Adrian Beltre - HOFer?

[wolf441]

I'm always curious on current players and their chances at Cooperstown. As a Red Sox fan, I got to watch Adrian Beltre for one season and came away extremely impressed (for some reason, I bought into the story that he loafed on the Dodgers after he picked up the big contract). In looking up his stats on Baseball-Reference, he seems to have a decent shot at the Hall of Fame.

He's only 35 and has 2,604 hits, 395 HR and a .285 average. However, he's never won anything, is only a 4 time all star, has only driven in 100 runs 4 times and scores a 9 on the Blank Ink test (average HOF = 27).

What does the forum think?

[earlywynnfan]

I think definitely. He's the quietest HOFer out there. Is it possible to be a stealth HOFer?

[Econteachert205]

Sox should have never let him go. Of course there's a bunch of teams saying that. I actually think he needs 1-2 years more of high end play and then yes.

[pgellis]

My old time rule with HOFers was if you have to stop to think about it, then "NO".

I had to stop to think about it........

[clydepepper]

Cal Ripken, Jr. once called him the best fielding third-baseman ever - and while that may not be true, he should get in - especially if he reaches 3,000 hits.

[familytoad]

400 more hits seems pretty likely due to his relative youth. Even 75-100 home runs doesn't seem unreasonable.

But I like HOF players to be dominant and unquestionably worthy. Seems those players have been rare unless tied to PED lately.

I'm not sure if he's my typical HOF choice, but it would not be the worst choice out there.

So if keeping score, I'd say he'd have to win some important batting category or have several more AS games under his belt before I could put him in.
as mentioned...I don't think he's bad, but he is not famous. Not at all...

[clydepepper]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/tex...seman-ever.ece

Thanks, Cal, that's clear as mud.

[7nohitter]

Very good numbers, but I also think he's never been 'dominant'.....so, NO.

[bdk1976]

Are you kidding me?

Signed,
Mariners Fan

[frankbmd]

Anyone whose name is an anagram for Radian Belter should be a lock for the Hall.

It worked for Elm Tot.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Very good numbers, but I also think he's never been 'dominant'.....so, NO.

I'd call 48 HRs and 121 RBIs .334 AVE pretty dominant. He's finished 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting plus 2 other top 10 finishes. He's had 8 seasons of 5.0+ WAR (All-Star level). Among 3rd basemen, he's 6th in JAWs, 7th in WAR. A couple more good years and he'll pass up Chipper Jones in those areas. Unless he is tied to steroids, I think he makes the HOF.

[HRBAKER]

Unless he is tied to steroids, I think he makes the HOF.

Agree 100%.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Anyone whose name is an anagram for Radian Belter should be a lock for the Hall.

It worked for Elm Tot.

...and Abbe Hurt

[Paul S]

And Busty R. Borc

[packs]

I think his career will come under some scrutiny. He's been on a questionable trajectory. 2004 he has a huge year right before free agency and hits 330 with 48 homers. He will then not hit 300 again until 2010. Another contract year following his weakest season in the majors. He also hits the most homers he had since his last free agency year.

I don't know if he's using PEDs. His career to me is a HOF one. Third base is under represented too. But I think voters will be suspicious.

[frankbmd]

Lest we not forget

Nat's U S Mail

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Lest we not forget

Nat's U S Mail

Who sent a letter to...

Minty MacKeel

[71buc]

Defensively and offensively he and Chipper are the best third baseman of this generation. After watching him play on a daily basis for five years in Seattle I have to say he belongs in the HOF. Ironically, If he doesn't make it into Cooperstown Safeco will have played a large role. Compare his stats in Safeco during his prime to those in the other parks he played in. If you drop Mike Schmidt during his prime in Safeco he would have much different stats. The same can be said about Chipper Jones. For what its worth, when I consider all of the players I have watched in my life Beltre is only surpassed by Schmidt and Brett at third base.

[Orioles1954]

Ripken got...and still continues to get a bunch of crap in Baltimore for that statement...which he has since backed off of. Interestingly, Cal is probably on the third or fourth most popular ex-Oriole.

[Tabe]

Elite defender with outstanding offensive numbers? What's to ask? He's an obvious HOFer.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Elite defender with outstanding offensive numbers? What's to ask? He's an obvious HOFer.

^^^This answer is spot on.

Is he a HOFer? Duh! If he continues to do what he's been doing for the past decade or so, then he will end with very impressive numbers. He should be able to eclipse the 3k hit mark within three years. Does anyone know how difficult that is to do? If you do, then you realize he's a HOFer...not to mention he will probably be close to 450-500 hrs too. For those of you that think he needs awards and "honors" next to his name to enter the HOF, you haven't been paying attention to how the MLB and other professional sports work. All Star nomination is based mainly on fan voting...so why do we care so much about who gets voted into an All-Star game? The answer is we shouldn't. How about MVP's and batting titles? Don't look at that...look at how GOOD he was overall and judge him by that. Mike Trout had two crazy MVP type seasons as where he ended up runner up and in his third year he finally ended up getting the award. Guess what...the two previous seasons he had better numbers than the MVP season! MVP awards don't necessarily go the the actual MVP of the league...if your team is in the bottom half of the league, you have zero chance of winning the award...we all know this already, just reminding you that this award can be a joke and bias sometimes.

And if you have to think whether someone should be in the HOF, then you are doing your job, but having to think about it doesn't mean they don't belong. There are only a few players that are no-brainers, but that doesn't mean that they are the only ones that belong in. Yes, there are tiers in the HOF, but let's not judge the HOF on whether or not you compare to Babe Ruth...almost no one does.

That being said, if Beltre can continue for at least a few more years, he's an easy choice for the Hall.

[Orioles1954]

Baseball is by far the most difficult Hall of Fame to get inducted into. There is plenty of room in Cooperstown. Beltre will get tarnished for better or worse by the fact he is a Dominican slugger who played in the steroid era.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

I'd call 48 HRs and 121 RBIs .334 AVE pretty dominant. He's finished 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting plus 2 other top 10 finishes. He's had 8 seasons of 5.0+ WAR (All-Star level). Among 3rd basemen, he's 6th in JAWs, 7th in WAR. A couple more good years and he'll pass up Chipper Jones in those areas. Unless he is tied to steroids, I think he makes the HOF.

After that "dominant year", he didn't get a single MVP vote, not one, for another six years.

In fact, let's look at his year by year OPS around that "dominant year" of 2004, shall we?

2001 .720 (his fourth year in baseball)
2002 .729
2003 .714
2004 1.017
2005 .716
2006 .792
2007 .802
2008 .784
2009 .683

He had one truly great season in his first eleven. One. Now, in the last five, he's been one of the best third basemen in the game. But should he get in, and somebody like Don Mattingly does not get in, with the difference being that Beltre played a bunch more average to below average years that Mattingly didn't have?

And let's talk about that "dominant" season, shall we? He had 376 total bases. Between 2000 and 2005, know how many batters had more in a single season? Thirteen!

I generated a report for most total bases in a season, between the years 2000 and 2005, a nice little six year period. Minimum of 500 at bats for my report, so it wouldn't be twenty pages long.


Know how many players on that list had a higher OPS than Beltre's 1.017 in that six year period? Thirty! His was only the thirty-first best season between 2000 and 2005.

What about those 121 RBIs? How many better RBI totals were there in those six years?

Fifty-six! Fifty-six hitters managed 122 or more RBIs between 2000 and 2005.

So, why am I bringing all of this up? He really wasn't that dominant. Those numbers in 1967 would have been other worldly. But in an era where the baseball flew out of the park at near unprecedented rates, Beltre's season was merely very, very good. And remember, he didn't come anywhere near replicating it at any time in the eight seasons sandwiched around that 2004 season.



He has to have at least three more great seasons for me to consider him a Hall of Famer, because right now, he just doesn't excite me as a candidate. Funny to me that, outside of the one big season, he never really became a star until he went to Boston, and then to Texas, two teams famous for their use of "helpful substances".

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

^^^This answer is spot on.

Is he a HOFer? Duh! If he continues to do what he's been doing for the past decade or so, then he will end with very impressive numbers. He should be able to eclipse the 3k hit mark within three years. Does anyone know how difficult that is to do? If you do, then you realize he's a HOFer...not to mention he will probably be close to 450-500 hrs too. For those of you that think he needs awards and "honors" next to his name to enter the HOF, you haven't been paying attention to how the MLB and other professional sports work. All Star nomination is based mainly on fan voting...so why do we care so much about who gets voted into an All-Star game? The answer is we shouldn't. How about MVP's and batting titles? Don't look at that...look at how GOOD he was overall and judge him by that. Mike Trout had two crazy MVP type seasons as where he ended up runner up and in his third year he finally ended up getting the award. Guess what...the two previous seasons he had better numbers than the MVP season! MVP awards don't necessarily go the the actual MVP of the league...if your team is in the bottom half of the league, you have zero chance of winning the award...we all know this already, just reminding you that this award can be a joke and bias sometimes.

And if you have to think whether someone should be in the HOF, then you are doing your job, but having to think about it doesn't mean they don't belong. There are only a few players that are no-brainers, but that doesn't mean that they are the only ones that belong in. Yes, there are tiers in the HOF, but let's not judge the HOF on whether or not you compare to Babe Ruth...almost no one does.

That being said, if Beltre can continue for at least a few more years, he's an easy choice for the Hall.

First of all, it's not the last "decade or so". It's been five years. And five darned good years, and one great year a long time ago, means everybody should just ignore the litany of mediocre seasons he had? Safeco affected his power numbers, yes. Safeco didn't account for his career .307 OBP there. A good hitter learns how to adjust to the park they're in. If he couldn't hit the ball out of the field, he could have turned into a doubles machine.

I think Beltre will get in. I just don't think he's the slam dunk people are making him out to be, and I don't know if he deserves to get in based on what he's done to date.

As of 2009, 1,681 games into his career, he was a career .270 hitter with a .779 OPS. Ignoring 1998, his rookie year when he only played in 78 games, he played in 11 other seasons. He received MVP votes, not top five MVP votes, or top ten MVP votes...any MVP votes in exactly one season.

One.

He managed to play a decade's worth of other games, and didn't warrant a single MVP vote in any other season. Not one. That's what the baseball writers thought of Adrian Beltre as a baseball player to date. He wasn't just not an MVP, or an MVP candidate, he wasn't even worthy of showing up on the list of MVP vote getters. There are about 20-25 players in each league that get votes each seasons.

Eleven seasons into his career, he'd not been an All Star, not even once, though he played the much of his career at the hot corner in one of the biggest cities in America. That's what the fans, his peers, and managers in the league thought of him. He won a single Silver Slugger Award, in his big 2004 season. He won two Gold Gloves.

If we remove his big 2004 season, want to know what his stats are through 12 seasons? And his averages per 162 games? Tell me if this is a Hall of Fame player, or even close.

Adrian Beltre 1998 to 2009 (excluding 2004):

1,525 games
1500 hits
5,687 at bats
724 runs
316 doubles
26 triples
202 home runs
785 RBI
425 walks
997 K

His 162 game averages:

604 at bats
76 runs
159 hits
34 doubles
3 triples
21 home runs
83 RBI
45 walks
103 strikeouts
.264 average
.315 OBP
.435 SLG
.750 OPS

Then comes 2010, and a trip to Boston. And Beltre, a man who hit over .300 exactly one time in 12 seasons (.334 in 2004), and even better than .280 only one other time (2000) suddenly hits .321 with the Sox. That doesn't necessarily have to mean something fishy happened, but it does at least beg the question "what happened"?

The last five years, he's been a .316 hitter, averaging 32 home runs and 105 RBI, with an .899 OPS.

He needs to have 3 more seasons at this same level, and then I think he gets in. Right now, he's borderline, in my opinion. While I think he's been outstanding, I can't just forget all the uninspired production we saw from him for a decade.

[freakhappy]

Guess he was a late bloomer, bill. But in a few years his overall numbers will easily earn him a spot in the hall...easily. I wouldn't be surprised if it took him a while to get in based on how much of a joke voting is. The politics of the game absolutely kill me and it ruins it for a lot of people.

Bill, I respect your opinion, but I don't care at all about the MVP voting...it means nothing to me. They have a system and they stick to it and for the most part, it is bias. Gotta get off of the awards and watch the man play...he is one of the best in the league offensively and defensively...period.

When he finishes his career he will have HOF numbers for sure and nothing he did fifteen years ago will change that unless they find out he did steroids or something of that nature.

[frankbmd]

He was taking steroid suppressants for the first ten years. He lost his prescription in 2004. The suppressants aren't available in Beantown.

Let's call it "The Anti-Juice Hypothesis".

[clydepepper]

Frank - That's a great explanation!

Bill- Once again, your research is wonderful, however...as Coach Corso would say, 'Not so fast'.

If you take the 1987 season away from Andre Dawson's resume, would he be more of a candidate than Beltre?

Beltre might not stand out in a PED-heavy era because, evidently, he didn't use.

But his offensive consistency could place him between Tony Perez and Eddie Murray and neither of them were defenders of any repute.

In other words, IMHO, it makes for a more valid comparison if you compare him to those who stayed clean just as he, apparently, has.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Guess he was a late bloomer, bill. But in a few years his overall numbers will easily earn him a spot in the hall...easily. I wouldn't be surprised if it took him a while to get in based on how much of a joke voting is. The politics of the game absolutely kill me and it ruins it for a lot of people.

Bill, I respect your opinion, but I don't care at all about the MVP voting...it means nothing to me. They have a system and they stick to it and for the most part, it is bias. Gotta get off of the awards and watch the man play...he is one of the best in the league offensively and defensively...period.

When he finishes his career he will have HOF numbers for sure and nothing he did fifteen years ago will change that unless they find out he did steroids or something of that nature.

Well, you should care about MVP voting, because it's the considered opinions of the people who watch the game played, assess and write about who the best players in the game are. Are you seriously going to tell me that if he had finished in the top five in the MVP Award in those ten years, you wouldn't be bringing that up? Of course you would. And remember, this isn't just a case of his not winning an MVP. He didn't get a single vote....from anybody....in ten of his first eleven years. There are some thirty voters. And those thirty voters get to list, what, five to ten players on their ballots? I'll have to check. All I know is that many years, there are some twenty to thirty players in a league that will garner some kind of MVP votes, even if it's just one point. In 2014, twenty-five players received at least one MVP vote in the National League, and twenty in the American League.

In ten of his first eleven years, with all of those voters, and all of those nominees for the award, he didn't get one single vote...from ANYBODY. Not one. He wasn't one of the top 25 to 30 players in his league..in ten of his first eleven years. Translation? The people who watch the game every day, that write about it, that are considered authorities in the sport...they were not at all impressed with Adrian Beltre.

Now, from age 30 on, he's been terrific. He's balancing off some of the bad years he had earlier in his career. He needs to do more, but he's headed in the right direction.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Frank - That's a great explanation!

Bill- Once again, your research is wonderful, however...as Coach Corso would say, 'Not so fast'.

If you take the 1987 season away from Andre Dawson's resume, would he be more of a candidate than Beltre?

Beltre might not stand out in a PED-heavy era because, evidently, he didn't use.

But his offensive consistency could place him between Tony Perez and Eddie Murray and neither of them were defenders of any repute.

In other words, IMHO, it makes for a more valid comparison if you compare him to those who stayed clean just as he, apparently, has.

First of all, you're kidding about the Dawson comparison, right? Before he even came to Chicago, Dawson was a superstar. Cubs fans were besides themselves when The Hawk came to the Windy City.

First of all, you can't do a straight comparison of his stats to Beltre's. Different era. When Dawson played in Montreal, the average runs per game varied from the high 3s to the low 4s. When Beltre played in Los Angeles, the runs per game varied from the mid 4s to the low 5s. The offensive numbers when Beltre played dwarf the numbers of Dawson's era.

But Dawson, unlike Beltre, was a stud before coming to Chicago. He'd won six Gold Gloves, and three Silver Sluggers. He'd won the NL Rookie of the Year Award, and had received MVP votes five times in those ten seasons, including being the National League MVP runner up in both 1981 and 1983, and 7th place in 1980.

Ten seasons in Montreal, Dawson had a 123 OPS +.
Ten seasons in Los Angeles and Seattle, Beltre had a 108 OPS +.

Ten seasons, Dawson had an oWAR of 37.3
Ten seasons, Beltre had an oWAR of 28.9.

And the kicker there? Those ten year figures include Beltre's monster 2004 season. The ten year figures of Dawson do NOT include his monster 1987 season.

In an era when scoring was suppressed by dominant pitching, Dawson kicked Beltre's butt up and down the field before Dawson even got to Chicago, and THEN had his monster season. And comparing those monster seasons by side? Dawson's was much more impressive. Why?

Here's a quick and dirty way of looking at it, but it's a pretty fair predictor of what we'd see if we did an in-depth statistical analysis of the two men's seasons.

Between 1980 and 1989 (the period Dawson played the prime of his career, from age 25 to age 34), Major League players hit 40 home runs or more in a season a grand total of thirteen times. On average, that means that one player would hit 40 or more home runs in a given season, with one extra player hitting forty within a three year period.

Between 2000 and 2009 (the period Beltre played in the majority of his career prime, from age 21 to 30), Major League players hit 40 home runs or more in a season eighty-seven times.

13 vs 87.

On average, that means that about nine players hit forty or more home runs every year in the first decade of the new millennium.

What about the individual placements of these home run totals in the decades?



Adrian Beltre hit his NL leading 48 home runs in 2004. In the decade, his 48 home runs was the twenty-first best total individually. Actually, two other players had the same 48 home runs, but Beltre's was ranked lowest of the three. I do not know what the math is behind it, perhaps quality of pitching factor. If you want to ignore that, at least 18 other players had higher home run totals in the decade.

What about Dawson's 49 home runs? It's only one more than Beltre's 48, right? Well, here's a look at the Major Leaguers who hit over 40 in the 80s.



Only thirteen hitters had seasons with 40 or more home runs in the entire decade. And Dawson's figure was the best of the decade.

As I always say, context.

In his first ten seasons, Andre Dawson, between 1977 and 1986, hit 225 home runs. 14th best in the Majors over that period.

In his first ten seasons, Adrian Beltre, between 1999 and 2008, hit 235 home runs. 36th best in the Majors over that period. Again, remember that Beltre's huge season is included, and Dawson's is not.

Go one more year. 11 years. Not much of a difference for Beltre, as he's 35th best. But Dawson, by expanding from 1977 to 1987, jumps up to eighth best in the Majors.

One more thing to look at. RBI totals. An imperfect statistic, of course, as it's much influenced by opportunity. But Beltre drove in 121 in 2004. That was eighth best in the Majors in 2004. He did not lead the league, as Vinny Castilla drove in 131 for Colorado. Miguel Tejada and David Ortiz beat him, driving in 150, and 139. What about the first ten year period by Beltre? How does his 121 RBIs hold up? He played on a good team, as the Dodgers won 93 games in winning the NL West.

91st. 90 other players had more RBIs in a single season than Beltre had in 2004, topped by 165 by Manny Ramirez in 1999. Here's the list, in case you are curious.

Top individual RBI seasons between 1999 and 2008.

What about Andre Dawson's 137 RBI in 1987? That was the fifth highest total in the eleven year period between 1977 and 1987.

Top individual RBI seasons between 1977 and 1987.

And Dawson played on a Cubs team that finished at 76-85, in 6th and last place in the NL East.

Though Adrian Beltre had the much better batting average (.334 in 2004 to .287 for Dawson in 1987), it's not even close when comparing runners in scoring position. Beltre hit .295 while Dawson hit .330.

Dawson clearly had the better season than Beltre. And as far as the first ten years of their careers are concerned, there is no comparison. In addition to the defensive accolades for Dawson, and the higher OPS +, Dawson also stole a lot of bases for a home run hitter. Dawson ended with 438 home runs and 314 stolen bases. Beltre has 395 home runs, and 117 stolen bases.

So, yes, if you took away Dawson's 1987 season, he would still be a much better candidate than Beltre. Beltre, in his first ten seasons, was nowhere near a Hall of Fame caliber player. Not even in the ballpark.

Now, the last five seasons he has definitely come on strong. His post prime playing career is going to have him in a position to gain strong consideration for the Hall of Fame.

One more thing. No, Adrian Beltre's offensive production is not really like that of Eddie Murray or Tony Perez. It's actually not even close.

First of all, you have to consider their careers at the same point to get an accurate comparison. If you include all those years that Perez and Murray were older, their averages will come down, obviously. Murray played until he was 41, Perez until he was 44. Even including those older years, Perez and Murray were still better on an annual 162 game basis. But through age 35, they are much better.



The OPS+ metric is based on how much better a player has performed than the league OPS average (the league they played in, not all of Major League Baseball). So, if a league average OPS is .700, and a player's OPS is .825, their OPS + is 115.

Through age 35, Adrian Beltre has a 116 OPS +. Tony Perez through age 35 has a 129 OPS +, and Eddie Murray a 138 OPS +.

Now, compare them against each other.

You said that they were "about the same" production wise. Well, the numbers don't agree. Comparing these players against their peers, and then against each other, we can see who the best players are.

Between 1999 and 2008, I looked at all Major League players with a +110 OPS, and at least 3,000 at bats, which is approximately 6 qualifying seasons (per batting title standards).

81 Major League Players had an OPS + higher than Beltre's during that period, based on these qualifications.

Looking at the period of 1978 to 1991, when Eddie Murray played, with the same qualifications, only eight players had an OPS + higher than Eddie Murray's.

And finally, in the period of 1965 to 1977, only thirty Major League hitters had a higher OPS + than that of Tony Perez.

To put it quite simply, compared against their peers, Tony Perez, and certainly Eddie Murray, were both much more dominant than Adrian Beltre.

Finally, let's look at them head to head expressed in percentages.

Again, to refresh our memories, through their age 35 seasons, these players had the following OPS + metrics:

Tony Perez (1964 to 1977) 129 OPS +
Eddie Murray (1977 to 1991) 138 OPS +
Adrian Beltre (1998 to 2014) 116 OPS +

Tony Perez' OPS + of 129 is 11.2068% better than that of Adrian Beltre's (129-116=13/116=0.112068).

Eddie Murray's OPS of 138 is 18.9655% better than that of Adrian Beltre's (138-116=22/116=0.189655).

To express simply, Tony Perez was 11.2% better against his peers than was Adrian Beltre, and Eddie Murray was 19.0% better against his peers than was Adrian Beltre.

Point of fact, their performances are not at all similar.

What does all of this mean? Well, it means that Beltre, to this point in his career, has not been nearly as good as these Hall of Famers you selected.

Should we look at some others? I'll pick some of the true greats of the game in the Hall, and some at the same position, through age 35. I'll mix in some power hitters, some speedsters, some annual batting title champs-to give us a good cross reference.

Ted Williams 192 OPS +
Hank Aaron 158 OPS +
Harmon Killebrew 149 OPS +
Wade Boggs 139 OPS +
Jackie Robinson 137 OPS +
Roberto Clemente 129 OPS +
Robin Yount 116 OPS +
Lou Brock 114 OPS +


Ok, what about other third basemen?

Mike Schmidt 151 OPS + (1973-1985)
Eddie Mathews 144 OPS + (1952-1967)
Chipper Jones 143 OPS + (1995-2012)
Brooks Robinson 109 OPS + (1955-1972)

Brooks Robinson's OPS +, playing in an era where pitching clearly dominated, is only 7 points lower than Beltre's, and Robinson was consider an average offensive third baseman. He got into Cooperstown because of his 16 Gold Gloves. Beltre, though very good defensively, is nowhere near Brooks Robinson.

Let me state my opinion, based on looking at the numbers extensively over the last few days. What I have presented here is just the tip of the iceberg.

Adrian Beltre is not a Hall of Famer right now. The argument has been made (well, if he gets 3,000 hits). I disagree. It used to be that getting 3,000 hits was a special occurrence, and, in a way, it still is. But because of conditioning improvements, and, until the last few years, a dramatic spike in offensive production, as well as a drop in overall pitching, players are creeping closer and closer to 3,000 hits that should not be considered for Cooperstown.

Look at Johnny Damon. He finished with 2,769 hits. Does anybody think that he's a Hall of Famer? He was a two-time All Star that never finished in the MVP top ten, never won a Gold Glove, a Silver Slugger. He led the league in runs scored once (136 in 2000, when he had a whopping 741 plate appearances), triples once (11 in 2002) and stolen bases once (46 in 2000). A nice player, but does anybody on this forum look at Damon, and think he should be immortalized as an all-time great?

Going back to the all-star comment on Damon. Two selections is not a lot. Now, Robin Yount was only voted to three All Star Games. But voting was different, and he played in tiny Milwaukee (tiny relative to other Major League cities). And, the shortstop position in the American League was loaded with Cal Ripken Jr and Alan Trammell (who should be in), also. Yount was not an All Star caliber player in five of his first six seasons. Remember, the guy started out in the Major Leagues at 18. Between 1980 and 1984, he was one of the top 5 players in baseball, and the best overall shortstop in the game. He had a 139 OPS + averaging 117 runs, 197 hits, 42 doubles, 11 triples, 22 home runs, 95 RBI, 15 stolen bases, and 324 total bases per 162 games played. He hit .303. Then, he destroyed his right shoulder, forcing him to move to center field. He quickly adjusted, and had another great four year period, from 1986 to 1989, where he batted .312 with 162 game averages of 98 runs, 195 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 17 home runs, 20 stolen bases, and 300 total bases. He won the MVP as a center fielder in 1989, but wasn't even elected to the All Star Game.

Johnny Damon was never a Robin Yount caliber player. Damon had some very, very good seasons. But he only had two seasons in his entire career with a 5+ WAR (5 being the baseline for an All Star caliber player). He finished with a 56 WAR. Yount, on the other hand, had seven seasons with a 5+ WAR, and another 4.9 WAR in 1981 that limited him to 96 games because of the strike. Yount played out of his mind defensively, putting up a 2.8 dWAR in 96 games. His 1983 season is one of the most underrated seasons by a shortstop in baseball history, as it was nearly as good as his historic 1982 MVP season. That year, he had a 166 OPS +. In 1983, he had a 150 OPS + on a team that fell from American League Champions to 5th in the AL East. Yount carried the Brewers in 1983. Johnny Damon never carried a team.

Yet, if we are to look solely at his career numbers, and not consider (what's the word, everybody? Context!), he could be mistaken for a Hall of Famer by the casual observer.

Adrian Beltre has become a great player. No, more accurately, I think he has been a very good player, and a great talent, for a long time, though one who did not reach his potential. For whatever reason, he put up serviceable numbers, but outside of his MVP caliber season in 2004, nothing that would really get a baseball writer excited. His 2004 season, with a 166 OPS +, was sandwiched by four seasons with sub 100 OPS +. Then he went to Boston, and he hasn't looked back since.

Yet, as his career stands now, he needs at least two, more than likely three All Star caliber seasons to warrant serious Hall of Fame consideration. He can get them, and I think he will. He should have plenty of protection from an again healthy Prince Fielder.

Beltre had the second best season of his career in 2014. Ignore the power numbers. 19 HR and 77 RBI aren't sexy. But a .324 AVG is. A .388 OBP and a .492 SLG (.879 OPS) is very nice. And a 147 OPS + is dead sexy.

I haven't looked at what his projections are for this season, but I expect Beltre to hit .310 on 500 at bats. That puts him at about 155 hits, 2,759 for his career. Figure about 24 home runs, 88 RBI. Add in another two years hitting slightly north of .300, and he'll plate his 3,000th hit.

The only thing working against him is his age. He's 36 in a week. That Texas heat can take a lot out of a guy, and I am wondering how his conditioning is doing. He's had a poor spring (.162 AVG), but I'm not concerned.

I do think he makes the Hall of Fame. I think it takes him three or four years to get in, because the media seems to be pushing for him to get in. I just don't think he's as close as everybody thinks he is at this moment.

[rats60]

How many of those guys who hit 50+hrs were doping? Bonds, Sosa, Rodriguez, Ortiz, etc. You care about awards, well Beltre should have been MVP in 2004. Bonds only won because he was doping. How many of those mvp votes and as game selections went to dopers?
What you call bad years, are a clean player being overshadowed by cheaters. Then you want to further discredit his numbers because cheaters drove up overall production. Sorry, those arguements don't hold water.

If you want to compare Dawson to Beltre, how about these numbers

WAR
Dawson 64.5
Beltre 77.8

Best season WAR
Dawson 7.9
Beltre 9.5

Seasons of WAR 5+ (all star level seasons)
Dawson 4
Beltre 8

You really think the difference between Beltre and Mattingly is a bunch of mediocre seasons? Well Mattingly only had 4 all star level seasons of WAR of 5+. His best year was 7.2, his only year of 7+ WAR. Beltre has not only had twice as many AS level seasons, he's had 4 7+ WAR seasons and 2 better than Mattingly's best season.

The problem with your arguement is that it ignores Beltre's defense. If Beltre was an average defensive player, his hof credentials would be questionable. You could make the same argument about a lot of others who are no brainer hofers. Beltre 's defense added to his career offensive numbers make him an easy choice for hof.

[EldoEsq]

Originally Posted by rats60

How many of those guys who hit 50+hrs were doping? Bonds, Sosa, Rodriguez, Ortiz, etc. You care about awards, well Beltre should have been MVP in 2004. Bonds only won because he was doping. How many of those mvp votes and as game selections went to dopers?
What you call bad years, are a clean player being overshadowed by cheaters. Then you want to further discredit his numbers because cheaters drove up overall production. Sorry, those arguements don't hold water.

If you want to compare Dawson to Beltre, how about these numbers

WAR
Dawson 64.5
Beltre 77.8

Best season WAR
Dawson 7.9
Beltre 9.5

Seasons of WAR 5+ (all star level seasons)
Dawson 4
Beltre 8

You really think the difference between Beltre and Mattingly is a bunch of mediocre seasons? Well Mattingly only had 4 all star level seasons of WAR of 5+. His best year was 7.2, his only year of 7+ WAR. Beltre has not only had twice as many AS level seasons, he's had 4 7+ WAR seasons and 2 better than Mattingly's best season.

The problem with your arguement is that it ignores Beltre's defense. If Beltre was an average defensive player, his hof credentials would be questionable. You could make the same argument about a lot of others who are no brainer hofers. Beltre 's defense added to his career offensive numbers make him an easy choice for hof.

Don Mattingly was no slouch at first base...why are you ignoring that? What about Keith Hernandez then? Defense is very tough to incorporate into an argument like this...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by EldoEsq

Don Mattingly was no slouch at first base...why are you ignoring that? What about Keith Hernandez then? Defense is very tough to incorporate into an argument like this...

That is exactly what WAR does. Estimates the value of a player's offense and defense. Mattingly's defense is factored into my numbers, unlike the poster above me who just used offensive numbers like ops and oWAR.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

How many of those guys who hit 50+hrs were doping? Bonds, Sosa, Rodriguez, Ortiz, etc. You care about awards, well Beltre should have been MVP in 2004. Bonds only won because he was doping. How many of those mvp votes and as game selections went to dopers?
What you call bad years, are a clean player being overshadowed by cheaters. Then you want to further discredit his numbers because cheaters drove up overall production. Sorry, those arguements don't hold water.

If you want to compare Dawson to Beltre, how about these numbers

WAR
Dawson 64.5
Beltre 77.8

Best season WAR
Dawson 7.9
Beltre 9.5

Seasons of WAR 5+ (all star level seasons)
Dawson 4
Beltre 8

You really think the difference between Beltre and Mattingly is a bunch of mediocre seasons? Well Mattingly only had 4 all star level seasons of WAR of 5+. His best year was 7.2, his only year of 7+ WAR. Beltre has not only had twice as many AS level seasons, he's had 4 7+ WAR seasons and 2 better than Mattingly's best season.

The problem with your arguement is that it ignores Beltre's defense. If Beltre was an average defensive player, his hof credentials would be questionable. You could make the same argument about a lot of others who are no brainer hofers. Beltre 's defense added to his career offensive numbers make him an easy choice for hof.

Originally Posted by rats60

That is exactly what WAR does. Estimates the value of a player's offense and defense. Mattingly's defense is factored into my numbers, unlike the poster above me who just used offensive numbers like ops and oWAR.

WAR for current games, where their defensive performance is being documented accurately per current standards, is a useful metric. For older players, defensive WAR is highly inaccurate. Beltre has won four Gold Gloves. Dawson won eight. He was an elite defender, and only nine outfielders in the history of the game have won more Gold Gloves (granted, the award didn't start until the late 50s). But the assertion that Adrian Beltre was worth 23.2 wins with the glove, while Andre Dawson was only worth 0.9 wins with the glove, is utter excrement.

As far as Beltre's MVP runner up goes, ok, give him the MVP in 2004. The whether or not Beltre should have won the MVP Award is another discussion, but for the sake of argument, go for it. What exactly does it change for this discussion? Nothing. It's not at all germane to the discussion at hand. Not in the slightest. It still doesn't explain that he didn't have a single MVP vote in any of the other 10 years I referred to. It still doesn't explain why a guy blows up for a single season, and then is decidedly average for the other decade surrounding that monster season. And you're seriously discounting the MVP vote by steroids? Was every other player in the National League when Beltre was playing on steroids, and Adrian was the only clean player. I'm sorry, but talk about arguments that don't hold up. We should have all the baseball writers go back, and recast their votes for those ten years, because those big bad home run hitters getting all the MVP votes were on steroids, and Adrian Beltre clearly was not.

Maybe Adrian Beltre used steroids for a year? Can you categorically state that he did not? How else would you account for the incredible jump in his statistics for one season....in eleven? He didn't get hurt, and then suffer statistically as the result of some terrible injury. He had at least 500 plate appearances the five seasons before, and the four seasons after his MVP season. Yet his MVP season's OPS of 1.017 is ridiculously higher than any of the other ten seasons I've discussed. The second highest OPS statistic during that span was .835 in 2000, and he only broke .800 one other time, .802, in 2007. He only came within .200 points of his MVP OPS in one season in ten.

And as for all those seasons of 5 + WAR Beltre has had, nobody is disuputing that he's been a terrific player since going to Boston, and I've said as much. So, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with your statement. The point I am making is that the first decade of his career, save for one oddly uncharacteristic 2004 season, was wholly underwhelming (and therefore his Hall of Fame candidacy should not be the slam dunk that everybody is making him out to be), and you've done nothing to challenge that fact. And by the way, those four seasons that you referenced of Dawson's with a 5 + WAR...did you happen to notice that his MVP season...he had a 4.0 WAR?

Let's just soak that in for a second.

Playing on a last place team, leading the Major Leagues in RBI with 137, leading the NL with 355 total bases (14 off George Bell's Major League leading 369), and putting up the highest home run total in the Major League within a decade, Andre Dawson had a 4.0 WAR.

If there is any other individual WAR calculation that shows just how entirely inaccurate WAR is for players who were in the Major Leagues before WAR was being calculated, it's this one. They would have us believe that a 1982 season where Dawson hit .301 with 23 HR and 87 RBI, 39 stolen bases and an .841 OPS was better than an MVP season in which he hit .287 with 49 HR and 137 RBI, with an .896 OPS. Now, he only stole 11 bases, as he was older, but most of his other stats are quite similar. He scored 17 more runs, had 13 more doubles, pretty much the same walk and strikeout figures. But in 1982, when the Baseball Writers voted him 21st in the MVP ballot, he was better offensively (with a 5.7 WAR) than he was in 1987 (with a 4.0 WAR), and won the MVP. WAR is wins above replacement. A guy that hit nearly 50 out of the park, and drove in nearly 140, is only worth four wins? Really? So, more than double your home run total (23 vs 49), drive in 53 more runs, and offensively, you're worth 1.7 fewer wins.

Makes perfect sense to me. /boggle

Don't forget, Andre Dawson was no slouch in the field, either. He won the Gold Glove, yet we are told by my fellow stat geeks that some replacement level player was worth nearly a full win more (-0.7) in the field than a Gold Glove winner in Dawson.

See what I mean about WAR being an imperfect metric? I think today, official scorers and statisticians have a better understanding of defensive play than they did back in the 60s and 70s, and certainly earlier. Back then, fielding percentage was all the rage. Yet can we really expect somebody to go back into a 30 + year old box score, and determine just how far a center fielder, or a shortstop, had to range in order to make a play? Because zone ratings, range factors, etc, these all factor into dWAR, I do believe. Since all we have is the documentation of people who had never heard of UZR when they were watching the games, how can we place faith in their documentation? Offensive numbers are cut and dry. Double, triple, walk, home run, strikeout. Fly out to right, fly out to left, ground into a double play. But just how far Lou Boudreau had to slide to his right to make the catch at short, how can we possibly know what? If the game film even exists, do we have teams of guys going back, and watching every old Major League game to update these defensive metrics? Nope.

Finally, throwing out the career WAR of Dawson and Beltre, and pointing "Beltre's better" is absurd. Of course he's better. Did you see how I did the statistical comparison? I didn't take the entire career sample of Misters Dawson and Perez. I only compared their careers to age 35.

Why?

Because while players develop at different rates once reaching the Majors (some players are superstars right out of the box, like Ted Williams, and some, like Robin Yount, need to mature before becoming a superstar), most players do start slowing down--substantially--as they draw closer to 40. Now, players today might be able to delay the inevitable because of advances in nutrition sciences, and conditioning, etc. So, maybe Adrian Beltre will see a few more years at peak levels before he starts to experience that inevitable decline. We don't know yet. But it happens to everybody, and it happened to both Perez, and Dawson both.

Andre Dawson played another 609 games post his age 35 season. In those last six seasons, he had a combined oWAR of under 4.0, and a dWAR slightly better than -4.0. His numbers dropped because he slowed down. He went from .283 9 HR 100 RBI averages per 162 games between 1977-1990 to .268 25 HR 96 RBI per 162 games after age 35. Still a pretty good clip, especially in that era. But his WAR figures dropped because a.) he wasn't playing as many games each year (101 games on average), and b.) his defense lapsed. Tony Perez realized even a more precipitous drop in performance. To compare their entire careers to Beltre's performance to date, when he is still really in his prime, is not going to paint an accurate picture. Beltre will push for the Hall of Fame, trying to get 3,000 hits. Like most Major League players, he will probably play too long, and his overall performance will drop. Once he's done, then we'll be able to compare him to other players on a career basis. But not now.

Remember, I think that Beltre will be a Hall of Fame player. I think he will get voted in. But is he a Hall of Fame player right now, if he retired today? No. His career numbers are pretty good, so I'd say he's borderline, but they don't compare to the other Hall of Fame third basemen. And that is, and should be the measuring stick. Nor do they compare favorably to Chipper Jones, who played the game at the same time, at the same position. And with inter league play, the American League vs National League thing is a little less important, as the two leagues meet head to head.

Remember, at this same age, Chipper Jones was actually better than Beltre, at least offensively. At age 35, Jones hit .337 with 29 HR and 102 RBI, and an NL best 1.029 OPS. Beltre hasn't come anywhere near that since 2004. In 2012, he managed .921, and a .919. Outside of 2004, he's never gone above .900 again. Now, maybe he does again this year. That would help his cause. But Jones has had 6 top ten MVP votes to Beltre's four. He also finished 11th two other times. In all, he received MVP votes in 13 seasons to Beltre's 6. At age 36, Jones hit .364 in 128 games, winning the batting title, and leading the league with a .470 OBP. But the next season, he began his decline.

I don't want anybody to think I don't like Adrian Beltre. I do, quite a lot, actually. But as a lover of the game, I tire of people wanting to throw every good player in the Hall of Fame. And that's what Beltre has been to date. A very good player overall, who has had multiple outstanding seasons in the last 4-5 years. But the lack of production for so much of his early career bothers me. It does, I can't lie. A power hitting third baseman driving in an average of 76 runs for a decade just doesn't scream Hall of Fame to me. The Hall of Fame is meant to reward a player's body of work, not just a 4-5 year period.

I guess we'll see what happens.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

WAR for current games, where their defensive performance is being documented accurately per current standards, is a useful metric. For older players, defensive WAR is highly inaccurate. Beltre has won four Gold Gloves. Dawson won eight. He was an elite defender, and only nine outfielders in the history of the game have won more Gold Gloves (granted, the award didn't start until the late 50s). But the assertion that Adrian Beltre was worth 23.2 wins with the glove, while Andre Dawson was only worth 0.9 wins with the glove, is utter excrement.

As far as Beltre's MVP runner up goes, ok, give him the MVP in 2004. The whether or not Beltre should have won the MVP Award is another discussion, but for the sake of argument, go for it. What exactly does it change for this discussion? Nothing. It's not at all germane to the discussion at hand. Not in the slightest. It still doesn't explain that he didn't have a single MVP vote in any of the other 10 years I referred to. It still doesn't explain why a guy blows up for a single season, and then is decidedly average for the other decade surrounding that monster season. And you're seriously discounting the MVP vote by steroids? Was every other player in the National League when Beltre was playing on steroids, and Adrian was the only clean player. I'm sorry, but talk about arguments that don't hold up. We should have all the baseball writers go back, and recast their votes for those ten years, because those big bad home run hitters getting all the MVP votes were on steroids, and Adrian Beltre clearly was not.

Maybe Adrian Beltre used steroids for a year? Can you categorically state that he did not? How else would you account for the incredible jump in his statistics for one season....in eleven? He didn't get hurt, and then suffer statistically as the result of some terrible injury. He had at least 500 plate appearances the five seasons before, and the four seasons after his MVP season. Yet his MVP season's OPS of 1.017 is ridiculously higher than any of the other ten seasons I've discussed. The second highest OPS statistic during that span was .835 in 2000, and he only broke .800 one other time, .802, in 2007. He only came within .200 points of his MVP OPS in one season in ten.

And as for all those seasons of 5 + WAR Beltre has had, nobody is disuputing that he's been a terrific player since going to Boston, and I've said as much. So, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with your statement. The point I am making is that the first decade of his career, save for one oddly uncharacteristic 2004 season, was wholly underwhelming (and therefore his Hall of Fame candidacy should not be the slam dunk that everybody is making him out to be), and you've done nothing to challenge that fact. And by the way, those four seasons that you referenced of Dawson's with a 5 + WAR...did you happen to notice that his MVP season...he had a 4.0 WAR?

Let's just soak that in for a second.

Playing on a last place team, leading the Major Leagues in RBI with 137, leading the NL with 355 total bases (14 off George Bell's Major League leading 369), and putting up the highest home run total in the Major League within a decade, Andre Dawson had a 4.0 WAR.

If there is any other individual WAR calculation that shows just how entirely inaccurate WAR is for players who were in the Major Leagues before WAR was being calculated, it's this one. They would have us believe that a 1982 season where Dawson hit .301 with 23 HR and 87 RBI, 39 stolen bases and an .841 OPS was better than an MVP season in which he hit .287 with 49 HR and 137 RBI, with an .896 OPS. Now, he only stole 11 bases, as he was older, but most of his other stats are quite similar. He scored 17 more runs, had 13 more doubles, pretty much the same walk and strikeout figures. But in 1982, when the Baseball Writers voted him 21st in the MVP ballot, he was better offensively (with a 5.7 WAR) than he was in 1987 (with a 4.0 WAR), and won the MVP. WAR is wins above replacement. A guy that hit nearly 50 out of the park, and drove in nearly 140, is only worth four wins? Really? So, more than double your home run total (23 vs 49), drive in 53 more runs, and offensively, you're worth 1.7 fewer wins.

Makes perfect sense to me. /boggle

Don't forget, Andre Dawson was no slouch in the field, either. He won the Gold Glove, yet we are told by my fellow stat geeks that some replacement level player was worth nearly a full win more (-0.7) in the field than a Gold Glove winner in Dawson.

See what I mean about WAR being an imperfect metric? I think today, official scorers and statisticians have a better understanding of defensive play than they did back in the 60s and 70s, and certainly earlier. Back then, fielding percentage was all the rage. Yet can we really expect somebody to go back into a 30 + year old box score, and determine just how far a center fielder, or a shortstop, had to range in order to make a play? Because zone ratings, range factors, etc, these all factor into dWAR, I do believe. Since all we have is the documentation of people who had never heard of UZR when they were watching the games, how can we place faith in their documentation? Offensive numbers are cut and dry. Double, triple, walk, home run, strikeout. Fly out to right, fly out to left, ground into a double play. But just how far Lou Boudreau had to slide to his right to make the catch at short, how can we possibly know what? If the game film even exists, do we have teams of guys going back, and watching every old Major League game to update these defensive metrics? Nope.

Finally, throwing out the career WAR of Dawson and Beltre, and pointing "Beltre's better" is absurd. Of course he's better. Did you see how I did the statistical comparison? I didn't take the entire career sample of Misters Dawson and Perez. I only compared their careers to age 35.

Why?

Because while players develop at different rates once reaching the Majors (some players are superstars right out of the box, like Ted Williams, and some, like Robin Yount, need to mature before becoming a superstar), most players do start slowing down--substantially--as they draw closer to 40. Now, players today might be able to delay the inevitable because of advances in nutrition sciences, and conditioning, etc. So, maybe Adrian Beltre will see a few more years at peak levels before he starts to experience that inevitable decline. We don't know yet. But it happens to everybody, and it happened to both Perez, and Dawson both.

Andre Dawson played another 609 games post his age 35 season. In those last six seasons, he had a combined oWAR of under 4.0, and a dWAR slightly better than -4.0. His numbers dropped because he slowed down. He went from .283 9 HR 100 RBI averages per 162 games between 1977-1990 to .268 25 HR 96 RBI per 162 games after age 35. Still a pretty good clip, especially in that era. But his WAR figures dropped because a.) he wasn't playing as many games each year (101 games on average), and b.) his defense lapsed. Tony Perez realized even a more precipitous drop in performance. To compare their entire careers to Beltre's performance to date, when he is still really in his prime, is not going to paint an accurate picture. Beltre will push for the Hall of Fame, trying to get 3,000 hits. Like most Major League players, he will probably play too long, and his overall performance will drop. Once he's done, then we'll be able to compare him to other players on a career basis. But not now.

Remember, I think that Beltre will be a Hall of Fame player. I think he will get voted in. But is he a Hall of Fame player right now, if he retired today? No. His career numbers are pretty good, so I'd say he's borderline, but they don't compare to the other Hall of Fame third basemen. And that is, and should be the measuring stick. Nor do they compare favorably to Chipper Jones, who played the game at the same time, at the same position. And with inter league play, the American League vs National League thing is a little less important, as the two leagues meet head to head.

Remember, at this same age, Chipper Jones was actually better than Beltre, at least offensively. At age 35, Jones hit .337 with 29 HR and 102 RBI, and an NL best 1.029 OPS. Beltre hasn't come anywhere near that since 2004. In 2012, he managed .921, and a .919. Outside of 2004, he's never gone above .900 again. Now, maybe he does again this year. That would help his cause. But Jones has had 6 top ten MVP votes to Beltre's four. He also finished 11th two other times. In all, he received MVP votes in 13 seasons to Beltre's 6. At age 36, Jones hit .364 in 128 games, winning the batting title, and leading the league with a .470 OBP. But the next season, he began his decline.

I don't want anybody to think I don't like Adrian Beltre. I do, quite a lot, actually. But as a lover of the game, I tire of people wanting to throw every good player in the Hall of Fame. And that's what Beltre has been to date. A very good player overall, who has had multiple outstanding seasons in the last 4-5 years. But the lack of production for so much of his early career bothers me. It does, I can't lie. A power hitting third baseman driving in an average of 76 runs for a decade just doesn't scream Hall of Fame to me. The Hall of Fame is meant to reward a player's body of work, not just a 4-5 year period.

I guess we'll see what happens.

Dawson was an elite defender? LOL. I suppose Derek Jeter is an elite defender because he won 5 gold gloves. Your response is to ignore Beltre's defense. Brooks Robinson wouldn't be in the HOF without his glove. Brooks' career OPS+ is 104, so should we kick him out of the HOF? Granted Beltre's defense isn't at Brooks' level, but it is exceptional. WAR is the only way to factor both offense and defense into a players performance. As of right now, Belre's WAR and JAWs are at Brooks' level. Brooks was a first ballot HOFer, but Beltre is not a HOFer yet? You can't be serious.

As far as Jones, he did have a better year at 35, but what about the years before that?

WAR by age
31 Beltre 7.8
Jones 4.4
32 Beltre 5.8
Jones 3.9
33 Beltre 7.2
Jones 4.1
34 Beltre 5.4
Jones 3.6
35 Beltre 7.0
Jones 7.6

So, Beltre was better from age 31-34, and not just a little, by a lot. I should ask, why aren't you bothered by Jones lack of production past age 30? Outside of age 35 and 36, he was worse than Beltre in Seattle and that is playing in a hitters park vs. a pitchers park. You may be bothered by Beltre's lack of production is Seattle, but park has a lot to do with it. He still had 2 AS level seasons of WAR 5+ and it makes sense that if he was clean,his offensive production would drop moving to SAFECO. It's not like Barry Bonds moving from a hitters park (3 Rivers) to a pitchers park (Candlestick)
and is power numbers taking off and people thinking he was clean.

You may want to ignore WAR, but it is a major factor in HOF voting. Bert Blyleven wouldn't have sniffed the HOF without advanced metrics. Pedro Martinez wouldn't have been a first ballot HOFer. In the past voters would have just looked at his total wins and passed on him for a few years. Beltre is a no brainer for the HOF. When you compare him to his peers, he is going to sail in. Now that the voters have decided to pass on the dopers (Bonds, Clemens, etc.) they are going to look for the best clean players. Unless something comes to light that says Beltre was doping, he is near the top of the clean players.

[D. Bergin]

Beltre should make the HOF just for all the harassment he gets from team-mates for his touching phobias.

[howard38]

Bill, you say defensive WAR is highly inaccurate for older players yet you recently used it to defend your choice of Robin Yount as the best player you ever saw. Yount and Dawson's careers were more or less contemporary so the same standards should be used for both.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by howard38

Bill, you say defensive WAR is highly inaccurate for older players yet you recently used it to defend your choice of Robin Yount as the best player you ever saw. Yount and Dawson's careers were more or less contemporary so the same standards should be used for both.

Uh-Oh...you shouldn't have gone there...

[ooo-ribay]

As long as no major paper assigns two reporters to dig dirt and/or the federal government doesn't spend $50M to go after him, he's probably in. Same with Bagwell. And Piazza. See where I'm going, here?

[Tabe]

Dawson was NOT a superstar when he arrived in Chicago. He'd been pretty average for three straight years from 84 to 86. And he was out of a job all the way up till spring training in 87. And he only got a job because he gave the Cubs a blank contract and told them to fill in a number.

And those big power numbers in 87? Are we forgetting that MLB juiced the baseballs in 87? Wade Freaking Boggs hit 24 homers that year. Dawson hit 49, yeah, but in context that number isn't nearly as impressive.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Dawson was NOT a superstar when he arrived in Chicago. He'd been pretty average for three straight years from 84 to 86. And he was out of a job all the way up till spring training in 87. And he only got a job because he gave the Cubs a blank contract and told them to fill in a number.

And those big power numbers in 87? Are we forgetting that MLB juiced the baseballs in 87? Wade Freaking Boggs hit 24 homers that year. Dawson hit 49, yeah, but in context that number isn't nearly as impressive.

That's a mighty tainted view, based on the fact that barely anybody signed a contract in 1986-7 due to collusion.

[Tabe]

So ignore the contract stuff - he still wasn't a superstar at the time and the fans weren't over the moon to get him.

[Econteachert205]

The Dawson comparison is apt. Dave parker was a better all around player IMO. Back out that one skewed 87 season (when juan Samuel was hitting 28 homers) and Dawson's career is much less impressive. Even if he did play for the cubs , who have this amazing capacity to get marginal candidates into the hall of fame, read Sandberg, Santo. I guess it's the consolation prize for never winning anything.

Edit to add, I'd be fine with Dawson parker and beltre (with another year or two of good productivity) being in the hall. I just want consistency.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Bill, you say defensive WAR is highly inaccurate for older players yet you recently used it to defend your choice of Robin Yount as the best player you ever saw. Yount and Dawson's careers were more or less contemporary so the same standards should be used for both.

I didn't use dWAR to defend anything. The discussion was about the best player ever, and I said Roberto Clemente. When the discussion turned to the best player I'd ever seen in person, since I clearly never saw Clemente in person (as I was two when he died), I said Robin Yount, and I would still say that with or without the dWAR metric. dWAR was not the basis for that statement. I said he had a complete skill set, and he did. He could do everything, and he did.

Where I brought up dWAR was in reference to his lack of Gold Gloves at the position in the early 80s. Multiple awards went to Alan Trammell, who in at least two of the years, did have inferior dWAR figures. Yes, I do feel that dWAR metrics are inaccurate. That doesn't, however, negate anything I said, does it? No. Why? Because the metric would be off across the board. I'll explain my rationale.

I watched an awful lot of baseball back in the early 80s. When I was a kid, nearly every spring or summer, I had a broken arm, or leg, and had to spend my days inside when school was out. We didn't have cable tv back then, so what did I do? I watched baseball. Any game that was on, or This Week in Baseball. Anything to do with baseball. There was no ESPN in my house growing up, so I had to watch the games. And my opinion about Yount was the best player in the game, and the best shortstop based off of the plethora of games I saw him play in person, as well as Trammell. I probably went to 10, sometimes 15 games a year at home, and watched as many as I could on tv. So, it was my personal observations that led me to believe that Yount deserved the Gold Gloves over Trammell (and some youthful bias, I'm sure). The dWAR figures were provided as a reference point. Yount is shown as having a 2.8 dWAR in 1981. Is that accurate for 96 games? Probably not. I feel that dWAR for older games is over calculated, either to the positive, or the negative, meaning very good defensive players are made to look slightly better than they are, and below average defenders are made to look slightly worse then they are based off of the metric alone.

If dWAR is too high by 20%, and Yount's 1981 dWAR goes from a 2.8 to about a 2.25, and Trammell's dWAR in 1981 goes from a 2.3 to a 1.85, does it not still show Yount was better? I do not discount it entirely. Whether Yount had a 2.8, a 2.25 or a 2 dWAR in slightly less than 100 games played, he was still sensational, and what I saw him play that year backed it up. I thought he was better defensively in 1981 than he was in 1982 when he did win the Gold Glove. I also pointed out in that same blurb that Robin Yount won the Gold Glove in 1982, even though Alan Trammell had a higher dWAR. That should support my recent statement that dWAR is not the be all, end all metric of defensive performance, at least in older games.

Each season there are 162 games. And 27 outs in each game. A shortstop might handle 10 balls a game. That's a lot of chances each year, and there's no way to know in hindsight how well Yount did getting to all those balls. So, dWAR is probably using some fancy algorithms to arrive at the final number. It doesn't mean that Yount wasn't great defensively. It just means that we probably can't compare a 2.8 dWAR from 1981 against a dWAR of 2.8 from 2014. I wouldn't expect complete accuracy.

What Yount was able to do, in his prime, at one of the two or three toughest defensive positions in baseball, was remarkable. He hit for average. He hit for power (he was an extra base machine). He stole bases. And he was really outstanding defensively, both with his glove, and throwing out runners with his arm. I felt that for a few year period, he was the best in the game, along with George Brett and Rickey Henderson. Those guys had so many tools, so many ways to beat you. I can't tell you how many times I watched Yount take a game over. The last game of the 1982 regular season against Baltimore is a prime example.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Dawson was NOT a superstar when he arrived in Chicago. He'd been pretty average for three straight years from 84 to 86. And he was out of a job all the way up till spring training in 87. And he only got a job because he gave the Cubs a blank contract and told them to fill in a number.

And those big power numbers in 87? Are we forgetting that MLB juiced the baseballs in 87? Wade Freaking Boggs hit 24 homers that year. Dawson hit 49, yeah, but in context that number isn't nearly as impressive.

Hmm. I'm not sure how 162 game averages of .262, 33 doubles, 24 home runs, 102 RBI and 19 steals are average, especially when you consider he also won two Gold Gloves in those seasons, as well. Was he as good as he'd been the prior four seasons in Montreal? No. But the difference isn't as big as you'd make it out to be.

162 game averages
1980-1983 .302 AVG, 40 doubles, 28 home runs, 101 RBI, 36 SB. 140 OPS +
1984-1986 .262 AVG, 33 doubles, 24 home runs, 102 RBI, 19 SB. 111 OPS +

The batting average dropped, yes. But the power and run production was remarkably similar.

I guess I remember it differently than you do. I lived in Milwaukee, and made several trips to Chicago each year, as most of my family lived there (and still do). I remember talking with my cousins, and they were pretty excited to get Dawson. If I remember correctly, they felt that the Hawk still had plenty left in the tank, and that a change of scenery might do some good.

And the balls couldn't have been that juiced. Only Dale Murphy (44) of all those National League power hitters managed to jack out 40 or more home runs besides Dawson. In fact, Murphy was the only National League hitter to come within ten home runs of Dawson, as Darryl Strawberry came in third in the NL with 39 home runs.

Two hitters with 40 + HR.
Six other hitters with 30 + HR.

No, juiced was 2004 when Adrian Beltre hit 48 home runs. Six NL players had 40 or more homers that season, and 17 more hitters had 30 or more home runs.

So, to compare:

1987: two hitters 40 + home runs, six others 30 +.
2004: six hitters 40 + home runs, seventeen others 30 +.

Eight guys with 30 + home runs vs twenty-three.

Hmm. That's a pretty big difference.

[jason.1969]

If he reaches 3000 H, 500 HR, and escapes steroid suspicions, he's in for sure. The first two seem likely...the third is less certain.

[the 'stache]

With the luck the Rangers have had as of late, nothing is certain. But I certainly hope Beltre stays healthy. He's been the best player the Rangers have had the last several years.

[clydepepper]

He may have to move on if Joey Gallo hones his skills enough...of course, they could always have Gallo share DH ABs with the not-so-apply named Fielder.

Gallo will never be the glove that Beltre is, but man oh man does he have some pop in that bat!
-
-

[packs]

He's got to hit the ball first though. 115 K's in 68 AA games isn't very encouraging. In fact, he only had 250 AB's at AA last year and struck out in 115 of them. That's almost half.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

He's got to hit the ball first though. 115 K's in 68 AA games isn't very encouraging. In fact, he only had 250 AB's at AA last year and struck out in 115 of them. That's almost half.

...and that is the trouble with today's game...none of that will impede his progress to the majors.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by packs

He's got to hit the ball first though. 115 K's in 68 AA games isn't very encouraging. In fact, he only had 250 AB's at AA last year and struck out in 115 of them. That's almost half.

Wow! If all I knew about a guy was that he struck out 115 of 250 times in freaking AA, I would predict a 0.00% chance of making the Hall...unless he was a pitcher!

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Wow! If all I knew about a guy was that he struck out 115 of 250 times in freaking AA, I would predict a 0.00% chance of making the Hall...unless he was a pitcher!

Funny you should say that- Kingman WAS a pitcher!
-
Of course, Big Dave isn't a Hall-of-Famer and no one is saying that Gallo will ever be, I'm just saying that the appetite for power is such these days that even Mark Reynolds has assumed an 'always employable' status that is second only to LHPs with a pulse.
Adam Dunn had to retire to not be signed by someone. LOL
-
-