PadresFan86
New member
I don't know if he should or shouldn't be in the hall but a player shouldn't be left out just because of their attitude or personality. IMO, that should have nothing to do with it.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Should Albert Belle be in the HOF?
- Thread starter MansGame
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
Well, I think the poll results here speak for themselvs....
I also think it will parallel actual voting. Should he get consideration? Sure, he was that good! But at the end of the day, and with some recognition votes, he is an overwhelming 'No'.
I also think it will parallel actual voting. Should he get consideration? Sure, he was that good! But at the end of the day, and with some recognition votes, he is an overwhelming 'No'.
sportscardtheory
Active member
Not really. If these results were parallel to actual HOF voting, he would still be on the ballot with 18% in-favor. The fact that he is off the ballot completely is pretty ridiculous. Less than 5% of voters saw him as a HOFer? Really?
One thing people are forgetting is that Albert was a poor defensive outfielder. That cuts against his candidacy.
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
More specificly I meant he would get a few votes of recognition as consideration was warrented, but in the end it would/should have been a overwhelming 'No'. And to that end it was parallel. (like it or not, agree with it or not)
sportscardtheory
Active member
That really affected his overall WAR too. With his insane offensive production, you would think his WAR would be much higher.
- Thread starter
- #127
MansGame
Well-known member
Still great conversations here! 18% / 82% is a little more scewed than I thought we would get with this poll but I'm seeing some guys say "yes" in their post but not actually vote, so I'm inclined to say it's about a 20/80 split 
Just kidding.... but I thought this was a fun fact when I was researching Belle hitting 50/50 back in the '90s... only 26 players have hit 50 or more HRs in a single season (per wiki, so maybe more/less). It is a pretty impressive list of names too... many in the HOF.
Just kidding.... but I thought this was a fun fact when I was researching Belle hitting 50/50 back in the '90s... only 26 players have hit 50 or more HRs in a single season (per wiki, so maybe more/less). It is a pretty impressive list of names too... many in the HOF.
HPC
New member
While I still say no, with the current mindset of Hall of Fame voters, I can see two scenarios playing out
A) Belle does not get in because he falls under the same situation as Bagwell--tied to PED's even though there is no proof or claim, but just by looking at his numbers "he must have used them", plus a combination of low overall career production.
B) Belle does eventually get in many years down the road due to voters finally realizing that not everyone used PED's during the steroid era and recognize that he had a very dominant 8 year stretch during a time when PED's were most prevalent
A) Belle does not get in because he falls under the same situation as Bagwell--tied to PED's even though there is no proof or claim, but just by looking at his numbers "he must have used them", plus a combination of low overall career production.
B) Belle does eventually get in many years down the road due to voters finally realizing that not everyone used PED's during the steroid era and recognize that he had a very dominant 8 year stretch during a time when PED's were most prevalent
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Are there steroid suspicions regarding PED usage and Albert Belle? Absolutely. Do I care? Nope.
That said, he produced the bare minimum of years for induction and while he performed at the highest level...there are a lot of variables that can easily turn voters off.
Eventually the voters will get off of their hypocritical high horses and start voting based on skills and numbers based on the era, but until then, "borderline" guys like Belle will be left out. I've said it for years, Bonds and Clemens are the litmus test for the "Steroids Era" - no one else suspected (or known) is worth discussing from the era until they get in. Not McGwire, not Sosa, not Juan Gone and not Belle.
That said, he produced the bare minimum of years for induction and while he performed at the highest level...there are a lot of variables that can easily turn voters off.
Eventually the voters will get off of their hypocritical high horses and start voting based on skills and numbers based on the era, but until then, "borderline" guys like Belle will be left out. I've said it for years, Bonds and Clemens are the litmus test for the "Steroids Era" - no one else suspected (or known) is worth discussing from the era until they get in. Not McGwire, not Sosa, not Juan Gone and not Belle.
- Thread starter
- #131
MansGame
Well-known member
Are you saying he will eventually just be throw into the PED conversation? I'm pretty sure he hasn't been linked to them up to this point, so I guess I'm curious how that might happen... I guess it could happen over time? idk
I could see this happen... I don't know all the rules but I think after so many years, players can be voted in by a Veterans Committee and I can see them being a part of this situation. If he isn't linked with PEDs, continues to help his image with the Cleveland Indians, gets into the Cleveland Indians HOF and the Veterans Committee looks at his numbers which were dominant, he has a shot... IMO!
+1
- Thread starter
- #132
MansGame
Well-known member
This is a good post. First, I don't think Belle is linked to PEDs currently but I guess some people have mentioned it on blogs? Can anyone produce a real article from ESPN, etc. which links Belle to steroids or being on PED? Second, he played 12 years, so although it is CLOSE to the minimum whichs is 10 years, he dominated. Besides, if you made 10 years the minimum, then you should be looked at for how you did over those years... which for Belle, has great numbers. If the HOF wanted a longer career they should increase the minimum IMO. Third, couldn't agree more with the quote "Eventually the voters will get off of their hypocritical high horses and start voting based on skills and numbers based on the era".
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Understand that "legitimate" outlets like ESPN do not typically report on rumors and assumptions...so you won't find an article on ESPN tackling assumed steroid usage. What we can do is play the logic game if we wanted. He clearly wasn't opposed to cheating as the corked bat would confirm. Then getting teammate (and well known steroid abuser) Jason Grimsley to break into the umpires locker room to try to steal the bat back. Belle's temper was notorious, and made Bonds look like a school boy. Of course, it might not have been constant 'roid rage but just being "an angry black man" as Belle continues to claim. He played in the era, he was a physical freak of nature, he put up the numbers and he broke down physically.
Again, I'm not saying he did use PEDs because I really could care less about PEDs and the HOF...but I'm far more comfortable assuming he did use than not.
And again, while he appeared in an MLB uniform for parts of 12 seasons (although really just 10 complete seasons), he only appeared in 1539 games. That's barely ten years worth...a percentage of which were at DH.
I kind of do. If you act like a ******* on the field it should be taken into consideration.
- Thread starter
- #135
MansGame
Well-known member
Taken into consideration... sure, why not. I know he wasn't Tim Tebow out there but for it to be some sort of main reason to keep him out, as seen throughout this thread, is absurd.
PadresFan86
New member
Hall of famers should be graded by their play not whether they were a jack ass or not.
Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Sports Cards by Freedom Card Board.com
Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Sports Cards by Freedom Card Board.com
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
I think you may be overstating your opinion here. Sure, it's clear that his career and accomplishment warrented a debate. That in and of it'self is something. Yet many believe he was borderline at best, and perhaps just coming up short. That is still one heck of a career, to even be considered for the Hall. Having said that, and assuming for many he may have been teetering on the edge of admission, the 'he was a jack ass' now carries weight if only a feathers worth as it was enough to tip him out for some. So no, it was obviously not a 'main reason' but most definitly had ramifications none the less.
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
What it should be is another debate all together, what it is is simply that...
Voters have always assesed the intangables along with the measured metric(s). Personality, popularity(Fame), field presence, leadership, and a myriad of other non statistical things all carry weight. Just the way it is and has been for everyone. No reason to call sour milk now...
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
Solely based on your opinion? Lol... Kirby was loved.
For the votes that matter, they spoke and the rest is history.
