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.
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Notorious "nice" guys like Puckett and Walter Payton had some serious dark sides.
But, it's public perception that sells.
But, it's public perception that sells.
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
Topnotchsy
Featured Contributor, The best players in history?
- Aug 7, 2008
- 9,473
- 248
I just wanted to say that this thread is one of the most informative I have ever read on the boards. Tons of great insights and really an enjoyable read.
Personally I am partial to players who were truly dominant, the ones opposing pitchers fear (pitching to...). Bells was that kind of hitter and for me bin that type of hitter for a decade warrants real consideration for the Hall.
Personally I am partial to players who were truly dominant, the ones opposing pitchers fear (pitching to...). Bells was that kind of hitter and for me bin that type of hitter for a decade warrants real consideration for the Hall.
markakis8
Active member
- Oct 31, 2008
- 12,081
- 2
Then what's going to be the argument when Edgar and David Ortiz get in? B/c they will get in...
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Neither is/was as good as Belle. Wouldn't a designated hitter need to be better than ANY position player who *hasn't* been elected to the Hall at a minimum?
- Thread starter
- #147
MansGame
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #148
MansGame
Well-known member
This is a great thread and a lot of really good points for/against the idea of Belle being in the HOF or ever getting in the HOF. It has also made me look into stats more, not only Belle but a lot of my favorite players from the '90s.
Let me see if I can list what this thread believes are the reasons he is left out of the HOF:
1) He was not an advocate of the game/bad temper/not nice guy
2) Wasn't great on defense
3) Eventually could be linked to PEDs (or) he played in the steroid era
4) Didn't play enough years?
Does this cover it all?
If you look at this list, you could probably say it is pretty interesting. IMO, #4 is pointless because the HOF made the rule 10 year minimum and as far as the MLB is concerned, he played 12 years... #3 is not a reason because he has never been linked to PEDs and just because he played in the steroid era hasn't stopped some from being put in the HOF if they're not linked to PEDs... I agree with #2 being a point if you believe highly in defense and gold gloves being a large consideration, and I do.... and #1 is probably the biggest reason some people aren't voting "yes" here and is DEF the reason he didn't get votes when he was on the ballot.
Just in my opinion here fellas... again, great thread and appreciate everyone's input!
**EDIT: I suppose some also believe he doesn't have the career numbers or milestones (500 HRs, 3,000 hits, etc.) to make more of a case for him. My response for this is he had a shortened career and his career averages are impressive and I think other than the points above, would get him a better shot at the HOF.
Let me see if I can list what this thread believes are the reasons he is left out of the HOF:
1) He was not an advocate of the game/bad temper/not nice guy
2) Wasn't great on defense
3) Eventually could be linked to PEDs (or) he played in the steroid era
4) Didn't play enough years?
Does this cover it all?
If you look at this list, you could probably say it is pretty interesting. IMO, #4 is pointless because the HOF made the rule 10 year minimum and as far as the MLB is concerned, he played 12 years... #3 is not a reason because he has never been linked to PEDs and just because he played in the steroid era hasn't stopped some from being put in the HOF if they're not linked to PEDs... I agree with #2 being a point if you believe highly in defense and gold gloves being a large consideration, and I do.... and #1 is probably the biggest reason some people aren't voting "yes" here and is DEF the reason he didn't get votes when he was on the ballot.
Just in my opinion here fellas... again, great thread and appreciate everyone's input!
**EDIT: I suppose some also believe he doesn't have the career numbers or milestones (500 HRs, 3,000 hits, etc.) to make more of a case for him. My response for this is he had a shortened career and his career averages are impressive and I think other than the points above, would get him a better shot at the HOF.
Last edited:
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
At this point, Ortiz isn't a lock for the HOF. Edgar's career is wrapped, and while I think he should be the first true DH selected, that's not a lock either.
Guys like Dave Parker aren't in, and he's a solid borderline candidate.
homerun28aa
Active member
- Jun 8, 2011
- 19,072
- 8
Disagree with this and disagree with someone who said that Ortiz is a lock for the HOF. I think Martinez is a HOFer simply because he showed how powerful a good DH could be to a team but about the attitude I'll say this. A lot of people have 'HOF-like' numbers, some have outstanding numbers and some have numbers who definitely put them into the conversation for the HOF. Belle had HOF consideration numbers, but he lacked the pizzaz that a guy like Edgar Martinez IMO did have. Getting an award named after you really doesn't hurt your chances for HOF consideration. Whether people like it or not Clemens' perjury trial has put a dent in his HOF consideration the way Belle's attitude has put a dent in his. A HOF vote takes a lot into consideration it obviously isn't a computerized system and the voters really make their call based on the entire career of a player
Frow
New member
Does a closer have to be better than every starter or do each have their own job to do?
Sent from my LG-P925 using Sports Cards by Freedom Card Board.com
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
I don't think closers or middle relievers are the same as DHs. The DH will have as many PAs as other position players and are always in the same circumstances as all other hitters. However closers and middle relievers are much more specialized and come into/inherit situations not of their own doing/not of their own fault.
You compare the stats of a DH with every other hitter. You do not compare stats of starters and relievers.
- Thread starter
- #154
MansGame
Well-known member
This
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
BTW...just an interesting tidbit. I know this isn't totally relevant to the thread but the concept was brought up by sportscardtheory.
Jerome Solomon is now saying the game was more exciting when juicing was going on and also that one of the major reasons there are now more no-hitters and perfect games(coming in the wake of Cain demolishing the astros) is basically because of a drop in steroid use. And that it's not necessarily good for baseball. Yeah. Now this may not make a hill of beans to a lot of folks. But when you act like Bagwell or any ex-astros aren't or haven't been tied to roids...just remember that this is one of the guys who covers them. Starting to understand why I don't buy the whole clean image now? I don't have to agree with his opinion, or Richard Justice, or the Ortiz fella. But when it comes down to it, if Bagwell had done anything, these three aren't gunning to find out. At least I don't believe they would be. Not when making statements like above.
Jerome Solomon is now saying the game was more exciting when juicing was going on and also that one of the major reasons there are now more no-hitters and perfect games(coming in the wake of Cain demolishing the astros) is basically because of a drop in steroid use. And that it's not necessarily good for baseball. Yeah. Now this may not make a hill of beans to a lot of folks. But when you act like Bagwell or any ex-astros aren't or haven't been tied to roids...just remember that this is one of the guys who covers them. Starting to understand why I don't buy the whole clean image now? I don't have to agree with his opinion, or Richard Justice, or the Ortiz fella. But when it comes down to it, if Bagwell had done anything, these three aren't gunning to find out. At least I don't believe they would be. Not when making statements like above.
