Do Roger Maris or Albert Belle belong in the HOF
 

Inspired by a recent thread.
1. Maris only.
2. Belle only.
3. Both.
4. Neither.

I said belle only...not sure if roger deserves entry basically for “61?” Albert was consistently one of the most feared hitters for a while and put up solid numbers...despite being a d-bag...but thats never mattered for entry to a hall.

I would put Roger in for his contributions to baseball over his career. Hitting those 61 homers was an incredible achievement.

Most casual baseball fans are shocked when they find out that Maris is not in the HOF. Maris is iconic. Maris is a household name - most people who don’t know baseball know his name. He’s a legend. Legends should be immortalized.

ly

Maybe in the New York area. The 1961 season was 58 years ago. Unless someone is ~65 they weren't old enough to remember to chase. Most people in the West, South or Midwest have no idea who he is.

An Alternative?
 

Could the HOF maybe have a wing for "Hall of Fame Achievements"? Something to honor players who did something(s) great but did not have an otherwise HOF-worthy career?

Maris' 61 homers comes to mind. Vander Meer's back-to-back No Hitters might qualify.

Dunno, just a thought....

Really?
 

Are you nuts? Even in Wisconsin, back in 1961 we had newspapers, magazines, and radio's.

I suppose it depends on whether it's a hall of fame, or a hall of stats. Both often go together, but sometimes they diverge.

If it's a hall of fame, maybe both should be in. If it's a hall of stats, maybe not. As it is, it's a hall of stats over time, with a popularity poll at the end.

Are you serious? I don't understand how anyone who was alive in 1998 can possibly say something like that. Maris was the most famous name in all of sports during the most famous chase in all of sports at a time when baseball was at it's inflated height. I think you would have been hard pressed to find a person in the country who didn't know his name.

He is talking about NOW, not then.

I voted neither because neither deserves to be in. Maris had 3 good years which makes him a no. Belle was the far superior hitter but his rep and short career keep him out.

My 2 cents, Maris`s argument reminds me somewhat of the Joe Namath one. Both players had some great years but overall, their career numbers didn`t make them automatic. However, both players had single historical moments that transcended their respective sports. Maris for historical "61" season and of course Joe and his Jets forever changing the NFL/AFL landscape defeating the Colts in the Super Bowl. For me, they are both Hall Of Fame Locks !

I daresay most people in New York don't know who he is. Clearly most people everywhere do not. The median age is like 27, and even in the U.S., which apart from Canada, is probably about the only country where more than 1% of people would know the name, < 20% of the people are old enough to remember the '61 season.

I have a feeling that most people know who Sam Harris is, given how frequently he's mentioned within my social group, but I also know that feeling is stupid and comes from a false consensus bias and that in reality there's no way even 10% of people know who he is. Baseball fans will feel the same about Roger Maris, Hank Greenberg, et al., but again, no way even 10% of people know who these guys are. In fact, no way even 10% of people know who Walter Johnson was, and he was the greatest pitcher in MLB history.

There are several times as many people who don't know who Donald Trump is (and he's likely the most famous person in the world at the moment) as who do know who Roger Maris was.

My recollection of Albert belle was that he was a foul-tempered, cantankerous and lazy baseball player who wasted a lot of his talent. The HOF does not usually take in characters like that.....

Why do people keep bringing up 1961 as a baseline for knowing who Maris is? Did everyone forget McGwire and Sosa's chase? Who were they chasing? How about Bonds' pursuit in 2001? That was only 18 years ago.

When I think of Albert Belle, I think of this play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV3fNK31HD4

By the way, I voted "no" for both, although some of the arguments for inclusion of Maris are warranted. Interestingly, just because someone doesn't make the HOF doesn't mean that they aren't a major part of the HOF (Cooperstown). There's all sorts of equipment and other references to non-HOFers at Cooperstown, like Maris and Rose. I don't recall seeing any Joey Belle "stuff" there at Cooperstown. Feared, yes (see video). HOF, not so much. I'd stick Dale Murphy in the Hall well before Joey "Albert" Belle.

Neither are even close. Maris is not a hall of famer in any regard. He was a quiet decent and hardworking man who was elevated to something he was not because of two good seasons. Look at his numbers, he hit 260 with 1325 hits. He did not have a career where he was somehow blocked by circumstances. He was a regular when he was 22 and he retired at 33 after hitting around 250 with less then 13 homer per year for his last 4 years. If you look at his similarity scores per age he was Reggie Jackson for three years, but in his other years he was Larry Hisle, Pete incavigila, Jessie Barfield and Coby Rasmus.

There are a ton a guys who had two great years- Rubin Sierra, Jose Cansevo, George foster, dale murphy, Mickey Vernon, al Rosen, Denny McClain, etc who have career numbers as good as or better then Maris who are not even talked about for the hall

He should be applauded for 61 but not be elevated to the hall

This ^^^^^^^^

Seems we're moving more towards a Hall of (Advanced) Stats.

Belle to me is borderline with a short career. Maris is such a pull either way - clearly (along with Gil Hodges) one of the single most popular players who has not been enshrined yet. He did win 2 MVP's, but the arguments for the short peak are valid. I do buy into some of the "did a lot for baseball" arguments. Yes, the vote is as a player, but what are some of those long-forgotten execs enshrined for if not for "what they did for the game"? As a kid even in the 1980's when I first started collecting cards, Maris was extremely well known - way before the summer of '98 drama. Yes, it's for one event - but that one event was the single most cherished record in the entire history of the game. One that has since been tarnished I might add by all the things that have since come out about McGwire and Bonds. I think there are exceptions, and really it would not bother me if Roger gets elected one day.

+1 - exactly as I see it.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? If someone wasn't alive in 1961 or old enough to read the paper or remember, how would they know what it was like? In our neighborhood Maris cards were commons, sorry.

IF Roger Maris had played for a bad team in 1961 and NOT the Yankees would we even be HAVING this discussion??

Maris is NOT a Hall of Famer and the only reason for his fame is because he was a Yankee.

David

If I remember correctly, neither Hank Aaron, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds were Yankees yet they are all remembered for the same thing: hitting a magic number of home runs.

Who else did that? I think a guy named Roger Maris.

So if he played for the Tigers and led the team to 3 straight ws, winning back to back mvps and hit 61 hr breaking Babe’s record... yes we would.
I also say that Murphy belongs... who was the best player in baseball in the early 80s with back to back mvps for a terrible team.

I kinda doubt he hits 61 without that guy who hit 4th behind him -- now what was his name -- Mickey something.

Here's the rub, IMO. Someone like Baines gets in and everyone yells "Compiler!" Guys who have a few great seasons are the other side of that coin, but seldom get recognized...maybe a few deadball guys like Chesboro or Walsh, but no one recently. I don't think it matters all that much, but I could live with both or neither, however, I would argue that Maris (and Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose) is a de facto Hall of Fame because he is more well-known than the vast majority of outfielders in the hall.

Albert Belle + Steroids + Corked Bat = No HOF

I did not think Belle was linked with steroids.

Complete speculation: notorious for unprovoked crazy outbursts? Prominent slugger in the mid-late 1990’s? Career cut short by injury? Caught cheating on several occasions?

I mean...

Where the hell were Vina's teammates on that play, I mean even if that's a legitimate albeit very hard hit, you can't just let that be.

No for both

No to either, but Belle is more deserving, and it wouldn't offend by baseball senses if Belle was elected. In his prime, Belle had a Hall of Fame bat on the order of Jimmy Foxx or Lou Gehrig-- though had much publicized baggage including being a Terrell Owens-eque teammate.

There it is. What would Maris' numbers look like without Mantle protecting him? Outside of those 2-3 years they weren't very good and even those 3 years he hit .283 (career high), .269, .256. His best career numbers are Slugging%-223rd all time and OPS+ 220th all time.

One of his teammates said that all his bats were corked.

I don't remember anyone else in front of Mantle hitting 61 homers. Can you point some people out who accomplished that seemingly easy feat?

Do Roger Maris or Albert Belle belong in the HOF
 

That's crazy!

I believe Sports Science, or a show along those lines debunking the corked bat. Was a very interesting episode.

Mantle hit 3rd much of his career, no? In any event your point is a non sequitur, the question is did hitting in front of Mantle help Maris' HR totals and I think the answer is likely yes.

A vote for Belle only. He's out in the cold simple because the sportswriters don't like him. Not that I blame them, he was a horse's ass.

On Roger, if he had stroked out at 59 I don't think we're having this poll. Nice player and I liked him alot, and that's coming from a lifetime Yankee hater.

I'm comfortable with neither being in but I think Belle is the more deserving of the two (even with the nostalgia factor going for Roger Maris). I wouldn't be overly oupset if Belle eventually gets in though.

Honestly, of the guys in that "limbo" state where they don't quite have the numbers to justify inclusion I'd rather see a Dale Murphy or someone like that get in before those two.

I don't understand the votes in favor of Maris other than romanticism.


Hall of Fame Statistics





Black Ink
Batting - 18 (132), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink
Batting - 57 (461), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 89 (205), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 22 (679), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS
Right Field (55th):
38.2 career WAR / 32.3 7yr-peak WAR / 35.2 JAWS
Average HOF RF (out of 26):
71.4 career WAR / 42.1 7yr-peak WAR / 56.8 JAWS

Both are no from me.

I had to look up Romanticism but I agree.

Roger
 

Roger for sure. I mean if you're voting Harold Baines in, not including Maris is a travesty. Toss out the Roid guys and he stands alone at 61 homers in a season. That has to mean something.

Thats the biggest problem with undeserving players like Baines getting in the HOF, people use it to justify other undeserving players getting in.

He stood alone for decades and never got even half the vote.

Yep. The slippery slope argument. But as a great judge said, Just because there's a slippery slope, you don't have to ski it to the bottom.

My understanding that the Hall has a guideline (not a rule) that says a players entire career should be considered, not a single game or season.

I don't feel either player belongs. Lots of more deserving players who had more career value without being Baines-style compilers (and agree we should never use a universally panned selection to justify other bad picks).

They proved that with a machine swinging the bat it did not matter if it was corked or not. Now if a real live person hits the ball farther with a corked bat is a different story. Athletes are strange people and if they believe it helps, crazily just the extra confidence it gives the player leads to a real increase in #'s.

To the original question. They both deserve to be in the HOF as much as I do, only with paid admission to look at the greats of the game.:)

Then call me a "Roman-tic".....even though I'm a Greek :)

I'm probably one of the few here who are lucky to have seen Roger play (1957 - 1968). And you have had to see him play to appreciate his all-around performance.
Especially in 1961. Just like Mantle, Roger was a just a "country boy". The NY media was unreal that year to both of them. Mantle (after 10 years in NY) was able to
deal with the media. But to Roger, the media was unbearable.

Look, throwing out numbers (stats) does not really tell you the true story. And, given the fact that there are some already in the BB Hall Of Fame whose credentials
are less than Roger's......my vote is a resounding YES.

In 1965, Roger continued playing the game although he was suffering from a break in his hand that had been misdiagnosed. The best thing that happened to Roger
at that time in his career was being traded to the St Louis Cardinals.

And, if "numbers" are you game....check-out Roger's performance in the 1967 World Series !

That's it....I said my piece.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

No
 

The writers and committees have had 50 years to elect Maris and never did.
That is very telling.
(We cannot elect him from Net54 either)

Players with great seasons or memorable achievements get their attention in the Hall already, they don’t necessarily deserve a career award like the HOF election.

Belle isn’t a HOFer either. He doesn’t have much of an argument for his career numbers or fame factor. There is at least a couple dozen guys who have some argument, but not him.

Agree
 

Maris as a hofer is nonsense.

Belle's argument is that he was an elite hitter for a decade before his career was ended by a severe injury. He played 10 full seasons and averaged 40 homers every 162. There are plenty of other guys who had careers shortened by injury or death but are in the Hall. Addie Joss, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett to name three.

The idea that he didn't play long enough or doesn't have the career numbers holds no water. He meets the Hall criteria and his career was ended by injury. If Belle was just pretty good or whatever (Don Mattingly), then OK. But he wasn't. He was elite.

Yea I'd have to say yes to Belle and no to Maris. His last 9 seasons he had 100 or more RBIs. Has anyone ever done this and not made the HOF?

The argument for Belle is Ralph Kiner.

I would not put Belle in but I believe in the future, when people forget his rep, some kind of Veterans Committee will elect him.

Joe Carter had 10 seasons of 100 RBIs and another with 98. Is he a Hofer too?

Ralph Kiner led the NL in Hrs 7 times, Albert Belle led the AL once.

Kiner in 10 seasons WAR 49.4 WAR7 43.7 JAWS 46.5
Belle in 12 seasons WAR 40.1 WAR7 36.0 JAWS 38.1
Bob Johnson 13 seasons WAR 57.3 WAR7 36.0 JAWS 46.6

When you are talking about a player with a short career they need to have a high peak. Kiner was 8th among LF and those above him were elite players. Belle is tied for 30th with Bob Johnson. That is his comp not Ralph Kiner.

Wow, I just took a look at Belle’s numbers. I had no idea he was that consistently productive.

Baines: 2866 h, 1299 r, 384 hr, 1628 rbi, .289 ba
Edgar: 2247 h, 1219 r, 309 hr, 1261 rbi, .309 ba
From the time it was announced, people have been outraged by Baines induction. At the same time people have been outraged that it took Edgar this long to get in. Baines numbers are actually HOF range while Edgar’s fall very short. Maybe Baines can stop being the poster boy for undeserving HOF inductees. He may not belong but he belongs long before Edgar.

Baines played almost 800 more games, so it should be expected he'd have more hits, hr and rbi's.

Baines 38.7 WAR, OPS+ 121, OPS 820
Edgar 68.7 WAR, OPS+ 147, OPS 933

Edgar was better.

No comparison between Belle and Carter.

Carter
19.6 career WAR / 21.5 7yr-peak WAR / 20.5 JAWS
Belle
40.1 career WAR / 36.0 7yr-peak WAR / 38.0 JAWS

I was replying to someone using RBIs, which is a flawed stat on its own, to make a HOF case for Belle. Bob Johnson had 8 100 RBI seasons + 92 & 93 RBI seasons. He was an 8 time all star. He had a similarly short career with equal peak to Belle (higher WAR and JAWS). Johnson also had a career OPS+ of 139 which is only slightly less than Belle's 144. Neither Johnson nor Carter are close to HOF. They also weren't known cheaters. When dealing with the Veteran's Committee, it is better to be a nice guy like Baines than a jerk like Belle. Corking Bats + being a jerk = no HOF when your career was marginal (low career WAR & low 7 year peak WAR).

Still no
 

Albert’s HOF voting record is dismal.
Writers and committees have had 18 years to vote him in, but they don’t appear to believe he is a HOFer either.
If you peak @ 7.7% then drop off the ballot after two tries, you don’t have much support for the folks best able to put you in.

I’m not saying he wasn’t a good hitter. His numbers are good. But there are a lot of hitters with good numbers.

Albert "don't call me Joey" Belle was a force when he played. He was only 33 when he left baseball. Calling him the Barry Sanders of baseball may be a stretch, but he did some damage when he played.

What if Roger only had 59 HRs in 1961? Would there be a discussion about it? From what I've read Roger and Joey were probably opposites when it comes to "public relations" but when you look at just the stats and remove all other considerations, how do these two stack up?

My opinion is that the writers have shown over the years that they don’t have much of a clue about what they are doing. Whitaker and Trammell had almost identical career numbers and both played at a position where their numbers rank him among other hof members. Whitaker was off the ballot in a year. Trammell stayed on the ballot and gained support over the years and was finally put in by the vets. Just because the voters didn’t vote for a player doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve it.

I said both but I am for a large hall of fame.

It is because of position. Trammell played one of the 2 most difficult positions in the game (SS & C) where defense is the primary concern and offense is rare, only Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan put up strong offensive numbers at the position over a full career. Trammell was slighly above the average for his position for a HOFer.

Whitaker on the other hand played a much easier position where HOFers have put up more offense (Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, Carew, Jackie) and his career numbers are slightly below average for his position for a HOFer.

In particular, he had a low 7 year peak (as did Maris & Belle) while Trammell had a much higher peak along with WS MVP and AL MVP 2nd place. Whitaker only received MVP votes once, finishing 8th. He should have received more support from HOF voters, but he really isn't a strong candidate. He is behind Bobby Grich and Chase Utley among weak 2b candidates, both of which never had strong individual seasons (higher than 7th or 8th in MVP voting).

Ripken was a SS through age 35. Not exactly shabby offensive numbers.

Hodges had 7 in a row not in off the top of my head.

ops+ 112.

95.9 war

The RBIs were what stood out when I googled his stats. Others were impressive as well. They may be a flawed stat according to some new modern metric, but I will take home runs, batting average, and RBIs over war, jaws, or whatever else some millenials will come up with next.

RBIs are quite dependent on how good the guys are hitting in front of you, so I wouldn't place TOO much stock in it. Pujols kept up fairly high RBI totals despite clearly going downhill because he hit behind Trout, for example. The good thing about the newer metrics is that they tend to neutralize for team effects, as well as park effects.

I was stubborn to accept modern stats but they really are a better way to compare players across different leagues, eras, ballparks, etc.

The problem I still have is some cannot be calculated without computers. Back in the day, every kid knew how to calculate BA, Slugging and even ERA. Todays WAR and OPS+? Forget it.

I get the idea behind the modern metrics. But they have their flaws as well and I think people put too much stock into them. From what I understand people can't even decide on which war calculation is best. I will stick with what I know until I'm convinced otherwise.

I like them for comparing 2 people that played at the same time and played the same position. Otherwise i find them completely worthless and hilariously flawed.

no for both, BTW there are some pretty funny comments under that you tube video

Roger Maris -YES
MLB must also recognize his 61 HR's as the single season record
Maris was a great man and a great athlete

For me, it's a no go for either. I love Maris and think his contributions to the history of the game are remarkable, but his career didn't provide enough overall to garner enshrinement. Belle could have been had he not been such a jerk and struggled with health-related issues late. He was truly a feared hitter.

Bob Johnson isn't a good comp because Johnson played well into old age. Belle, who put up bigger numbers, retired due to injury.

Johnson also gets a big bump to metrics because he was one of the few decent players to not lose any time to WW2. Of course he stood out in comparison to the likes of Pete Gray.

7/63/.265 in 1943 and he takes 5th in MVP voting. Ouch.

Interesting stats though. He started at age 27. One imagines he would be on more people's radar screens with a few more good early years.