloves are part of his resume, and he may well win more.

Beltre, to be sure, would be one-and-done if his career ended today. He'd have to play to near 40, play 3B all the way, win more Gold Gloves, and get into some ASGs. This is easier said than done, but not impossible. Beltre is a bit unlikely to reach 500 HRs, but he could possibly do it, and he's even money to reach 400 HRs. 400 HRs with 6 GGs and 4 ASGs; is that really out of the question for Beltre? And that's a REASONABLE guess; a MODERATELY optimistic projection could give Beltre 450 HRS, 8 GGs and 6 ASGs. (I don't understand why Beltre has never been on the All-Star team even once, other than the fact that he has always played on teams that, whatever their fortunes, had at least one other "marquee" player that went to the ASG whether he should have or not.) He's a longshot, but his odds are improving, and time is still on his side.

[Pghfan987]

I'm not banking on Adrian Beltre making the HOF someday, but it's not a ridiculous notion. In fact, Beltre may be moving into the stage of his career where he does some things that will rocket him forward toward the HOF significantly.

Beltre has done several things that are very important for his HOF chances. One thing he had done is crank out 25 HRs a year pretty consistently. This is important because of Beltre's youth; he's up to 242 HRs for his career at age 29. This isn't eye-popping, but it's pretty good for a third baseman, and it's a level at which Beltre is capable of staying at for another 4-5 years at least.

Beltre has kept up his power while stabilizing his offense at a higher level than he has played at in the past. Beltre came into the majors at about a .530-ish OWP level, but he dropped to under .450 OWP beginning in 2001, and stayed there, with the exception of his .749 OWP in 2004, which certainly seems to be a fluke. Beltre, however, has taken it up a notch; he's been at .510 OWP over the last 3 years (.523 last year) and appears to be improving.

More importantly, Beltre has solidified his reputation as an excellent DEFENSIVE third baseman. He's won the Gold Glove at 3B the last two years, and is now considered the best defensive 3rd baseman in the AL. His defensive stats aren't overwhelming, and one wonders how he'd have done in 2008 if Scott Rolen didn't have a bad back, but those Gold Gloves are part of his resume, and he may well win more.

Beltre, to be sure, would be one-and-done if his career ended today. He'd have to play to near 40, play 3B all the way, win more Gold Gloves, and get into some ASGs. This is easier said than done, but not impossible. Beltre is a bit unlikely to reach 500 HRs, but he could possibly do it, and he's even money to reach 400 HRs. 400 HRs with 6 GGs and 4 ASGs; is that really out of the question for Beltre? And that's a REASONABLE guess; a MODERATELY optimistic projection could give Beltre 450 HRS, 8 GGs and 6 ASGs. (I don't understand why Beltre has never been on the All-Star team even once, other than the fact that he has always played on teams that, whatever their fortunes, had at least one other "marquee" player that went to the ASG whether he should have or not.) He's a longshot, but his odds are improving, and time is still on his side.


You should have let this thread die in my opinion. :rolleyes:;)

[gman5431]

Is this thread a joke? I wouldnt even out Beltre in the upper tier of third basemen in his era only. He had one huge contract year but has had some pretty down years as far as i know. How many All Star games has he even been in?

G Man

[Mike90]

I think this is a good time to revisit Adrian Beltre. He's played over 1500 games in the majors, and players tend to show their true level of ability after that many games. His counting stats are very good for a good defensive third baseman who hasn't turned thirty yet. His 242 home runs and 862 RBI make a him a good bet to reach 400 home runs and 1300 RBI, plus Beltre already has two gold gloves and will probably win a few more. The shining jewel of his Hall resume will be that undisputedly great 2004 season when he hit .334 with 48 home runs with excellent D. He was 2nd in that year's MVP voting and was credited with 37 win shares making it one of the greatest seasons by a third baseman ever.

Of course, there is the huge caveat that Beltre will probably rank with Cash and Caminiti and Seymour as having one of the greatest fluke seasons ever. Beltre's .334 BA in 2004 is higher than his career OBP (.327); it was his only season where he hit more than 26 home runs and 99 RBI. Aside from 2004, Beltre has never scored 100 runs or had a BA of .300 or had a slugging % better than .500.

Probably the best argument against Beltre is that he has played 11 seasons but has only one season where he was one of the five best third basemen in the majors. He either has to improve on his established level of play or have exceptional durability and reach 450 home runs or something to have a chance.

If he has another season like 2004, then I'm changing my prediction from "no way" to "definite."

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think this is a good time to revisit Adrian Beltre. He's played over 1500 games in the majors, and players tend to show their true level of ability after that many games. His counting stats are very good for a good defensive third baseman who hasn't turned thirty yet. His 242 home runs and 862 RBI make a him a good bet to reach 400 home runs and 1300 RBI, plus Beltre already has two gold gloves and will probably win a few more. The shining jewel of his Hall resume will be that undisputedly great 2004 season when he hit .334 with 48 home runs with excellent D. He was 2nd in that year's MVP voting and was credited with 37 win shares making it one of the greatest seasons by a third baseman ever.

Of course, there is the huge caveat that Beltre will probably rank with Cash and Caminiti and Seymour as having one of the greatest fluke seasons ever. Beltre's .334 BA in 2004 is higher than his career OBP (.327); it was his only season where he hit more than 26 home runs and 99 RBI. Aside from 2004, Beltre has never scored 100 runs or had a BA of .300 or had a slugging % better than .500.

Probably the best argument against Beltre is that he has played 11 seasons but has only one season where he was one of the five best third basemen in the majors. He either has to improve on his established level of play or have exceptional durability and reach 450 home runs or something to have a chance.

If he has another season like 2004, then I'm changing my prediction from "no way" to "definite."

Agreed with all of this.

I'm not saying Beltre is a HOFer. I'm saying that, based on what he's done so far, and what he might well end up doing when it's all said and done (based on his past performance), it is POSSIBLE that Beltre will be much more highly regarded than he is now, and, the increase in regard might prove to be enough to make him a viable HOF candidate.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Agreed with all of this.

I'm not saying Beltre is a HOFer. I'm saying that, based on what he's done so far, and what he might well end up doing when it's all said and done (based on his past performance), it is POSSIBLE that Beltre will be much more highly regarded than he is now, and, the increase in regard might prove to be enough to make him a viable HOF candidate.

I agree with most of your analysis of Beltre - he has great counting numbers for a third baseman of his age. The HOF is not out of reach for him at this point. There are two problems with his HOF case though:

1) The way he has achieved those counting numbers is not ideal (except for 2004). The HOF likes to see a couple seasons like Beltre's 2004 instead of many seasons of .270 and 25 homers.

2) If he declines significantly, he will fall off of the HOF track completely, or worse, lose his starting job. What we are seeing now is his performance in what should be his natural prime. In order to make the HOF, he will have to play at this level until nearly 40. Odds are against him doing that.

I don't think Belte will be a serious HOF candidate, but he still has time to change that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with most of your analysis of Beltre - he has great counting numbers for a third baseman of his age. The HOF is not out of reach for him at this point. There are two problems with his HOF case though:

1) The way he has achieved those counting numbers is not ideal (except for 2004). The HOF likes to see a couple seasons like Beltre's 2004 instead of many seasons of .270 and 25 homers.

2) If he declines significantly, he will fall off of the HOF track completely, or worse, lose his starting job. What we are seeing now is his performance in what should be his natural prime. In order to make the HOF, he will have to play at this level until nearly 40. Odds are against him doing that.

I don't think Belte will be a serious HOF candidate, but he still has time to change that.

The "X" factor in all of this is Beltre's developing reputation as a DEFENSIVE star.

Beltre now has 2 Gold Gloves under his belt. This is an indication that he is, at this time, considered the best defensive third baseman in the AL. As such, he's found a new route to the HOF; the "leather brick road", so to speak.

Beltre's defensive credentials put his offensive credentials in a new light. He's entered the Brooks Robinson school of third basemen. I grant you that Robinson was, far and away, the best of his type. Tim Wallach and Graig Nettles are the same type of player; Nettles is far from the HOF and Wallach is a non-starter. Beltre is shaping up as a guy who will have a long career (as Robinson did) and whose counting stats will be similar to Robinsons in the end. (Indeed, they will be superficially better; they are both around the same level of OWP.)

Beltre's defensive accomplishments give him the aura of a more complete player. This is a plus in HOF voting, as Beltre will not be viewed as a guy they stuck on 3B, but couldn't really play the position.

He's a long way away. But he's moving forward. The book is not closed on Beltre as a HOF candidate. That's all I'm saying. It's worthwhile for HOF afficionados to monitor his progress, because he can still get there.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

When Beltre had his huge 2004 season I thought that was the beginning of a great 7-8 year run. Alas, it never happened and I've always wondered why. Beltre debuted in the majors at age 19 and got 175 AB's. As most 19 year olds do, Beltre struggled. But at age 20 he had a solid season hit .275/.352/.428, 101 OPS+. Then he took a nice step foward at age 21 going .290/.360/.475, 114 OPS+. Then he floundered for three season apparently because of a botched surgery. Then at age 25 he has one of the greatest season any third basemen ever had. For all the world it looked like he was about to rip off a great 7-8 year peak run. But it never happened.

[Cougar]

If he has another season like 2004, then I'm changing my prediction from "no way" to "definite."

If I were cynical, this would prompt me to wonder when Beltre's contract with Seattle was up.

If I were cynical...

[STLCards2]

When Beltre had his huge 2004 season I thought that was the beginning of a great 7-8 year run. Alas, it never happened and I've always wondered why. Beltre debuted in the majors at age 19 and got 175 BA. As most 19 year olds do, Beltre struggled. But at age 20 he had a solid season hit .275/.352/.428, 101 OPS+. Then he took a nice step foward at age 21 going .290/.360/.475, 114 OPS+. Then he floundered for three season apparently because of a botched surgery. Then at age 25 he has one of the greatest season any third basemen ever had. For all the world it looked like he was about to rip off a great 7-8 year peak run. But it never happened.

I've always wondered that too - what happened that year? Some guys just get into the zone for a short time. Probably the best player in the NL that year not named Barry Bonds - with stiff competition from the 3 Cardinal sluggers. Was that the year J.D. Drew was all healthy and motivated too?

[jalbright]

If I were cynical, this would prompt me to wonder when Beltre's contract with Seattle was up.

If I were cynical...

IIRC, it was.

[Cougar]

This year? Is he a free agent?

I thought he got like an eight year deal or something when he signed with Seattle.

[leecemark]

--It was a 5 year deal. He will be a free agent after this season. Maybe 2004 being his "walk" year had something to do with it being his career year, but he certainly hasn't dogged it during his 4 years in Seattle. He has been as hard working as any player on the team. He has been in excellent shape and has played through some injuries that would have put many players - and perhaps should have put him - on the DL. He is a very intense player. Maybe too much so - he looks like he starts tying too hard when he gets in a slump and that tends to make things even worse. I like Beltre alot, but can't see him as a Hall of Famer.

[RuthMayBond]

If I were cynical, this would prompt me to wonder when Beltre's contract with Seattle was up.

If I were cynical...POST OF THE WEEK :laugh:bowdown:

[Cowtipper]

Beltre is on pace for 2500+ hits and 400+ home runs in his career, according to Bill James' favorite toy.

It's hard to believe he's not even 30 years old; it seems like he's been around forever.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Beltre is on pace for 2500+ hits and 400+ home runs in his career, according to Bill James' favorite toy.

It's hard to believe he's not even 30 years old; it seems like he's been around forever.

That's what happens when a player debuts in the majors at age 19.

Another is Andruw Jones who is still just 31 years old today. Remember when he hit two HRs in his first two World Series at bats WAY BACK in 1996?

[Brad Harris]

Another PED poster boy in the same vein as Brady Anderson or Ken Caminiti or Bret Boone. The most obvious reason why Beltre had such a massive fluke is right under everyone's noses, it seems.

As far as his Hall qualifications go, a player who was among the five best at his position only once in his career is almost certainly not Hall of Fame material, regardless of what his counting stats wind up being when he retires.

[OleMissCub]

Yes, I think even though Aramis Ramirez and Beltra have almost the exact same stats, that Ramirez has the much better shot at making the hall (which isn't all that good of a chance to begin with really.)

Where they ranked in OPS in the Major League for Third Baseman the past 5 years:

Beltre
08: 24th
07: 17th
06: 24th
05: 26th
04: 1st
03: 23rd

A-Ram
08: 5th
07: 6th
06: 5th
05: 4th
04: 4th
03: 12th

Ramirez' OPS+ over the past 5 years is at 131. Beltre is at 116 in that same span, but that includes his season where his OPS+ was 163. Take away that monster year and use the season before it instead and his last five years comes out to 101 OPS+. That's definitely not a Hall of Famer.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Yes, I think even though Aramis Ramirez and Beltra have almost the exact same stats, that Ramirez has the much better shot at making the hall (which isn't all that good of a chance to begin with really.)

Where they ranked in OPS in the Major League for Third Baseman the past 5 years:

Beltre
08: 24th
07: 17th
06: 24th
05: 26th
04: 1st
03: 23rd

A-Ram
08: 5th
07: 6th
06: 5th
05: 4th
04: 4th
03: 12th

Ramirez' OPS+ over the past 5 years is at 131. Beltre is at 116 in that same span, but that includes his season where his OPS+ was 163. Take away that monster year and use the season before it instead and his last five years comes out to 101 OPS+. That's definitely not a Hall of Famer.

I like A-Ram as a ballplayer but what he's missing is those huge over-the-top Hall of Fame peaks seasons. If he is to have any shot at the HOF he needs to have a few MVP type season, like right now.

[Sockeye]

It has been about 3 years since the last series of potential HOFer polls I ran. Thought I would do another series of polls. Below is a list of the players stats to date. Unlike the last series of polls I'm not going to list any career projections.

Adrian Beltre at age 29

1570 games
5836 at-bats
774 runs
1581 hits
321 doubles
26 triples
242 home runs
862 RBI
98 stolen bases
459 BB
.271 AVG
.327 OBP
.459 SLG
107 OPS+
2680 total bases
6400 PA's
871 runs created
5.2 RC/G
.513 OWP
52.1 batting runs
4.7 batting wins
4 black ink
23 gray ink
19.0 HOF standards
27.5 HOF monitor
.275 EQA
52.4 WARP1
62.3 WARP3
310 BRAR
113 BRAA
254 FRAR
35 FRAA
186 win shares

[Senor Octobre]

Had that one great season in '04, where he probably should have won MVP. An excellent defensive 3B, although Brooks Robinson he's not. Probably needs to have 3 or 4 more MVP-type seasons to even be in the discussion. Roughly 1600 hits at 29 isn't too shabby, but the 107 OPS+ halfway through his career isn't that promising. No for now and probably for the long run.

[jjpm74]

It's too soon to tell for him. If he has 10 more years and has 3-4 of those like his 2004, then yes.

[Sockeye]

I see Beltre as being somewhat of a compiler. Doubt we'll see another season close to his 2004 season. Don't think he needs another one as long as he can stay healthy, continue to play excellent defense at 3B, and play another 10 seasons. If he does those three things his counting totals should put him around 3000 hits, 400+ home runs, 500+ doubles, 1500 runs, and 1600 RBI's. A well above average defensive 3B with those counting totals would be hard to turn down for the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I see Beltre as being somewhat of a compiler. Doubt we'll see another season close to his 2004 season. Don't think he needs another one as long as he can stay healthy, continue to play excellent defense at 3B, and play another 10 seasons. If he does those three things his counting totals should put him around 3000 hits, 400+ home runs, 500+ doubles, 1500 runs, and 1600 RBI's. A well above average defensive 3B with those counting totals would be hard to turn down for the HOF.

I voted "no", although your reasoning is sound.

Beltre's ending numbers probably won't get him into the HOF. I don't see him getting to 400 HRs, or getting any better than he is right now. I also don't see Beltre fulfilling his computer projections, as his career path has been far different from the normal projection of a position player. However, if he retains his ability, particularly on defense, his glove rep MIGHT push him over the top (although he won't be a 1st ballot selection).

Could Beltre be the Brooks Robinson of his generation? Brooksie would not be a HOFer if he were merely a "good" defensive third baseman, but he was a perennial GG winner, with WS theatrics to boot. Somehow, I think Beltre will be the new Graig Nettles; a guy with a case who didn't quite impress people deeply enough, and who, in the end, was viewed as a disappointment.

[jjpm74]

Could Beltre be the Brooks Robinson of his generation? Brooksie would not be a HOFer if he were merely a "good" defensive third baseman, but he was a perennial GG winner, with WS theatrics to boot. Somehow, I think Beltre will be the new Graig Nettles; a guy with a case who didn't quite impress people deeply enough, and who, in the end, was viewed as a disappointment.

Nettles had something Beltre doesn't have and probably never will have: an impressive peak. Sockeye's take on Beltre as a compiler is something I agree with and the best comparable I can think of for Beltre is Jake Beckley if his career stays on its present course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nettles had something Beltre doesn't have and probably never will have: an impressive peak. Sockeye's take on Beltre as a compiler is something I agree with and the best comparable I can think of for Beltre is Jake Beckley if his career stays on its present course.

Nettles never had a season like Beltre's best season. Not even close.

The rest of Beltre's career makes his 2004 season appear to be a fluke, rather than a peak. If you take 2004 out of the equation, Beltre is reaching his peak right about now. If this is Beltre's real peak, then Nettles had a higher peak.

It's not an impressive peak, but he's peaking defensively. He may have established himself in a way where he'll be less prone for fluctuation from year to year.

It's far from impossible for Beltre to make the HOF. What he has working against him, however, is the perception that he's a disappointment, and in light of how highly regarded a prospect he was when he first came up, and the relative lack of growth since, that perception is accurate. Most players who are able to play in the majors at age 19 show far, far more growth over time than Beltre has. Indeed, one could argue that Beltre has had to work to get back to where he was at age 21. That lack of growth is the main reason I'm pessimistic about Beltre's long-term chances for the HOF. But he may surprise me. I'm never willing to write off a guy who was good enough to make the major leagues at age 19. At this point, I think that Beltre is a far more likely bet for the HOF than Scott Rolen.

[jalbright]

Threads merged, but with the newer poll Beltre did very poorly the last time (2 yes, 71 no), so he almost can't do worse.

[Brad Harris]

Threads merged, but with the newer poll Beltre did very poorly the last time (2 yes, 71 no), so he almost can't do worse.
Unless his mom shows up to vote again.

[Sockeye]

Nettles had something Beltre doesn't have and probably never will have: an impressive peak. Sockeye's take on Beltre as a compiler is something I agree with and the best comparable I can think of for Beltre is Jake Beckley if his career stays on its present course.

Not sure I see the Beckley comparison. The best comparison for me that comes to mind has already been mentioned.

Brooks Robinson: Not as good with the glove of course but a little better with the bat. Beltre's counting numbers should exceed Brooks Robinson's. He only needs 26 homers to reach Robinson's total and is less than 500 runs and RBI from his totals. Roughly 6 seasons worth for Beltre. If he stays healthy that would get him there by age 35. Solid defense should keep him at third late into his 30's. Beltre's won two consecutive gold gloves and another 2 or 3 in the coming years certainly wouldn't hurt his case. A lot of times it seems that third baseman are better defensively in their 30's than their 20's.

Really for Beltre it all can be boiled down to one number though. 3000 hits. Beltre has 1581 through age 29 and needs 1419 to reach that magic number. He needs to average 142 hits for the next 10 seasons or though age 39. If he can do that he'll either be in the HOF or the first player with 3000 hits not chosen. Given the fact that he has averaged 154 hits for the past 10 seasons it shouldn't be all that difficult of a number for him to reach providing he stays healthy. Give him another 3-4 seasons in his prime followed by a reasonably decline period and Beltre's HOF chances should be pretty good

[RuthMayBond]

Give him another 3-4 seasons in his prime His "prime" the last four seasons has yielded an OPS+ of about 105

[Freakshow]

All players 1959-2008, 1400+ G at 3B, 6400+ PA
Cnt Player OPS+ RC OBP SLG BA PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Mike Schmidt 147 1757 .380 .527 .267 10062 1972 1989
2 Chipper Jones 145 1686 .408 .548 .310 8677 1993 2008
3 George Brett 135 1878 .369 .487 .305 11624 1973 1993
4 Wade Boggs 130 1750 .415 .443 .328 10740 1982 1999
5 Scott Rolen 125 1137 .370 .501 .282 6847 1996 2008
6 Ron Santo 125 1379 .362 .464 .277 9396 1960 1974
7 Bill Madlock 123 1053 .365 .442 .305 7372 1973 1987
8 Ron Cey 121 1148 .354 .445 .261 8344 1971 1987
9 Darrell Evans 119 1499 .361 .431 .248 10737 1969 1989
10 Sal Bando 119 1069 .352 .408 .254 8288 1966 1981
11 Ken Caminiti 116 1001 .347 .447 .272 7125 1987 2001
12 Robin Ventura 114 1162 .362 .444 .267 8271 1989 2004
13 Doug DeCinces 114 831 .329 .445 .259 6534 1973 1987
14 Matt Williams 112 1047 .317 .489 .268 7595 1987 2003
15 Carney Lansford 111 1009 .343 .411 .290 7905 1978 1992
16 Graig Nettles 110 1265 .329 .421 .248 10226 1967 1988
17 Buddy Bell 109 1217 .341 .406 .279 10009 1972 1989
18 Adrian Beltre 107 871 .327 .459 .271 6400 1998 2008
19 Brooks Robinson 107 1302 .325 .406 .270 11082 1959 1977
20 Todd Zeile 103 1110 .346 .423 .265 8649 1989 2004
21 Tim Wallach 102 1043 .316 .416 .257 8908 1980 1996
22 Gary Gaetti 97 1167 .308 .434 .255 9817 1981 2000
23 Vinny Castilla 95 988 .321 .476 .276 7384 1991 2006
24 Terry Pendleton 91 855 .316 .391 .270 7637 1984 1998
25 Aurelio Rodriguez 76 609 .275 .351 .237 7078 1967 1983
Beltre has a strange career. It would make more sense if it turned out he's 2-3 years older than his published age. One big fluke year. If he can stay a 3B and get in those 7-8 more years and surpass Nettles' playing time, he's got a shot at the Hall.

[Senor Octobre]

At this point, I think that Beltre is a far more likely bet for the HOF than Scott Rolen.

Wowzers, I wouldn't go that far.

[MDog795]

No, he definitely does not deserve a HOF induction if he were to maintain the stats hes producing. He's just been playing forever. While his final stats may end up seeming like totals that do possibly worthy of an induction, he has had only one great season (2004).

[Brad Harris]

No, he definitely does not deserve a HOF induction if he were to maintain the stats hes producing. He's just been playing forever. While his final stats may end up seeming like totals that do possibly worthy of an induction, he has had only one great season (2004).
My thoughts exactly. I'd like to see more than one great year. I'm extremely biased towards peak and even I know that's ridiculous.

[Rennie Stennett]

He might make (500) 2B's and (400) HR's, but I doubt he could do both. He hits too many line drives to reach (500) HR's, particularly if he remains in Seattle. Hell, Edgar has (300) and (500) with a better lifetime average and about (2300) hits and many say he has no shot, although Beltre plays the hot corner and does it pretty well, while Edgar DH'ed for many years.

[OleMissCub]

He's definitely a compiler. I mean, look again at what I posted earlier:

Where he ranks at OPS+ among third basemen each season over the past five years:

Beltre
08: 24th
07: 17th
06: 24th
05: 26th
04: 1st
03: 23rd

His 2004 season was as massive a fluke as you can see in baseball. Take out that one season and his career OPS+ is 98.

Compare that to Aramis Ramirez who is roughly the same age and has roughly the same stats. Since Ramirez started playing full time in 2001, his career OPS+ is 119. And over the past 5 years, age 25 to 30, his OPS+ is 131.

[Freakshow]

He's definitely a compiler. I mean, look again at what I posted earlier:

Where he ranks at OPS+ among third basemen each season over the past five years:

Beltre
08: 24th
07: 17th
06: 24th
05: 26th
04: 1st
03: 23rdThat makes him look worse than he actually is. Let's look at regular 3B, players with at least 81 G at 3B and 300 PA.

Beltre
08: 13th out of 28
07: 11th out of 25
06: 17th out of 27
05: 17th out of 24
04: 1st out of 26
03: 21st out of 26
02: 17th out of 28

[OleMissCub]

That still doesn't help very much. When you aren't even consistently a top 10 player at your position during your PRIME....it's hard to say that person is a HOFer.

[Sockeye]

He might make (500) 2B's and (400) HR's, but I doubt he could do both. He hits too many line drives to reach (500) HR's, particularly if he remains in Seattle. Hell, Edgar has (300) and (500) with a better lifetime average and about (2300) hits and many say he has no shot, although Beltre plays the hot corner and does it pretty well, while Edgar DH'ed for many years.

2247 hits to be exact for Martinez while playing til age 41. Beltre only needs 667 hits to pass Martinez. That should happen by early 2013. Beltre will have just turned 34 at that time. Of course if I'm not mistaking Beltre is a free agent after 2009 and Safeco is known as one of the best pitchers parks in the game. We could be looking at a big contract season from Beltre in '09 and his numbers could be effected by where he signs.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That still doesn't help very much. When you aren't even consistently a top 10 player at your position during your PRIME....it's hard to say that person is a HOFer.

The wild card is Beltre's defense, and how his defense will be viewed over time. If he spends 10 years out front as a defensive stud, his defense will keep him in the lineup where he WILL compile numbers.

Compiling offensive numbers is evidence that there's SOMETHING keeping that player in the lineup. If a guy is putting up Beltre-ish numbers, which, in and of themselves, are unimpressive, but he stays in the lineup and has a long, long career, it's an indication that he has SOMETHING going for him that keeps him valuable.

[ol' aches and pains]

If Ron Santo never gets in and Beltre does, I'll swear off baseball for good.

[OleMissCub]

If a guy is putting up Beltre-ish numbers, which, in and of themselves, are unimpressive, but he stays in the lineup and has a long, long career, it's an indication that he has SOMETHING going for him that keeps him valuable.

Correct, but being valuable doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Lenny Harris was valuable too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Correct, but being valuable doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Lenny Harris was valuable too.


Valuable, but not as a regular.

If Beltre stays in the lineup as a regular 10 more years, given his offensive level right now, that will be a statement about his defense, especially, if he wins 8 more Gold Gloves. Would Beltre, with a 20 year career, and 10 years as the top defensive 3Bman in baseball, be HOF-worthy? It will be interesting to compare THAT Beltre to Brooks Robinson.

[Sockeye]

Correct, but being valuable doesn't make you a Hall of Famer. Lenny Harris was valuable too.

Correct, but Lenny Harris didn't put up anywhere close to the totals that Beltre has. Think more along the lines of Lou Brock & Sam Rice.

[Rennie Stennett]

Adrian Beltre always steps back and touches third base when they throw it around.

[OleMissCub]

Correct, but Lenny Harris didn't put up anywhere close to the totals that Beltre has.

He didn't? I could have sworn Lenny Harris had 250 HR and 850 RBI....:laugh

[RuthMayBond]

He didn't? I could have sworn Lenny Harris had 250 HR and 850 RBI....:laughHe DID . . .
. . . but if you do NOT count backyard pickup games . . .

[RuthMayBond]

Valuable, but not as a regular.

If Beltre stays in the lineup as a regular 10 more years, given his offensive level right now, that will be a statement about his defense, especially, if he wins 8 more Gold Gloves. Why in the world would anyone think this would happen?

[OleMissCub]

Why in the world would anyone think this would happen?

Easy. He won 2 gold gloves in 11 years...so it seems likely that he would win 8 more gold gloves.

[RuthMayBond]

Easy. He won 2 gold gloves in 11 years...so it seems likely that he would win 8 more gold gloves.Thank you for clearing that up :confused::rolleyes::rofl:

[Fuzzy Bear]

Easy. He won 2 gold gloves in 11 years...so it seems likely that he would win 8 more gold gloves.

It's not just that he won 2 GG in 11 years; he won the last two AL 3B GGs in a row.

When a player wins consecutive GGs, this is an indication that there is a consensus that this player is the best at his position, defensively. It's not unreasonable to think that the writers view Beltre as the overall best defensive third baseman in the AL. When you think about it, who would be clearly better? Mike Lowell? Maybe, but Lowell's hurt a lot, is older, and is beginning his decline.

A player who is considered the best, defensively, at his position by the writers, tends to keep winning GGs, even if he may not be the most deserving candidate. Beltre's top competition for the GG would be either Lowell or Scott Rolen, another early decline case. It's far from impossible, given Beltre's age, that he will end up winning at least seven (7) Gold Glove awards by the time his career is done. Maybe more; indeed, if he wins the GG next year, I think he's 50-50 to win at least seven GGs.

Defense is very much a matter of reputation, and somewhat more subjective than is offense. That's why I take the tack on Beltre that I do now; his defensive REPUTATION is coming into full bloom, and it's going to change the perception people have of him. Until two years ago, Beltre was seen as a disappointment who had one super year that he should have replicated several times, but didn't. Now, though, he's the defensive star at his position, AND he's compiling counting stats that have put other non-corner outfielders and non-1b/DH types in the HOF. His career is shaping up like Brooks Robinson's. If Brooksie didn't have the super glove theatrics and the GGs, one wonders if he'd have made the HOF. Probably not. But he DID have those things. Beltre is working on getting those things as well. It's not impossible that he'll be thought of as comparable to Brooks Robinson by the time he's done, and while "comparable" doesn't mean "as good", it is something that will project him forward significantly as a HOF candidate.

[RuthMayBond]

When a player wins consecutive GGs, this is an indication that there is a consensus that this player is the best at his position, defensively. It's not unreasonable to think that the writers view Beltre as the overall best defensive third baseman in the AL.JEter will be THRILLED to hear this

<When you think about it, who would be clearly better?>

I don't know about clearly, but Inge

<It's far from impossible, given Beltre's age, that he will end up winning at least seven (7) Gold Glove awards by the time his career is done. Maybe more; indeed, if he wins the GG next year, I think he's 50-50 to win at least seven GGs.>

Lotsa luck

<His career is shaping up like Brooks Robinson's.>

Minus the, like

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

It's not just that he won 2 GG in 11 years; he won the last two AL 3B GGs in a row.

When a player wins consecutive GGs, this is an indication that there is a consensus that this player is the best at his position, defensively. It's not unreasonable to think that the writers view Beltre as the overall best defensive third baseman in the AL. When you think about it, who would be clearly better? Mike Lowell? Maybe, but Lowell's hurt a lot, is older, and is beginning his decline.

A player who is considered the best, defensively, at his position by the writers, tends to keep winning GGs, even if he may not be the most deserving candidate. Beltre's top competition for the GG would be either Lowell or Scott Rolen, another early decline case. It's far from impossible, given Beltre's age, that he will end up winning at least seven (7) Gold Glove awards by the time his career is done. Maybe more; indeed, if he wins the GG next year, I think he's 50-50 to win at least seven GGs.

Defense is very much a matter of reputation, and somewhat more subjective than is offense. That's why I take the tack on Beltre that I do now; his defensive REPUTATION is coming into full bloom, and it's going to change the perception people have of him. Until two years ago, Beltre was seen as a disappointment who had one super year that he should have replicated several times, but didn't. Now, though, he's the defensive star at his position, AND he's compiling counting stats that have put other non-corner outfielders and non-1b/DH types in the HOF. His career is shaping up like Brooks Robinson's. If Brooksie didn't have the super glove theatrics and the GGs, one wonders if he'd have made the HOF. Probably not. But he DID have those things. Beltre is working on getting those things as well. It's not impossible that he'll be thought of as comparable to Brooks Robinson by the time he's done, and while "comparable" doesn't mean "as good", it is something that will project him forward significantly as a HOF candidate.

I agree that, after two consecutive wins, the Gold Glove is Beltre's to lose. That's usually how it goes. However, to think that he's going to keep winning it until he's 37 is a little excessive. Even if he did, he'd still trail Brooks Robinson by six. Furthermore, if, as you said, defense is a matter of reputation (which I agree with, at least as it pertains to the likelihood of HOF induction), Beltre will never ever have the defensive reputation of Robinson. If he had any chance of reaching that level of respect, he'd already be somewhat of a legend. Robinson had a strong enough reputation to get into the HOF primarily on the strength of his defense. Very few players who weren't middle infielders or catchers have been able to do that. I have no reason to believe that Beltre will be able to. In terms of reputation, he's much more likely to end up being viewed as comparable to Graig Nettles at third, and Nettles can't get into the HOF even with 390 homers.

[Sockeye]

I agree that, after two consecutive wins, the Gold Glove is Beltre's to lose. That's usually how it goes. However, to think that he's going to keep winning it until he's 37 is a little excessive. Even if he did, he'd still trail Brooks Robinson by six. Furthermore, if, as you said, defense is a matter of reputation (which I agree with, at least as it pertains to the likelihood of HOF induction), Beltre will never ever have the defensive reputation of Robinson. If he had any chance of reaching that level of respect, he'd already be somewhat of a legend. Robinson had a strong enough reputation to get into the HOF primarily on the strength of his defense. Very few players who weren't middle infielders or catchers have been able to do that. I have no reason to believe that Beltre will be able to. In terms of reputation, he's much more likely to end up being viewed as comparable to Graig Nettles at third, and Nettles can't get into the HOF even with 390 homers.

Nettles career average was .248 (Beltre's is .271) Nettles had 2225 hits while playing til age 43. Beltre already has 1581 through age 29. Nettles had 127 home runs through age 29 while Beltre has 242. Nettles didn't win his first gold glove til age 32 and finished with two. Beltre already has two gold gloves by age 29. I'd say Beltre is on a much better pace than Nettles.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Look at the reasons behind those facts:

Nettles career average was .248 (Beltre's is .271) Nettles had 2225 hits while playing til age 43. Beltre already has 1581 through age 29.

Nettles was not known as a high batting average guy who got a lot of hits - he was known as a power hitter. He also played in a less offensively-inclined environment than Beltre has. Beltre has an OPS+ of 107 and his decline phase is still ahead of him. Nettles retired with a 110 OPS+ after three lousy years on the tail end of his career. Nettles never had a monster year like Beltre did in '04, but, year-to-year, Nettles was a better hitter than Beltre has been so far. On a side note, if Beltre (or anyone for that matter) reaches 3,000 hits by hitting .271, then 3,000 will kind of lose its significance.

Nettles had 127 home runs through age 29 while Beltre has 242.

Beltre was a regular at age 20. Nettles wasn't a regular until age 25. I'll grant you that as an advantage that Beltre has in terms of compiling HOF numbers that shouldn't be adjusted for, but it totally explains the home run differential through age 29.

Nettles didn't win his first gold glove til age 32 and finished with two. Beltre already has two gold gloves by age 29.

Nettles only won two Gold Gloves because Brooks Robinson, the greatest defensive third baseman of all-time, had the award on lock-down for as long as he could manage to play a full season, which spanned the first nine years of Nettles' career (six of them were full years for Nettles). Nettles is generally regarded as being better defensively than his mere two Gold Gloves suggest.

I don't advocate Nettles for the HOF. Frankly, I don't know how this turned into a Beltre versus Nettles debate, but, since it is one, I'm going to go with Graig Nettles for the time being. My original point (the one I made in the post you replied to) was that Beltre is much more likely to garner a similar defensive reputation to that of Graig Nettles (no small achievement) than to that of Brooks Robinson.

[Cougar]

In all honesty, is there anyone on this board who, if you were choosing a third baseman for their team, would choose Beltre over Nettles?

I may be proven wrong, but I rather doubt it.

Granted, if one thought they were getting the 2004 Beltre, the answer might be different. But if you're getting a typical season...Nettles in a rout.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In all honesty, is there anyone on this board who, if you were choosing a third baseman for their team, would choose Beltre over Nettles?

I may be proven wrong, but I rather doubt it.

Granted, if one thought they were getting the 2004 Beltre, the answer might be different. But if you're getting a typical season...Nettles in a rout.

I'd take Nettles over Beltre, and I think Nettles has a HOF case.

Nettles has a career .551 OWP to Beltre's .513, and that includes the beginning and end of his career, so Nettles has a big OFFENSIVE edge. At the same time, Nettles has a similar edge over Brooks Robinson (.523 OWP lifetime). This puts Beltre about even with Robinson, offensively, and that's not taking into account that Beltre is entering what may prove to be the best years of his career.

Do I think Beltre will win GGs until he's 37? Not likely, but not impossible, either. Do I think Beltre's OWP will go upward? Again, Beltre's career is hard to project, due to it's unusual path to date, but posting 4-5 years at .600-.650 OWP plus GG defense is going to change people's perceptions of Beltre.

What would certainly help Beltre is making the All-Star team. That's tough for him because A-Rod will be one 3B pick for the forseeable future, but not unreasonable, because right now, Beltre is the second best third baseman in the AL. He SHOULD be on the All-Star team next year if he playes at the level he's been playing at or above.

I don't want to make it sound like Beltre's a guy who's going to walk into the HOF, or who ought to, for that matter. But it is NOT unreasonable at all to suggest that Beltre might do enough to be a dark-horse HOFer. That's something that can't be ruled out yet.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

In all honesty, is there anyone on this board who, if you were choosing a third baseman for their team, would choose Beltre over Nettles?

Certainly not me, but post 228 makes me think that someone might.

[philliesfiend55]

To the topic Originator: Maybe you should launch a campaign to get Beltre elected as an All-Star (which to my knowledge has never happend)
before you start touting him for a plaque in Cooperstown.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Nettles has a career .551 OWP to Beltre's .513, and that includes the beginning and end of his career, so Beltre has a big OFFENSIVE edge.

I think you mean Nettles has a big offensive edge, right?

Fuzzy Bear, I agree with you that it's not out of the question to think that Beltre could put together a HOF career. After all, he's a 29 year old third baseman with 242 homers and two Gold Gloves, and he's shown us that he can put together an MVP type season. However, at the rate he's been going since that 2004 season, I don't think he can become a serious HOF candidate as a compiler - his rate stats just aren't good enough. He needs to turn it up a notch (which he's clearly capable of doing) in order to get much consideration. If I were a betting man, I'd bet against him doing that, but, once again, it's not out of the question. After all, Jeff Kent became one of the great second basemen of all-time, despite doing precious little before joining the Giants at age 29. Wake me up when Beltre puts up a 130 OPS+ for a whole season.

[OleMissCub]

To the topic Originator: Maybe you should launch a campaign to get Beltre elected as an All-Star (which to my knowledge has never happend)
before you start touting him for a plaque in Cooperstown.

HAHAHA

awesomeness

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is kind of amazing to me that Beltre has never been an All-Star. Even in his best year.

[Brad Harris]

In 2004, Adrian Beltre was a major league veteran. He may have been only a twenty-five year old third baseman putting up the numbers he was, but the image most people outside of LA had of him was no doubt that he was entering his seventh season and playing for free agent dollars that summer. His career OPS was the lowest of any of the 12 third basemen who'd accumulated 2,000+ PA in NL play from 1998-2003. His batting line of .262/.320/.428 wasn't anything for anyone to get excited about. Adrian Beltre had been starting at the hot corner for the Dodgers since the day he arrived in June, 1998, displacing Bobby Bonilla and Todd Zeile. In other words, by the summer of 2004, fans around the league knew Beltre. He wasn't an All-Star.

In 2004, Scott Rolen received more votes than any player in the NL. Fans also voted a number of other players ahead of Beltre, who finished 5th, as best I can tell, in the fan voting (which ended June 30). NL players, managers and coaches voted for the top 8 benchwarmers from June 23-30 and Beltre also failed to make that cut. NL squad manager Jack McKeon then selected 3 additional hitters for the team, which is possibly how Mike Lowell made his third consecutive appearance for the NL squad. The Ameriquest Final Vote - a ballot of 5 also-rans in the NL - featured not Beltre, but Aramis Ramirez! Clearly, very few of Beltre's peers, much less the fans, felt he was "for real" that season.

For comparison purposes, stats thru the end of June, 2004:

.328/.359/.583 Beltre (19 HR, 52 RBI)
.342/.416/.621 Rolen (18 HR, 76 RBI)
.305/.378/.570 Lowell (18 HR, 49 RBI)
.326/.373/.551 Ramirez (15 HR, 55 RBI)

Something else to consider - that certainly would have reinforced the "fluke" perception of Beltre that summer - was that after a hot start, he'd come back down to earth significantly in May (.283/.315/.481). Beltre actually had a better second-half, overall because of it. So while looking at his year end numbers now might provoke a "WTH?" moment, upon closer inspection, I don't think it's really that surprising he missed out.

Had Beltre re-signed with LA following the season, I think it's safe to say he'd have stood a fair chance of being selected to the 2005 squad. In the end, despite missing the All-Star game, Beltre received a $64 million contract for his play that summer. I think we know who got the last laugh.

[philliesfiend55]

It is kind of amazing to me that Beltre has never been an All-Star. Even in his best year.

Beltre led the NL in home runs one year with the Dodgers and was a strong MVP finalist that same year but didn't make the all-star team.

The all-star game system definitely penalizes "slow starter/strong finisher" player types.

Is it sacreligious to say that the All-Star game probably should be played in August or even around Labor Day after more than 80 per cent of the schedule has been played so that the "true all-stars" have had time to emerge from the pack. In any event a later all-star game would be a lot fairer than the traditional early Summer game.

-philliesfiend55-

[Brad Harris]

Beltre led the NL in home runs one year with the Dodgers and was a strong MVP finalist that same year...
As was fitting.

...but didn't make the all-star team.
Which has nothing to do with how he played for the whole season.

The all-star game system definitely penalizes "slow starter/strong finisher" player types.
It doesn't and it's hardly a penalty even if it did. The All Star Game is an exhibition game where fans vote for their favorite players and the best players in the league besides (with certain restrictions, like team representation across-the-board). If a player isn't playing well in the first half of the season, why should he be picked to play in a mid-season game? Virtually the only time that occurs is when the player in question is a longtime fan favorite or established star having a slow start. It's not a "penalty."

Not that this has anything to do with Beltre, who was having a great first half of the year. As I pointed out in my previous post, however, Beltre was far from the only third baseman in the NL having a great first half and, among those players, Beltre's hot start was the biggest abberation with respect to his career to-date. There's a very substantial reason to be skittish of a player who is playing well above his established norm over a two or three-month window in mid-career.

Is it sacreligious to say that the All-Star game probably should be played in August or even around Labor Day after more than 80 per cent of the schedule has been played so that the "true all-stars" have had time to emerge from the pack. In any event a later all-star game would be a lot fairer than the traditional early Summer game.
I would actually support the idea of moving the Mid-Summer Classic to Labor Day Weekend, if not the final weekend of August, because we would get a clearer picture of who the better players are that season. Of course, then it would cease being the "Mid-Summer Classic." ;) It would help stave off the depleted fan interest from non-competitive teams and provide a bump at precisely the time many casual fans might be turning their attention to the upcoming NFL season. Besides...who wouldn't rather listen to their own team playing on 4th of July weekend rather than this Home Run Derby garbage? Great suggestion!

But while that may or may not have made the difference in whether or not Beltre made the NL squad in 2004, fans were still proven right by how Beltre has performed since that season: he was a fluke.

[OleMissCub]

fans were still proven right by how Beltre has performed since that season: he was a fluke.

No diggity doubt.

They get compared a ton, so I'll just say that someone like Aramis Ramirez is MUCH more of a real deal than Beltre is.

Last 4 years (since Beltre's monster season)
Beltre: .266/.319/.454, 105 OPS+
Aramis: .298/.364/.549, 130 OPS+

[Fuzzy Bear]

No diggity doubt.

They get compared a ton, so I'll just say that someone like Aramis Ramirez is MUCH more of a real deal than Beltre is.

Last 4 years (since Beltre's monster season)
Beltre: .266/.319/.454, 105 OPS+
Aramis: .298/.364/.549, 130 OPS+


As of now, I'd rate Aramis Ramirez ahead of Beltre. Beltre's defense, however, may prove the long range decider, in that it will keep Beltre on 3B longer. Aramis isn't the defensive disaster he's made out to be in some quarters, but he's not in Beltre's class with the glove, no way. I'm rooting for Aramis, but it's not out of the question that Beltre, in the end, will be considered to have had the better career.

[Freakshow]

Beltre's bat is average for the position. His glove is what's keeping him in the lineup. When that slips he's done, because he doesn't hit enough to slide over to 1B or corner OF. Barring injury, he probably has about 4-5 years left as a regular.

[OleMissCub]

As of now, I'd rate Aramis Ramirez ahead of Beltre. Beltre's defense, however, may prove the long range decider, in that it will keep Beltre on 3B longer. Aramis isn't the defensive disaster he's made out to be in some quarters, but he's not in Beltre's class with the glove, no way. I'm rooting for Aramis, but it's not out of the question that Beltre, in the end, will be considered to have had the better career.

Ramirez' defense is like night and day from where it was when he first came to Chicago. According to defensive metrics, he and Wright have had pretty much similar seasons the past two years, even though Wright has won the Gold Glove the last two years (I'm not saying that voters look at metrics, just using the metrics for the sake of comparison).

FRAR 2007
Wright: 31
Ramirez: 33

FRAR 2008
Wright: 15
Ramirez: 14

More on topic, here are Beltre's FRAR numbers going back to his MVP season in 2004:

04: 33
05: 23
06: 27
07: 10
08: 9

Longoria actually destroyed Beltre last year on defensive metrics. Longoria was listed by BP as having a FRAR of 32.

[Sockeye]

Adrian Beltre did the one thing he couldn't afford to do this season. Missed a lot of games due to injuries. I'm not ready to give up on his HOF chances quite yet. But I'd say they are 50/50 right now. He'll need a bounce back season in 2010. Not a career year like 2004. But certainly something better than his 00, 06-08 seasons. Although he is a free agent this offseason and wherever he signs it should help his numbers.

[EricAnno]

I'm not saying that voters look at metrics

Of course you would never say that. No intelligent person would ever say that.

Longoria actually destroyed Beltre last year on defensive metrics. Longoria was listed by BP as having a FRAR of 32.

BP actually has it listed as,

FRAR: 24
FRAA: 13
RAR2: 33
RAA2: 16

for Longoria.

Which still just absolutely destroys Beltre,

FRAR: 9
FRAA: -4
RAR2: 17
RAA2: -3

[Cowtipper]

I still think it's hard to believe that he is only 30 years old.

Anyway, he is on pace for about 2600 career hits and 400 or so home runs if he doesn't get hurt and if he keeps up what he's done these past few years for a while longer. That may put him in Hall of Fame territory...however his .265/8 HR/44 RBI season may be an indication that he's on the downward slope of his career.

[Sockeye]

I still think it's hard to believe that he is only 30 years old.

Anyway, he is on pace for about 2600 career hits and 400 or so home runs if he doesn't get hurt and if he keeps up what he's done these past few years for a while longer. That may put him in Hall of Fame territory...however his .265/8 HR/44 RBI season may be an indication that he's on the downward slope of his career.

Keep in mind Beltre has spent the past 5 seasons playing in one of if not the worst hitters park in baseball. I can't see him resigning with the Mariners so where he ends up going to could give him a big boost offensively even if his skills do start to deminish a bit. His offensive numbers could improve purely based on his home park.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I still think it's hard to believe that he is only 30 years old.

Anyway, he is on pace for about 2600 career hits and 400 or so home runs if he doesn't get hurt and if he keeps up what he's done these past few years for a while longer. That may put him in Hall of Fame territory...however his .265/8 HR/44 RBI season may be an indication that he's on the downward slope of his career.

I don't know if I've suggested this in previous posts, but I tend to doubt that Beltre is as young as is advertised. I suspect that he is two, possibly three years older than his stated age. Guys like Beltre, who start out at super-young ages like whirlwinds (Beltre tore up the FSL at age 19.) that are toast at 30, well, that just isn't the rule.

I never want to say there's no way a guy at age 30 can make the HOF, but one doubts that Beltre is going to be able to make the HOF. He had injuries this year, but he also had a .353 OWP; that won't keep you in the lineup unless you are a Gold Glove shortstop and there is no other competant competitor. His contract is up, and one wonders just what team would not only sign Beltre (someone will), but whether or not that team will give Beltre a regular job at 3B. Beltre isn't far above replacement level, if, indeed, he's above that level at all now. I don't see a comeback, and, besides, Beltre would have to come back to a level that he never achieved, save for 2004, which now appears to be a Norm Cash 1961-type season if ever there was one.

[Cougar]

I don't know if I've suggested this in previous posts, but I tend to doubt that Beltre is as young as is advertised. I suspect that he is two, possibly three years older than his stated age. Guys like Beltre, who start out at super-young ages like whirlwinds (Beltre tore up the FSL at age 19.) that are toast at 30, well, that just isn't the rule.

I never want to say there's no way a guy at age 30 can make the HOF, but one doubts that Beltre is going to be able to make the HOF. He had injuries this year, but he also had a .353 OWP; that won't keep you in the lineup unless you are a Gold Glove shortstop and there is no other competant competitor. His contract is up, and one wonders just what team would not only sign Beltre (someone will), but whether or not that team will give Beltre a regular job at 3B. Beltre isn't far above replacement level, if, indeed, he's above that level at all now. I don't see a comeback, and, besides, Beltre would have to come back to a level that he never achieved, save for 2004, which now appears to be a Norm Cash 1961-type season if ever there was one.

Beltre is a really odd case, because he already had his birthday adjusted...he was younger than advertised!

The Dodgers signed him as a very young man; they thought he was 19; he turned out to be 16.

This came to light around 8 years ago or so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Beltre is a really odd case, because he already had his birthday adjusted...he was younger than advertised!

The Dodgers signed him as a very young man; they thought he was 19; he turned out to be 16.

This came to light around 8 years ago or so.

This makes Beltre's situation all the more unbelievable. I've never seen this kind of aging in a young player who was successful at age 20 the way that Beltre was.