Albert Belle

[Brad Harris]

Well, unfortunately for those who back him here, he made his bed, and he has to lie in it.

While in a practical sense that's true, it certainly doesn't speak well of the judgment of the voters.

He was a guy with some very severe character flaws,..

As is virtually every other Hall-of-Famer, ballplayer and human being. Few such "flaws" impede a ballplayer's performance and subsequent value to his team. Just as you or I are still able to perform our jobs well in spite of having "character flaws".

...and on the HOF vote, that is part of the consideration to be a part of the hall.

Yes, but what part? As there's nothing specified in the guidelines, it's up to individual voters to determine how much they weight each element of the voting criteria. And for one person to weight "character" heavily enough to discount an Albert Belle is no more acceptable or less silly than for another person to weight it heavily enough to disqualify anyone but a saint. By placing much emphasis on non-playing elements of a player's record, one quickly finds himself in murky waters without a compass or an oar. And the entire exercise is rendered pointless because of the relativity factor. One man's trash is another man's treasure. And I think the voters should be debating amongst themselves about which candidates were the better players, not which were the better people.

Moral judgement? Yes. And I agree it may not be right.

It's not. Selecting ballplayers to honor as the greatest in the history of the game is not an act of exercising moral judgment, but rather critical (i.e. analytical) judgment.

I just don't think of Albert Belle as a hitter and think "Hall of Famer".

Because you're too hung up on thinking of Belle as a scumbag. Belle was one of the best hitters in baseball throughout his career and his career exceeds the minimum standards of Hall eligibility. That, to my mind at least, does say "Hall of Famer."

I think to myself "good hitter that had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared".

I could apply that exact line of thinking to Sandy Koufax: "good pitcher who had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared." Oversimplifying an issue is a great way to avoid dealing with it objectively.

If he had been a different person personality-wise? I think he's in.

Obviously, look at Kirby Puckett. If only that mean old Joey had chased those pranksters after his election.

I mean, this man lost the 1995 MVP for no less a reason than being a total douche to every member of the media. Not smart.

And the BBWAA proved they were no better when they cast their votes.

[Thorn]

I don't know what the statistics stat fans like to view say--but Belle was one of the most dangerous hitters I've ever seen. My Father, who got to see Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Frank Robinson in their primes--calls belle the most feared batter he ever saw.

[Brad Harris]

I don't know what the statistics stat fans like to view say--but Belle was one of the most dangerous hitters I've ever seen. My Father, who got to see Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Frank Robinson in their primes--calls belle the most feared batter he ever saw.

I could say the same about Dave Parker or Jim Rice in their primes. My father thought the same thing about Willie McCovey. It's a high compliment and certainly something worth considering when trying to assess a hitter's greatness.

[rich]

Albert Belle: in or out?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's an outrage he's not in.

It's an outrage he didn't win the MVP in 1995.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It's an outrage he's not in.

It's an outrage he didn't win the MVP in 1995.

Ir's all about perception of one's personality. Had Belle had the public personality of a Kirby Pucket he probably would have been a 1st ballot HoFer and eveyone would wax poetic about what he could have done without the bad hip.

[jalbright]

merged threads.

Belle has a nice case for peak voters--but if you're more career accomplishment oriented, like I am, he's got a weak case. So I can't agree with the statement that his exclusion is an "outrage".

[dl4060]

I just posted this on another thread so I may as well post it here too.


There is no comparison between Dick Allen and either Albert Belle or Harold Baines.

The NEWS HOF Gauge has Dick Allen as the #36 best position player of the 20th century - tied with such greats as Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken and Robin Yount.

36. Dick Allen 314


Dick Allen has indisputable HOF numbers. Belle and Baines are not even in his league.

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

If you condsider Albert Belle in the same league as Fred Lynn that is an absolute joke. He was also a much better player than Robin Yount, he just did not play for as long. He was easily better at his peak than Eddie Murray.

Belle should be in, no doubt about it.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Belle is on the fence in my opinion. I'd probably vote for him. His peak value is indisputably HOF caliber. I noticed the other day that, at his peak, Belle was a very similar hitter to A-Rod. I do think he's comparable to Dick Allen, another good player who I'd probably support. I also think he's comparable to Ralph Kiner, who's in. Fair or not, it's Belle's reputation that will keep him out. If he were a fan favorite, his injury-shortened career would garner some sympathy. Along with Greg Maddux, he's also the player whose individual stats during '94 and '95 were hurt the most by the players strike (obviously some others were on their way to big things in '94, but I'm considering '95 as well). He finished third in the MVP vote in '94 on the strength of a 193 OPS+, and was pretty clearly the best player in baseball in '95, hitting 50 home runs when it was still rare (and in a strike-shortened 144 game schedule). As it sits though, I don't think he has a shot at the Hall.

[Cowtipper]

These two can be combined.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...ighlight=belle

[jalbright]

threads merged.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Another comment on Belle: I think he was misunderstood to a large degree and was not as mean of a person as his reputation suggests. I think Belle was an unhappy man with a bad temper and, at one point, a drinking problem. His bad temper showed itself several times in high-profile situations. He did not like to talk to the press and preferred that they leave him alone. For these reasons, he was made out to be a villain. Either this characterization didn't phase him or it made him angrier, but he made no attempt to mend his reputation. In similar fashion, he made no attempt to draw attention to his positive characteristics. However, he was also known to be friendly to fans and quite charitable during his career. He was an Eagle Scout and graduated sixth in his high school class. He received a baseball scholarship to Notre Dame and an appointment to the Air Force Academy. Obviously, he did not pursue either of those opportunities, but I would say that the fact he was considered for them speaks well of him. I would almost call Belle the antithesis of guys like Steve Garvey and Roger Clemens - guys who will smile for the camera and know what to say at key times, but have no character when no one's looking. Belle, on the other hand, seemed to be a quiet guy who happened to have some serious character flaws which he made no public apologies for. He didn't worry about his reputation and preferred to stay out of the spotlight. Some people think athlete's are obligated to do more than that, but that's a matter of opinion. I don't know how or even if any of it affects his HOF candidacy, but that's my two cents on Albert Belle.

[jrbdmb]

It's an outrage he's not in.

It's an outrage he didn't win the MVP in 1995.

That he isn't in the HOF is a bit disappointing but understandable considering his reputation and the way he treated those who ultimately have the say as to whether he gets in the Hall or not.

That he was only kept on the HOF ballot for two years is an outrage, and speaks more to the issues with the BBWAA than to Belle himself. It will be interesting if the VC takes a different view of Belle when they have the opportunity to do so.

[EdTarbusz]

Albert Belle was easily the best player that I got to see play on a regular basis. As far as him wanting to be left alone: leave the guy alone. He was a ballplayer not every fan's pal.

[pheasant]

Albert Belle is a borderline case to me. He had some great years. But his lack of plate appearances and his 143 OPS+ don't quite cut it to me. Of course, Ralph Kiner made it in, but it took 20 years after he retired.

Here are some stats for Ralph Kiner and Albert Belle(PA avg/obp/slug/OPS+)

Ralph Kiner 6256 .279/.398/.548/149+
Albert Belle 6673 .295/.369/.564/144+

Albert Belle holds up well to Kiner. But the one thing that Kiner has going for him is that he won 7 consecutive HR titles. That is absolutely amazing. He was a true home run king. Thus, if Kiner took 20 years to make it, then maybe Belle should take awhile too.

[rsuriyop]

I believe that Belle will/is get/getting the Richie Allen treatment. Both of them have had the misfortune of having played their prime years in an era of all-time greats (roided or not). Both of them have had relatively short careers. And although exhibiting proper decorum is not part of the criteria needed to being enshrined, some voters apparently do factor it in--which of course hurts Belle and Allen. Factor all of that in and it's easy to see why neither of those players are getting in any time soon, if ever at all.

[PVNICK]

Yeah Belle's career just sort of fizzled out. He signed that big contract with the White Sox and it did not work out. So the last thoughts were what a waste of money, in some ways similar to how Kevin Brown's career trajectory after the huge contract with the Dodgers. Also Belle had 10 full seasons and not that more than a handful of voters probably know, care or in the eyes of some should, his WAR was 37.4. By comparision Kiner's was 45.9. If someone with Win Shares I'd be interested and where the medianm HOFer would be, for WAR, I read here a lot of people whose opinions I value see 50-60 as the grey area. Finally it seems that a lot of players who put up huge numbers in the mid 90s are being looked at with a cocked eyebrow.

[GiambiJuice]

If Albert Belle is a Hall of Famer, then so are Darryl Strawberry, Rocky Colavito and countless others who had similar careers.

When he was at the top of his game, he was great, but he didn't do it for long enough.

[Freakshow]

Belle was essentially the same player as Kiner, with a similar level of dominance in a shortish career.

Belle's peak was in the strike years of 1994-95, so you have to adjust for that. Kiner's peak was in a barely-integrated league, which ought to be a consideration in the analysis. Kiner played in a home ballpark intentionally modified to cater to him.

Kiner home .288/.414/.593
Kiner road .269/.381/.503

By comparison

Belle home .302/.375/.580
Belle road .288/.364/.549

That's a much more normal sort of split.

Kiner has the narrative of the 7 HR crowns. Belle has the narrative of being a pain to the writers. Kiner was elected by the BBWAA in his final year of eligibility, just creeping over 75% with a total I strongly suspect was finagled to get him in (the HOF still was counting votes in-house). Belle was two-and-done.

Colavito and Strawberry have similar career value to them, but their briefer and lower peaks leave them a bit behind.

[GiambiJuice]

.

Colavito and Strawberry have similar career value to them, but their briefer and lower peaks leave them a bit behind.

I would argue that Strawberry beats Belle in peak AND career value.

[Freakshow]

I would argue that Strawberry beats Belle in peak AND career value.

Top 5 WAR and Win shares (adjusted for short seasons)
D Strawberry | A Belle
1987 6.7 30 | 1994 8.0 34
1990 6.5 26 | 1998 7.4 37
1988 5.9 30 | 1995 7.4 34
1985 4.8 24 | 1996 4.9 31
1986 3.8 25 | 1993 4.7 27
next two
1989 4.5 18 | 1999 2.7 24
1991 3.7 24 | 1991 2.2 15

No question who has the better peak here.

[PVNICK]

But look at that drop 3 monster seasons, two very good and then by WAR that's it for Belle. Seems to be how I remember when ranking him @ LF. Right up there for a three -5 seeason measure than at or near the bottom (of likely top 20-40 candidates so no jeers) when extended to 10.

[Freakshow]

But look at that drop 3 monster seasons, two very good and then by WAR that's it for Belle. Seems to be how I remember when ranking him @ LF. Right up there for a three -5 seeason measure than at or near the bottom (of likely top 20-40 candidates so no jeers) when extended to 10.

Which is why my support for his HOF case is actually pretty tepid. Belle is not one of the top 40 candidates for the Hall, IMO.

[willshad]

But look at that drop 3 monster seasons, two very good and then by WAR that's it for Belle. Seems to be how I remember when ranking him @ LF. Right up there for a three -5 seeason measure than at or near the bottom (of likely top 20-40 candidates so no jeers) when extended to 10.

Actually, Belle had 4 'monster seasons', 2 very good ones, and a few good ones. If he had been able to play5 or 6 more so-so seasons, then he would be a first ballot guy. While it may be an accepted way to separate the all time greats from the very good, would it REALLY have made him a better player by playing 6 more so-so seasons?

People want to induct Edgar Martinez...well you'd better make room for Belle first.

[dominik]

no. his peak quality was good enough but he did not nearly have enough longevity and even at his peak he was inconsistent. he also was out of baseball at age 34.

he also only has 1534 games (596th!) and about 37 WAR. that is not HOF territory.