Monday, May 03, 2004
Don't Worry, I'm Still Alive
What a hectic last couple of weeks. Finals are this week, so academic commitments have been piling up lately. In addition to a newly busy, uh, social calendar, Sox-1918 hasn't had the same level of attention that it has in the past. I haven't even listened to a M's game in a week or so.
A few weeks ago, someone in the blogosphere (I was thinking it was Jeff, but I couldn't find it in his archives, so maybe it was someone else) in passing mentioned the Hall of Fame Monitor scores on Baseball Reference and Albert Belle's score of 134.5. A score of over 100 means "likely Hall-of-Famer," so statistically, this means Belle should be a lock. The author of the post expressed surprise at this. A long-running argument of Pete's and mine is Belle's HOF worthiness, so I wanted to comment, even if it is a little bit late.
From the years 1992-1999, Albert Belle was one of the best few hitters in baseball. The players of comparable offensive value over that time period fall into three categories:
First-Ballot HOF'ers:
No one (at least no one that matters) would argue against the HOF candidacy of any of the above men. Just look at those numbers (and Piazza's a catcher!). Griffey and Bonds are two of the best outfielders ever, McGwire one of the greatest sluggers, and Piazza is probably the best hitting catcher ever.
Next category:
The Argument Could Certainly Be Made:
We've heard the case for Edgar, and Thomas's follows a similar line of logic. I'd vote for both, but that's just me.
And now the final category (at least in terms of the voters' perception), with only one entry:
Stupid Jerk-Heads That Had No Business Playing This Game In The First Place:
The only difference between Belle and the others is his rep. If he wasn't such a gaping asshole, we'd all be really sad that his career was cut short and be forecasting what his career numbers would have been with a couple more years of big league service. Speaking simply as a Mariners fan, I hid my eyes when Belle came up in his prime. Especially if Jeff Nelson was on the hill. Belle hit in the neighborhood of 8 thousand jacks against Nellie, travelling an average distance of 893.83 feet.
Albert Belle seemed to hate everybody equally -- teammates, umpires, opponents, fans, hot dog vendors, etc. Kind of like the drill sargeant in Full Metal Jacket. His anger seemed to fuel his fire, though. The only other player I can think of that played better with a chip on his shoulder was probably Jackie Robinson. Granted, Jackie's motivation was a wee bit more noble. The question that bears asking is: How much does attitude matter? For every voter, the answer is a little different. For me, if I had a vote, I'd leave Albert Belle on the outside looking in.
EDIT 10:46 AM -- Sorry about all that space between the tables. No idea why that happens, or how to fix it.
EDIT 12:14 PM, 5/5/04 -- Thanks for all the suggestions on repairing my tables. Much appreciated to all who responded so quickly.
A few weeks ago, someone in the blogosphere (I was thinking it was Jeff, but I couldn't find it in his archives, so maybe it was someone else) in passing mentioned the Hall of Fame Monitor scores on Baseball Reference and Albert Belle's score of 134.5. A score of over 100 means "likely Hall-of-Famer," so statistically, this means Belle should be a lock. The author of the post expressed surprise at this. A long-running argument of Pete's and mine is Belle's HOF worthiness, so I wanted to comment, even if it is a little bit late.
From the years 1992-1999, Albert Belle was one of the best few hitters in baseball. The players of comparable offensive value over that time period fall into three categories:
First-Ballot HOF'ers:
Barry Bonds | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 34 | 103 | .311 | .456 | .624 | 1.080 |
1993 | 46 | 123 | .336 | .458 | .677 | 1.136 |
1994 | 37 | 81 | .312 | .426 | .647 | 1.073 |
1995 | 33 | 104 | .294 | .431 | .577 | 1.009 |
1996 | 42 | 129 | .308 | .461 | .615 | 1.076 |
1997 | 40 | 101 | .291 | .446 | .585 | 1.031 |
1998 | 37 | 122 | .303 | .438 | .609 | 1.047 |
1999 | 34 | 83 | .262 | .389 | .617 | 1.006 |
Mark McGwire | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 42 | 104 | .268 | .385 | .585 | .970 |
1993 | 9 | 24 | .333 | .467 | .726 | 1.193 |
1994 | 9 | 25 | .252 | .413 | .474 | .887 |
1995 | 39 | 90 | .274 | .441 | .685 | 1.125 |
1996 | 52 | 113 | .312 | .467 | .730 | 1.198 |
1997 | 58 | 123 | .274 | .393 | .646 | 1.039 |
1998 | 70 | 147 | .299 | .470 | .752 | 1.222 |
1999 | 65 | 147 | .278 | .424 | .697 | 1.120 |
Ken Griffey Jr. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 27 | 103 | .308 | .361 | .535 | .896 |
1993 | 45 | 109 | .309 | .408 | .617 | 1.025 |
1994 | 40 | 90 | .323 | .402 | .674 | 1.076 |
1995 | 17 | 42 | .258 | .379 | .481 | .860 |
1996 | 49 | 140 | .303 | .392 | .628 | 1.020 |
1997 | 56 | 147 | .304 | .382 | .646 | 1.028 |
1998 | 56 | 146 | .284 | .365 | .611 | .977 |
1999 | 48 | 134 | .285 | .384 | .576 | .960 |
Mike Piazza | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 42 | 104 | .268 | .385 | .585 | .970 |
1993 | 9 | 24 | .333 | .467 | .726 | 1.193 |
1994 | 9 | 25 | .252 | .413 | .474 | .887 |
1995 | 39 | 90 | .274 | .441 | .685 | 1.125 |
1996 | 52 | 113 | .312 | .467 | .730 | 1.198 |
1997 | 58 | 123 | .274 | .393 | .646 | 1.039 |
1998 | 70 | 147 | .299 | .470 | .752 | 1.222 |
1999 | 65 | 147 | .278 | .424 | .697 | 1.120 |
No one (at least no one that matters) would argue against the HOF candidacy of any of the above men. Just look at those numbers (and Piazza's a catcher!). Griffey and Bonds are two of the best outfielders ever, McGwire one of the greatest sluggers, and Piazza is probably the best hitting catcher ever.
Next category:
The Argument Could Certainly Be Made:
Edgar Martinez | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 18 | 73 | .343 | .404 | .544 | .948 |
1993 | 4 | 13 | .237 | .366 | .378 | .744 |
1994 | 13 | 51 | .285 | .387 | .482 | .869 |
1995 | 29 | 113 | .356 | .479 | .628 | 1.107 |
1996 | 26 | 103 | .327 | .464 | .595 | 1.059 |
1997 | 28 | 108 | .330 | .456 | .554 | 1.009 |
1998 | 29 | 102 | .322 | .429 | .565 | .993 |
1999 | 24 | 86 | .337 | .447 | .554 | 1.001 |
Frank Thomas | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 24 | 115 | .323 | .439 | .536 | .975 |
1993 | 41 | 128 | .317 | .426 | .607 | 1.033 |
1994 | 38 | 101 | .353 | .487 | .729 | 1.217 |
1995 | 40 | 111 | .308 | .454 | .606 | 1.061 |
1996 | 40 | 134 | .349 | .459 | .626 | 1.085 |
1997 | 35 | 125 | .347 | .456 | .611 | 1.067 |
1998 | 29 | 109 | .265 | .381 | .480 | .861 |
1999 | 15 | 77 | .305 | .414 | .471 | .885 |
We've heard the case for Edgar, and Thomas's follows a similar line of logic. I'd vote for both, but that's just me.
And now the final category (at least in terms of the voters' perception), with only one entry:
Stupid Jerk-Heads That Had No Business Playing This Game In The First Place:
Albert Belle | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | HR | RBI | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
1992 | 34 | 112 | .260 | .320 | .477 | .797 |
1993 | 38 | 129 | .290 | .370 | .552 | .922 |
1994 | 36 | 101 | .357 | .438 | .714 | 1.152 |
1995 | 50 | 126 | .317 | .401 | .690 | 1.091 |
1996 | 48 | 148 | .311 | .410 | .623 | 1.033 |
1997 | 30 | 116 | .274 | .332 | .491 | .823 |
1998 | 49 | 152 | .328 | .399 | .655 | 1.055 |
1999 | 37 | 117 | .297 | .400 | .541 | .941 |
The only difference between Belle and the others is his rep. If he wasn't such a gaping asshole, we'd all be really sad that his career was cut short and be forecasting what his career numbers would have been with a couple more years of big league service. Speaking simply as a Mariners fan, I hid my eyes when Belle came up in his prime. Especially if Jeff Nelson was on the hill. Belle hit in the neighborhood of 8 thousand jacks against Nellie, travelling an average distance of 893.83 feet.
Albert Belle seemed to hate everybody equally -- teammates, umpires, opponents, fans, hot dog vendors, etc. Kind of like the drill sargeant in Full Metal Jacket. His anger seemed to fuel his fire, though. The only other player I can think of that played better with a chip on his shoulder was probably Jackie Robinson. Granted, Jackie's motivation was a wee bit more noble. The question that bears asking is: How much does attitude matter? For every voter, the answer is a little different. For me, if I had a vote, I'd leave Albert Belle on the outside looking in.
EDIT 10:46 AM -- Sorry about all that space between the tables. No idea why that happens, or how to fix it.
EDIT 12:14 PM, 5/5/04 -- Thanks for all the suggestions on repairing my tables. Much appreciated to all who responded so quickly.
Comments:
Post a Comment