Adrian Beltre Hall Of Fame?

psychump

He is putting up some terrific career numbers on offense and defense, just turned 34 and having another nice year.
This from Baseball Ref: Similar Batters through 33 years old:
Ron Santo (921) *
Orlando Cepeda (844) *
Al Kaline (841) *
Eddie Murray (841) *
Cal Ripken (840) *
Shawn Green (839)
Carl Yastrzemski (833) *
Del Ennis (832)
Aramis Ramirez (831)
Dale Murphy (831)
* - Signifies Hall of Famer
His cards are VERY affordable and barring injury I believe he will be a HOFer especially if he gets a WS ring.

shagrotn77

I think the steroid suspicion is going to hurt him. I actually like Aramis Ramirez better as a sleeper candidate.

TNP777

<< <i>He is putting up some terrific career numbers on offense and defense, just turned 34 and having another nice year. >>

"If Adrian Beltre is 34, then I am 26."

- Albert Pujols

Edit: to answer the op's question, I say no. I am a Beltre fan, but I don't see him as an all-time great. But then again, Ron Santo made it. And Don Sutton. And a myriad of other compilers.

Yeah. Maybe Beltre's a lock.

itzagoner

an occasional hot streak gets you in? send Carlos Delgado!!!!!!!!!

orioles93

If he can have a few more good seasons then he is definitely a candidate. I think he has to get closer to the 2800 hits and 450 homers area. If he can do that, he will also probably end up around 600 doubles which is a lot. Definitely not out of the question. Theres worse players in the hall of fame than adrian beltre.

olb31

looks good so far

Tabe

At the moment, I'd say no - too many bad seasons. But a couple more like the ones he's had in Texas and he should be in. Gold Glove defense and lots of good offensive seasons = HOF'er.

RookieWax

as long as his annual stats do not fall off a cliff in the next 2 or 3 years, I'd say he is in due to his combo of offense and defense.

prthd

<< <i>

<< <i>He is putting up some terrific career numbers on offense and defense, just turned 34 and having another nice year. >>

"If Adrian Beltre is 34, then I am 26."

- Albert Pujols

Edit: to answer the op's question, I say no. I am a Beltre fan, but I don't see him as an all-time great. But then again, Ron Santo made it. And Don Sutton. And a myriad of other compilers.

Yeah. Maybe Beltre's a lock. >>




Oooh the 1997 Bowman Chrome rookies. Man I love that set. First off I agree with Beltre being over 34, more like 38. But he had quietly had a hell of a career. I can see him getting in the HOF if he can keep this up for another few years, maybe a deep playoff run towards the end of his career could help solidify his chances.

mcadams

Near zero chance.

ClockworkAngel

If Adrian Beltre gets in, and Tim Raines, Keith Hernandez, and Dale Murphy are not in then they just need to knock it down and put up a Walmart

gregmo32

I still prefer Carlos Beltran, but that might be because of a vested interest.

Ironmanfan

NFW

IMF

NVbaseball

still behind Scott Rolen. No chance at all

DetroitSquirreL

NO WAY! WHERES THE LOVE FOR GIL HODGES???????

perkdog

There is ZERO chance of Beltre being 100% clean so while we are at it all you Beltre lovers hold a sign for Palmeiro, Bonds ect for their admission too....

sportscardtheory

Will end up a top-5 all-time defensive 3rd basemen, close to 3,000 hits, 1,500+ RBIs, close to 500+ HRs and has no known ties to PEDs.

Uh, yes.

Dodgerfanjohn

<< <i>There is ZERO chance of Beltre being 100% clean so while we are at it all you Beltre lovers hold a sign for Palmeiro, Bonds ect for their admission too.... >>



In fairness, there is zero chance he was clean in 2004.

He was above average for his position with Seattle, a notoriously difficult place to hit. But not all star caliber.

He has been a monster in Boston and Texas. But both places are amoungst the easiest to hit in baseball.

I don't think Beltre has any chance at HOF, and neither do I believe he deserves it.

jay0791

On par with schmidt or even Brett...hardly and not even close.

and considering the ballfields.....larry walker is a ton better

jmmiller777

He's got a chance. How can you just say "no way" at this point. With 15 years under his belt, I would think he has 3-4 more productive years and maybe another 2 as a PH. He is in good shape. Even though PEDS in his past are a possibility, I don't think his name is associated with chronic use. Maybe we should ask Conseco.

zendude

No. He has had too many mediocre seasons. Legit Hall of Famers should have season after season of sustained excellence. Compiling numbers doesn't cut it.

TNP777

<< <i>I don't think his name is associated with chronic use. Maybe we should ask Conseco. >>

or Rashweed Wallace. His name has definitely been associated with the Chronic.

hyperchipper09

I think he's got a shot. If he gets to 2800 hits, 400 HR's as a 3B. That would be hard to overlook

Dodgerfanjohn

<< <i>I think he's got a shot. If he gets to 2800 hits, 400 HR's as a 3B. That would be hard to overlook >>



Considering 148 of them were hit over only 5 seasons while with Boston, TX, and one steroid laden dodgers season, id disagree.

Had he stayed with the dodgers or Seattle, this thread doesn't exist.

Largentcollector

No (PED's)!

JoeBanzai

I am amazed at the PED accusations not only on this thread, but those I have seen on others. If a player is not mentioned in the Mitchel report, hasn't tested positive or been officially accused/charged with PED use (Bonds, Clemens), shouldn't they be given the benefit of the doubt?

That being said, Beltre is an outstanding player, BUT as was said earlier about half of his seasons were pretty average. However, if he has a few more good years, he should go in.

Take a GOOD look at Yastrzemski's numbers! Had a LOT of poor years, several good and a few great ones, ended up with numbers that demanded he make the HOF.

Joe

ClockworkAngel

Yep, pretty sad state of the game when a guy whose name hasn't even come up for PED's is automatically assumed to have used them. Seems anyone that bulks up gets labelled.

JoeBanzai

My best friend in High School (1973-75) was quite a jock. His dad was a BIG FAT monster, wrists the size of my calves. He had one brother who was 6'7" and another that was thick and broad shouldered.

My buddy and I worked out with weights and ran together for three years and by the time we graduated, I was in pretty good shape. He, on the other hand was effen huge! the guy looked like a mini Arnold Schwarzenegger! We had no access to steroids, we did eat very healthy.

It used to TOTALLY pi$$ me off that we worked out the same and he got SO much bigger.

Ever since then, I think about that when people start throwing out the PED accusations at anyone who gets big.

Joe

CollectorAtWork

Beltre has been suspected of PEDs: Link

JoeBanzai

Suspected in one article. Does not mean much. Goes right to my complaint of finger pointing at the first sign of a player getting bigger or having his stats jump. Let me pick on Yaz again, in 1967 hit 44 home runs, had averaged 16 a year for his first 6 years with a high of 20, must have been the first "juicer".

Again my feelings are; Mitchell report, OFFICIAL charges or failed drug test, let's add admitting use as well.

Joe

MintMoondog

HOF vote does not require absolute proof...it is not a court. Therefore IMO he is out based on circumstantial allegations with obvious physical observation. Good player though

MattyC

I really think Banzai has an important point here. In ten weeks during 2012, I lost over 30lbs and dropped down to singe digit bodyfat, while increasing strength in every muscle group. The human body is capable of amazing transformations with hard work, proper nutrition, and knowledgable work outs. I'm not saying Beltre should be in, but what I am saying is if a professional athlete of all people gets yoked, he should not automatically be suspected of using drugs.

Also, sudden performance increases have happened throughout many careers. Guys like Ryan and Maddux were not amazing for their first few years. Sometimes it takes a guy a while before he finds his groove, or adjusts say to MLB pitching. Someone suddenly harvesting all their natural gifts and putting their game together also isn't proof of steroid use. These guys were all drafted to play pro ball because they were nasty as hell on some level.

gregmo32

Quoting his numbers and comparing it to similar players who are in the HOF ignores a lot of the detail. When you see the numbers of those 1970's HOFers and make the case that Beltre is in their league, you forget the fact that while Beltre was amassing these numbers there was a fairly substantial group of players putting up obscene numbers that dwarf his, who will nonetheless not be in the HOF.

onebamafan

nope

larryallen73

Let's revisit this thread in 5 years. Too early to tell.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>Quoting his numbers and comparing it to similar players who are in the HOF ignores a lot of the detail. When you see the numbers of those 1970's HOFers and make the case that Beltre is in their league, you forget the fact that while Beltre was amassing these numbers there was a fairly substantial group of players putting up obscene numbers that dwarf his, who will nonetheless not be in the HOF. >>



Well no, he'll never get in if you compare him to the juicers, why on earth would you do that.

The fairest thing to do is to compare him to players we are certain didn't use, and we can use 1970's players to do that.

Joe

NVbaseball

For 10 years, Adrian Beltre has been drug tested by Major League Baseball and has passed every single time

If he was abusing drugs at age 19, it can easily be overlooked the way we do for every other teenager who grows up

What matters most in this discussion is his career .330 obp

CollectorAtWork

I think as last year's HOF election went, voters are content to let everyone with even a hint of suspicion wait. There's no problem with letting Beltre wait 10-20 years or so after he retires, and see where we are at with all of this PED fiasco at that time.

gregmo32

JoeBanzai,

My point is that in an era in which almost everyone is under a cloud of suspicion, it will be difficult to vote in someone who was a possible user when there are so many more statistically qualified players who won't be enshrined for similar reasons.

MattyC

Where I think a lot of the sports "writers" and pundits are wrong is that they think any pro athlete with a great physique is guilty of steroid use. I'd venture that many of those journalists have never trained hard, let alone the way a pro athlete trains. It seems like they accept NFL players with muscle but when a lean pro MLB player in his early 20s grows in his 30s-- which are prime muscle-building years as well-- he's suspects of PEDs. That I think is wrong.

gregmo32

MattyC,

It is interesting to consider the point you make. I am certain it is because in other sports, it is impossible to qualify "how much" the PED's helped a player. In baseball, with its constant cycling of pitcher vs. batter "one on one events," which are the same for every player and position on the field, and with all of its sacred numbers, it is easy to at least make a projection (accurately or otherwise).

Football, with its calculus of moving parts on every play, would be all but impossible to qualify how much PED's aided an individual in relation to his measurable performance.

NVbaseball

<< <i> I am certain it is because in other sports, it is impossible to qualify "how much" the PED's helped a player. >>



Ben Johnson 1984 Olympics 10.22
Ben Johnson 1988 Olympics 9.79

Why was that comparison impossible?

MattyC

Greg,

I agree that PEDs give a baseball player an unfair advantage-- agree with that all the way.

I just think that-- especially in a country whose ethos is innocent until PROVEN guilty-- it is most unfair to suspect and merely on that basis convict a player...when the only evidence is an observation of his physique. I've heard far too many sports writers point to a player's physique as if it is proof of PED use. That really bothers me, because I sincerely doubt those same writers are speaking from a place of experience; I doubt they know what elite training and diet can do to a human body. And when a man is paid millions of dollars to perform physically, if that is his life's passion and livelihood, if that is how he provides for his family, if any man is going to train and diet at an elite level, it's a pro athlete, even an MLB player. I would honestly not be surprised if some sports writers have never worked out hard a day in their lives-- not saying at all that is a prerequisite to write about sports, but they should know what training right can do, be it from experience or otherwise before seeing some muscles and crying PEDS.

Then there is the simple male vanity element to consider. Many guys like being in great aesthetic condition, and I'd imagine this trait is more prevalent among professional athletes. It doesn't surprise me then that an MLB player, especially one who is single, would strive to work out for both professional and personal reasons. We live in a culture that places some value on physical attractiveness, and I don't see why some sports writers would be surprised that a man making millions to perform on a national stage would treat his body in a natural way that both helps performance and helps him look amazing.

Dodgerfanjohn

<< <i>For 10 years, Adrian Beltre has been drug tested by Major League Baseball and has passed every single time

If he was abusing drugs at age 19, it can easily be overlooked the way we do for every other teenager who grows up

What matters most in this discussion is his career .330 obp >>



Kurt Angle passed drug test after drug test also, despite being ridiculously huge compared to his Olympic years. I sat very close in a house show in 2004. Aside of being bulked up, Angle had a back riddled with acne. Despite not testing positive, there is ZERO chance he wasn't using.

Negative tests are relatively meaningless in light of other circumstantial evidence.

NVbaseball

<< <i>Kurt Angle passed drug test after drug test also, despite being ridiculously huge compared to his Olympic years. I sat very close in a house show in 2004. Aside of being bulked up, Angle had a back riddled with acne. Despite not testing positive, there is ZERO chance he wasn't using.

Negative tests are relatively meaningless in light of other circumstantial evidence. >>



If Kurt Angle got so ridiculously huge only when he left his drug tested sport, that would be strong evidence that the testing does limit drug use

If the negative tests mean nothing, why would any sport ever test the athletes?

gregmo32

I do agree that not failing drug tests is only a convincing sign of a player being clean when compared to the alternative of a player testing dirty.
The cheaters are always, by nature, ahead of those trying to catch them. Any reading on the subject shows that conclusively.

Lance Armstrong is only the most glaring example.

The unknowable question that would need to be answered is "What percentage of players was not using PED?" There is no way to answer that question, and that dilemma has robbed sports of some of the joy that used to be found in them.

sportscardtheory

Wow. Adrian Beltre has ties to PEDs because people have asked, "Was he on PEDs during the 2004 season?". That's not ties, that's called asking a question or speculation. Anyone can speculate about anyone. It's meaningless. That's why Bagwell will end up a HOFer, because no matter how much anyone believes he was a juicer, there is simply no proof or valid accusations made by anyone in the know, to my knowledge. No failed tests. No nothing. Same as Beltre.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>JoeBanzai,

My point is that in an era in which almost everyone is under a cloud of suspicion, it will be difficult to vote in someone who was a possible user when there are so many more statistically qualified players who won't be enshrined for similar reasons. >>



OK we will just have to stop discussing EVERYONE who played from about 1985 until now.

The topic happened to be Beltre, a fine player, but not one of the "more statistically qualified players".

Perhaps we should just close the doors to the Hall of Fame.

Joe

CollectorAtWork

People can say what they think on this board and give their opinion in saying if there is no definitive proof that a player has done PEDs, then they should be in the Hall. However, as far as I know, no one on this board is a Hall of Famer voter. We can give all of our opinions that we want, but we don't vote. However, the people who do actually vote have shown that they're not going to vote for anyone with suspicions (at least in their first year). We'll have to see if the Bagwell, etc, go up this year or not to see if the voters are willing to give more benefit of the doubt. However, from last year's vote, they are not, so based on that Beltre isn't going to get in. As to those who think that this will mean no one will get in, I don't think so. Here is who I think will get in: (list of eligibles here: Link)

2014:

Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine (eventually, maybe not first year)
Mike Mussina (maybe, maybe not)
Frank Thomas (probably)

2015:

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz (eventually)

2016:

Ken Griffey Jr.
Trevor Hoffman (maybe)

2017:

Vlad Guerrerro (not sure)

2018:

Chipper Jones (probably)
Omar Vizquel (maybe eventually)

Others in the future:

Mariano Rivera
Derek Jeter

That's a lot of players already, so there will still be plenty of choices for the voters who don't have to choose those suspected of PEDs.

hyperchipper09

He's been very good since 2010. Had the big season out in LA in when, 2004? Stats jump out that year similar to the way Cal Ripken's jump off the page in 1991. Players have always had great seasons, out of the blue at times. Just seems like the last 10, 15, 20 years that anytime any player has a great season, everyone screams PED'S. If Ripken were playing now, and had a season like 1991 sandwiched between 87-90 and 92-93 type seasons, he'd be under a microscope as well. Yeah I know all about the stance change in 91 also. Would people buy that now? Probably not. Nolan Ryan would be under a microscope also. Nature of the current beast. Imagine that type of witch hunt with players of that caliber.


edit to add:
Bo Jackson and his exploits in the late 80's and subsequent hip injury would have been dissected if happened today.
Don Mattingly's HR streak in 1987 AFTER spending time on the DL for the back, would have been deemed "suspicious" in today's baseball.
Paul O' Neill suddenly becoming a .315 or so hitter in NY from 93-01.
many others any number of people could add. The point I try to make is, whenever a player does something great now, the assumption is PED's, and never "well, maybe that player worked hard at his game". And that's sad.

ClockworkAngel

I don't think Beltre should get in, but it has nothing to do with PED's. Not fair to say "well, maybe he could have used PED's this year and that year and this other year"

What about Mike Piazza? He should be a lock, but there's always been suspicion there