How good was Mark Belanger?

[Kitty Kaat]

I was born in the mid 70s, but Belanger interests me because his hitting stats were so poor, but his fielding was top notch: .977 fielding percentage at shortstop. For those that saw him/followed the game then, was he an obvious step above his peers at shortstop? Did he make the diving plays seem routine? Did his range make what he did in the field look easier than it was? I realize he died of lung cancer in the late 90s unfortunately.

[VIBaseball]

The thing I remember reading about Mark Belanger was that he didn't make diving plays -- he got to everything standing up. He was extremely smooth and did things with an economy of motion.

[Sirmudgeon]

Think Omar Vizquel lite. Got to everything, had the arm from the hole between 3rd and short, turned the DP, guy was great in the field. Couldn't hit his way out of a brown paper bag. He didn't dive a lot, he didn't have to, he got to everything. Ask Jim Palmer how good he was.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If 1969 was his career norm, Belanger would be in the HOF.

It wasn't of course, so . . .

[RuthMayBond]

Think Omar Vizquel lite.Except that you got that backwards :hide:

[AstrosFan]

Belanger is statistically, an absolutely brilliant defensive shortstop, top 10, maybe top 5. I can't say how good he looked, having never seen him play, but he appears to be a pantheon shortstop defensively. However, his hitting could best be described as anemic.

[leecemark]

--As said above, Belanger was exceptionaly smooth. He covered a huge amount of ground and made it look easy. Definatley better than Vizquel with the glove, but just as definately worse with the bat. One of the worst hitters to have a fairly long career as a starter.

[rugbyfreak]

Began following ball in '69, a good year to get to know the O's for someone who lived in the NYC area, was a Yankee fan, and then watched them go against the Miracle Mets.

So happened this coincided with a glory period for the O's back then, and being a Yankee fan, I have to say I absolutely hated them, mainly because the NYY ate their dust for too long. I did, however, have a great respect for them since I became what I am today: a fan of the game, and therefore an admirer of teams that did it right.

There was, back then, real truth to the phrase "The Oriole Way," same as there was (or had been) for the "Dodger Way", which meant that their farmhands were taught the game in a certain solid, fundamental way, so that when they came up, they were show-ready. Those '69-'71 teams are among the best I've ever seen, although much like the '88-'90 A's, grabbing just one of those 3 WS has always seemed like underachievement.

Anyone who saw that O's IF has to agree it's one of the best ever, at least in its time. Brooks and Davey won GG's all 3 of those years, and Belanger took one in '69 and '71 (and would win 6 more from '73-'78). And, no kidding, Boog may have looked lumbering, but we all admitted that he had a nice touch around the bag, and seeing as how the AL GG's during Boog's heyday were being won by the likes of Pepitone, Spencer and Scott, it wasn't like Boog was caught up in a "position dynasty" like so many good AL 3Bmen were back then.

Now Belanger, we all knew, was an amazing whiz out there, but the knock on him was that he was a weak stick, even back when a good-field, no-hit SS was OK, provided: 1.) the field part was outstanding enough, and 2.) he was on a good-hitting team that didn't require it of him.

Those O's back then certainly did not. The '69 team was 2nd in AL runs, and the '70-'71 teams were both first. The knock on Belanger's hitting, while perhaps beside the point, considering the team he played for, was certainly not wrongheaded: Mark was .228/.300/.280 lifetime--bad in any era.

The weird thing about his career--and I'm sure this will come up in this thread--is that he would occasionally have seasons that were far above those lifetime marks.

There were 3 such seasons, to be exact: '69, '71 and '76. They were far and above what he usually did--or should we say those other seasons were so far below, that that was how his lifetime got pulled down.

I won't reproduce his whole lines for those years--you guys can go to bb-ref.com and do that yourselves. But here they are, in brief:

'69: .287/.351/.345
'71: .266/.365/.320
'76: .270/.336/.326

I've never understood this aspect to MB's career. There have been many guys like him, guys who play as a starter for many years, some of whom, like MB, have no pressure, year to year, about their job. I mean, MB had some really awful years at the plate in the '70s, interspersed with those 3 good ones. It wasn't until the flag year of '79, when MB, even though the defending GG winner, found himself replaced by Kiko Garcia, since MB was now hitting .167 (Garcia would hit .247 on the year), and that would not do in any era.

Anyway, there have always been vets like MB who would come up with one, maybe two, great years at the plate--out of character for their usual line. But MB came up with 3, and I find that a bit beyond the "fluke" realm. I find the existence of three such years solid evidence that the man was capable of this, since they were also produced over full skeds (150+ games each year), while playing the most demanding defensive position for a club under pennant-contending pressure nearly every year. (From '69-'79, the bulk of his regular-playing status, the O's made post-season in 6 of those 11 years.)

Does anyone out there (maybe from Baltimore or who followed the team closely) have an explanation for this guy, who produced those three years above, and yet also logged some God-awful years at the plate?

I don't see too many injury-type explanations, at least not on the ledger before me. He was pretty durable: In the 11 years from '68-'78, he played 140+ games every year except '72.

We used to joke when we saw him on TV how unbelievably skinny he was (the 6'1", 170 they give him in bb-ref is awfully generous). I remember he had what looked like a concave chest! Announcers would tell us that his weight would go on a steady down-slope as the year went on, due to hot weather (more day games back then), the rigors of the travel sked, plus, they would allude to a nervous condition that he apparently battled all his career. But it was never addressed very directly, as I remember. If I had to guess right now, I'd say they probably referred to his as "high-strung."

1972 was definitely a transitional year for the O's, as they lost their hold on the East, and (I think) suffered numerous injuries. The team was getting old; they had traded Robby, and had a team-wide batting slump, as they dropped to 8th in runs, and 11th in BA. Detroit took the division title we all thought nobody but the O's would ever win.

Belanger batted a hideous .186 that year, and a young phenom from Rochester named Bobby Grich came up and spelled MB at SS. I also remember that Grich made the AS team and (no idea why I recall this) he was the only AL guy to play the whole, 10-inning game. (Guess having Earl as your AS mgr. had to help!)

Anyway, SS would not prove Grich's future in the game. The next year, he would settle in at 2B, next to MB, and pick right up where Davey had left off, winning GG's from '73-'76, before taking off for the Angels for the '77 season.

So, from '73-'78, MB continued to hold down the O's SS job, no questions asked, in spite of batting years ('73-'75) that went like this:

'73: .226/.302/.262
'74: .225/.298/.300
'75: .226/.286/.276

Then, as we already saw, MB had a big rally in '76. Now, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go back to the city's local sports press during those years, '73-'75, but I'd really like to see how a town that really knows its ball could give a guy hitting like that such a pass.

Anyway, I don't mean to hammer the guy excessively for a shortcoming we all are well aware of. I have no excuse here, since we're talking about a guy I witnessed first-hand, so I should really answer my own questions here.

Actually, the answer to my question may be the most obvious one out there, but that an overly cynical mindset wants to reject:

That Mark Belanger was such an awesome defensive SS, that his team basically told him, for many years, We don't really care what you hit. If you hit well, that's a bonus. But keep doing what you do in the field, and the job is yours.

[KCGHOST]

With Brooks at third and Belanger at short it seemed like a miracle when a groundball went through the hole. Belanger was just a stud, but because he always got to the ball without diving it just didn't seem like he was covering that much ground. He just made everything look like a routine play. And he had an excellent arm.

[rugbyfreak]

With Brooks at third and Belanger at short it seemed like a miracle when a groundball went through the hole. Belanger was just a stud, but because he always got to the ball without diving it just didn't seem like he was covering that much ground. He just made everything look like a routine play. And he had an excellent arm.

My memory exactly--very smooth, and usually kept his feet. I wonder how much we can credit the fact that Brooks continued to get GG's during the '70s (when he was into his 30s) to MB being on that left side with him. Of course, BR won 8 GG's before MB even became an O's starter. But I seem to remember BR, in an interview, crediting MB with "keeping him young" with his range and dependability. He certainly wouldn't be the first BB person to say that a 3Bman's effectiveness is tied into that of the SS.

One thing's for sure about MB: He played in the right era. If he came up today, no amount of great fielding would get his bat into the lineup. Back then, he fit in well with the O's, with their emphasis on proper defense, backed up by wonderful pitching and enough reliable hitters to make a defense/pitching philosophy even feasible.

After all, it was Earl Weaver, who oversaw this semi-dynasty, who famously said that the key to success in baseball was "pitching and 3-run homers."

What never gets mentioned in such quotes, but what smart skippers like Weaver never forget, is probably the other baseball essential: having an infield, especially a shortstop, who makes all the plays, and then some.

Belanger was that SS, for a good long time.

[hellborn]

I barely remember Belanger's play, and what I do recall is probably from WS highlight films.
For those of you that do remember him and still watch the game closely...how would you compare him to Pokey Reese?
Pokey always seemed to make all the plays without effort, and would almost seem bored unless something truly challenging came up. He just couldn't hit enough to be a regular in today's offense-centric environment. I guess he may have looked even worse in the late '60s and '70s, when things were even tougher for hitters.
I would suspect that Belanger's arm was significantly better than Reese's, but am curious what those of you who saw both might have to say.

How about Dal Maxvill as the NL Mark Belanger? Think that even Mark was better at getting on base than Dal...

[Fuzzy Bear]

If 1969 was his career norm, Belanger would be in the HOF.

I decided to check out just how accurate this throwaway line was.

Belanger had three (3) seasons in which he was extremely productive with the bat; 1969, 1971, and 1976. While 1976 was the year he made the All-Star team and 1969 was his highest BA, his 1971 season probably ranks as his best. Belanger posted career highs in OBP and Offensive Winning Percentage in 1971, and his defensive stats are better in 1971 than in 1969 (although some of that is the result of playing behind FOUR 20 game winners, three of which were ground-ball pitchers.)

It is not unusual for a key defensive player who is not particularly strong with the bat to post 2-3 decent BA years in his career, mixed in with low BA seasons. It's a bit more unusual for such a player to be so offensively inconsistent when that player has the skill of plate discipline. Belanger's career OBP was .300, SEVENTY TWO points above his career BA of .228. And that figure is skewed downward somewhat by his years at the end of his career as a part-time defensive replacement.

Part of the problem with Belanger is that his skill at drawing walks was not recognized at the time he was active. I believe that if that had been noticed, he may have received better hitting instruction, and may have developed more consistency at the plate. Had this happened, Belanger would have had a career closer in value to Rabbit Maranville. Is Maranville a deserving HOFer? That's debatable, but Maranville was a productive player late into his career because of his exceptionally formidable defensive skills. Maranville was the same. I'm not trying to put Belanger in the HOF, not even under a what-if scenerio. But he could have been closer to Maranville in value than one might think with just a LITTLE bit of improvement.

As for Dal Maxvill: Belanger was a true full-time player. Maxvill was not; he rarely had 400 ABs in a season. Maxvill's BEST BA came in the year where the NL posted a century-low .251 BA, so hitting .253 for a glove man like Maxvill that year WAS a big deal. Maxvill has nowhere near the career value that Belanger does.

[AstrosFan]

Baseball Prospectus rates Cal Ripken Jr. as a better defensive shortstop than Mark Belanger, by both FRAR and FRAA. The first could be attributed to the length of Cal's career, but the second seems to indicate they truly believe Cal was a better defensive shortstop. Cal had a rocket arm, and was a fine defensive shortstop, excellent in his prime. But does anyone see him as better than Belanger? I keep seeing things like this in BP's measure of SS defense.

[Sirmudgeon]

Cal Ripken was a very good shortstop in his prime. He was not as proficient, defensively, as Belanger. In my lifetime, the three best defensive shortstops were Mark Belanger, Ozzie Smith, and Omar Vizquel, in no particular order. Larry Bowa gets a lot of credit, and he was good, but did not have the range of the top 3, and didn't like to dive, apparently to preserve his fielding percentage.

Belanger's problems with the bat are pretty well-documented, and it says something that a lifetime .220 hitter started for one of baseball's best teams for so many years. Hit it to the left side, you're out.

Yount was an excellent athlete, as was Ripken, neither had the instinct for the position that the top 3 had. Belanger, pigeon-chest and all, was a vacuum. (Even though that's Brooksie's well-deserved nickname, Belanger was his peer, defensively).

Recently, due largely to Yount and Ripken, all shortstops are expected to hit a bit. Garciaparra, Jeter, Tejada, Rodriguez, Reyes, these guys can all smack it, and play good D as well. None are in Belanger's class with the glove. Vizquel and Smith were the last of the breed. Both can/could hit a little, but not like Ernie Banks or Vern Stephens. Omar doesn't have Belanger's arm, but has/had a bit more range. Ozzie was the most spectacular of the 3.

Again, ask Jim Palmer how good Belanger was.

[Gee Walker]

Belanger was a smart player, who always seemed to be positioned right to make the play. Watching an Orioles game on TV back then, you'd see a batter hit a grounder up the middle, and just as you're thinking "single", there would be Belanger, as if he was expecting it all along. Nowadays, it seems to be stressed so that you take the situation into account when setting up in the field - but back in the 70's, I think they had about four standard defenses - normal depth, bunt, double play, and play-at-the-plate. It may have been Weaver, or Belanger on his own, that helped his positioning. Having Brooks eat up a few more feet at third base helped, too.

Belanger's range factors were terrific - and remember, these were kept "per game" back then. Ripken's stats are good, but look better than Belanger's because he never took an inning off. A lot of the time, Belanger wouldn't play the last couple of innings because he was pinch-hit for. In other games, he'd come in for a couple of innings of defense after Kiko Garcia or Tim Nordbrook was pinch hit for. Add up the "games" for Orioles shortstops in the 1970's, and you routinely crack 200. Add up the games for Cal Ripken, and you get 162.

[64Cards]

To quote Mike Gonzales. a coach for the Cardinals in the 30's and 40's.."Good field, no hit."

[hellborn]

Cal Ripken was a very good shortstop in his prime. He was not as proficient, defensively, as Belanger. In my lifetime, the three best defensive shortstops were Mark Belanger, Ozzie Smith, and Omar Vizquel, in no particular order. Larry Bowa gets a lot of credit, and he was good, but did not have the range of the top 3, and didn't like to dive, apparently to preserve his fielding percentage.

Belanger's problems with the bat are pretty well-documented, and it says something that a lifetime .220 hitter started for one of baseball's best teams for so many years. Hit it to the left side, you're out.

Yount was an excellent athlete, as was Ripken, neither had the instinct for the position that the top 3 had. Belanger, pigeon-chest and all, was a vacuum. (Even though that's Brooksie's well-deserved nickname, Belanger was his peer, defensively).

Recently, due largely to Yount and Ripken, all shortstops are expected to hit a bit. Garciaparra, Jeter, Tejada, Rodriguez, Reyes, these guys can all smack it, and play good D as well. None are in Belanger's class with the glove. Vizquel and Smith were the last of the breed. Both can/could hit a little, but not like Ernie Banks or Vern Stephens. Omar doesn't have Belanger's arm, but has/had a bit more range. Ozzie was the most spectacular of the 3.

Again, ask Jim Palmer how good Belanger was.

I mostly know Bowa from his decline years with the Cubs, but also saw him with the Phils. I remember his arm as being a minus, but he had excellent range when younger and was a smart player. He wasn't nearly as helpless with the bat as Belanger until he got older.

I'd argue for Adam Everett as being a modern day whiz glove man without much stick who was able to be a starter, if only for a few years.

Of the guys I've seen a lot of, nobody is close to Ozzie. The arm was nothing special, but he got rid of the ball so quickly that it didn't hurt him a lot. And, that range...OMG. He also became a good offensive player as he developed as a player, had several years where he was above league average in OPS+ due to good on base skills and was also a force on the bases.

[CTaka]

Obviously I never saw Nap Lajoie play, but I did see Belanger play. From the descriptions of Nap from his contemporaries, it seems that Belanger played short in much the same way that Lajoie played second. People rarely ever saw Lajoie dive for a ball, he just seemed to be positioned correctly much more often than others. Looked very graceful in doing so. While he didn't have a cannon hanging from his shoulder, his arm was plenty strong enough and very accurate. Well, that's how I recall Belanger's play from short. Just seemed like every play was a relatively routine grounder to short and Mark made the play look effortless. Others, such as Ozzie, made spectacular leaps and dives that made us mortals wonder "who did he do that", Belanger always seemed to have a high number of routine grounders hit to him. He looked like he could have fielded his position from a rocking chair, just effortlessly pick up the ball and toss it to first.

At least that's my recollection of him and we know that the memory is the second thing to go .....:shhh:

[RuthMayBond]

In my lifetime, the three best defensive shortstops were Mark Belanger, Ozzie Smith, and Omar Vizquel, in no particular order. Actually, there is a very particular order:
1) Ozzie
2) then Belanger
3) then Vizquel
(although Ripken, Concepcion, Speier :eek: , Guillen, Fernandez and Trammell arguably had better careers than #2 & 3)

[Sirmudgeon]

After having watched all of them, I would disagree with your order. I think Vizquel is the best defensive SS, followed by Ozzie, then Belanger. Numbers may tell a different story, I can only go on what my eyes told me at the time. Personally, I think Ozzie was great, but a tad over-rated. Vizquel's hands were superior, particularly during his middle years in Cleveland. Smith obviously had better range, and could do stuff that made you go "huh" or "wow". Belanger got to everything, in stride. Omar was the happy medium betwixt the two.

There, I said it, I ranked the great Oz behind someone. Ony guy's relatively underinformed opinion.

And you are right, Speier was darned good, too.

[Iron Jaw]

To quote Mike Gonzales. a coach for the Cardinals in the 30's and 40's.."Good field, no hit." And the Cards had one of those - Dal Maxvill.:)

[Iron Jaw]

I remember when Belanger began playing quite a bit with the O's in 1967 as a part-time, defensive replacement type. He couldn't hit, but even that season he impressed with the glove. Luis Aparicio was the regular shortstop that season, and though Looey was decent afield, and a decent hitter who could run, his batting stats went way down (as did many of the O's) in 1967 and he was traded back to the Chisox, primarily for Don Buford.

Prior to the 1968 season, the O's were considering using Buford as the shortstop because his bat was much better than Mark's. Buford had never played shortstop at the major league level - he played second and third.

But, Belanger was made a starter in 1968 - the absolute worst year for hitters - and Buford went to the outfield and became the sparkplug, leadoff man. Belanger hit .208 as a starter in 1968. Heck, in 1968, hitting the "Mendoza Line" was hard enough for some good hitters - and Mark managed to do it. When he hit .287 the following season, everyone was amazed. Then, Mark, who hit only 20 homeruns in 18 seasons, belted a round tripper against the Twins in the first-ever ALCS.

Good fielding, no-hit type shortstops were not uncommon back in the 60's. Players like Eddie Brinkman, Dal Maxvill, Dick Howser, Bobby Wine, Hal Lanier, Dick Schofield, Bob Lillis, Ken Hamlin, Roy McMillan, Bud Harrelson.................it seemed, there were a lot of guys in the bigs because of the glove......

[Mike Hoban]

In 2003, my book enitiled FIELDER'S CHOICE: Baseball's Best Shortstops was published. Among other things, it dealt with the top defensive shortstops of all time. Mark Belanger was #11. Here is the list.

1. Ozzie Smith
2. Rabbit Maranville
3. Cal Ripken, Jr.
4. Luis Aparicio
5. Everett Scott
6. Roy McMillan
7. Larry Bowa
8. Dave Bancroft
9. Bill Dahlen
10. Honus Wagner
11. Marl Belanger
12. Tom Corcoran
13. Dick Bartell
14. Bobby Wallace
15. Mickey Doolan
16. Joe Tinker
17. Dave Concepcion
18. Don Kessinger
19. Leo Cardenas
20. Omar Vizquel

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

[rugbyfreak]

And the Cards had one of those - Dal Maxvill.:)


And just as there are different levels of "good hitting," I would submit there are the same for good field, no hit. I guess we have agreed that Belanger belongs in that category, based on those grim lifetime numbers. But he did have those three excellent years (by SS standards back then). And he hung around long enough to get 8 GG's and log 1316 lifetime hits.

Maxvill, meanwhile, whom I saw play, was a good field, no-hit practicioner of the lowest order. He was as close to an automatic out as it came back then, right there with Hal Lanier. He was a starter on StL for 6 years ('66-'71) for his glvoe alone, and it was one of the better ones (GG in '68), but not in Belanger's class.

[RuthMayBond]

In 2003, my book enitiled FIELDER'S CHOICE: Baseball's Best Shortstops was published. Among other things, it dealt with the top defensive shortstops of all time. Mark Belanger was #11. Here is the list.

1. Ozzie Smith
2. Rabbit Maranville
3. Cal Ripken, Jr.
4. Luis Aparicio
5. Everett Scott
6. Roy McMillan
7. Larry Bowa
8. Dave Bancroft
9. Bill Dahlen
10. Honus Wagner
11. Marl Belanger
12. Tom Corcoran
13. Dick Bartell
14. Bobby Wallace
15. Mickey Doolan
16. Joe Tinker
17. Dave Concepcion
18. Don Kessinger
19. Leo Cardenas
20. Omar Vizquel

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of FamersJust wondering what this is based upon. Bowa & Kessinger seem REALLY high, and I don't see Boudreau, Glasscock, Speier, Long, Guillen, Fernandez ...

[Gee Walker]

Just wondering what this is based upon. Bowa & Kessinger seem REALLY high, and I don't see Boudreau, Glasscock, Speier, Long, Guillen, Fernandez ...

or, for that matter, Marion, Rizzuto, or Crosetti.

[RuthMayBond]

or, for that matter, Crosetti.Crosetti was overrated

[Mike Hoban]

Just wondering what this is based upon. Bowa & Kessinger seem REALLY high, and I don't see Boudreau, Glasscock, Speier, Long, Guillen, Fernandez ...

Among other considerations, a player has to have played at least 10 seasons of 100 games each at shortstop and a total of at least 1600 games at the position.

I posted the top 20 defensive shortstops above. Here are the next fifteen.

21. Roger Peckinpaugh
22. Joe Cronin
23. Ed Brinkman
24. Phil Rizzuto
25. Alan Trammell
26. Pee Wee Reese
27. Donnie Bush
28. Chris Speier
29. Luke Appling
30. Dick Groat
31. Ozzie Guillen
32. Garry Templeton
33. Bert Campaneris
34. Barry Larkin
35. Herman Long

If you waive the 1600 game minimum, then George Davis, Tony Fernandez and Marty Marion would make the top 20. In fact, they would be #9, 10 and 17 respectively.

If you waive the requirement for 10 seasons at shortstop of at least 100 games, then Lou Boudreau and George McBride would be among the top ten defensive shortstops of all time. Boudreau and McBride would place just behind Roy McMillan and ahead of Larry Bowa in the top ten list.

Author of FIELDER'S CHOICE: Baseball's Best Shortstops

[RuthMayBond]

Among other considerations, a player has to have played at least 10 seasons of 100 games each at shortstop and a total of at least 1600 games at the position.That was kind of, um, IMPOSSIBLE for guys like Glasscock for awhile. Wouldn't it be MORE impressive for some of those guys to NOT have played that many games and STILL have saved as many runs as guys who played more?

<I posted the top 20 defensive shortstops above. Here are the next fifteen.

23. Ed Brinkman
27. Donnie Bush>

Either not on my radar or not that high, I'll have to investigate

[Frank]

The best fielding Shortstop I've ever seen till I got to Watch Ozzie Smith on a regular Bases...It was fun watching Belanger in the field.