Will Adrian Beltre make the HOF?
larryallen73
Posts: 6,061 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I realize he was likely a cheater (not proven though, right?) but he is still putting up solid numbers and is only 36 years old. I have to think he will make the HOF if he keeps this up for 2-3 more years. He should end up over 3,300 hits, 450 HRs, 1,500 rbis, .280 career batting average, and he used to be a good fielder a long time ago.
0
Comments
<< <i>My opinion on this is that Beltre is a no-brainer. Elite-level defender - as in, in the discussion for top 10 all-time at 3B - and 400+ homers. That's a no-brainer at 3B. >>
Never thought about it by position but since that still seems to be the norm, I would have to agree. Didn't realize how close he was to 3000 hits. Assuming he gets to 3000, he's a lock.
<< <i>My opinion on this is that Beltre is a no-brainer. Elite-level defender - as in, in the discussion for top 10 all-time at 3B - and 400+ homers. That's a no-brainer at 3B. >>
Beltre is already well above a top 10 defender at 3B. He's pretty easily the second best defensive 3B of all-time. He ranks second in both defensive WAR (+24.5) and Defensive Runs Saved (+189) behind that guy with two last names from Baltimore. The rest of the top 5 defensive 3B according to both of those measures would be Buddy Bell at #3 followed by Clete Boyer and Graig Nettles.
Mix in the already crossed HOF level career WAR threshold of +71.4, and a bunch of nice counting stats the old school voters will be able to find value in (.284 BA, 2700 hits, 400+ HRs, 1300 runs, 1400 RBIs, 118 SBs, 14% career K rate. The only thing he didn't really do was maintain a career .350 OB%. Those years in Seattle killed that chance for what I assume was the result of sacrificing plate discipline for power.
But throw that aside if you're not convinced or don't care. His career OPS+ now exactly equals Dave Kingman's, and as hitters that's a fair comparison. Beltre has played longer, but as a hitter he is no better or no worse than Dave Kingman. So any HOF case that Beltre has rests as much on his fielding as his hitting. Brooks Robinson got in the HOF on the first ballot, but he was widely perceived as the best third baseman in history - the Ozzie Smith of third basemen. Beltre isn't that good, and won't get in that way, so the more comparable players to Beltre are Santo and Nettles, both outstanding fielders. Santo was a better hitter than Beltre by about the same margin that Beltre was better than Nettles, and I don't see that Beltre's fielding was that much better than either Santo or Nettles to make much difference in HOF voting. Where that leaves us, I think is here:
1. If the perception is, as it should be, that Beltre cheated then he'll never get in the HOF.
2. If the perception is otherwise, then his HOF chances are somewhere between those of Nettles, who I think probably deserves to be in, and Santo, who I think should have gone in on his first or second ballot. Since Nettles never got close and Santo needed the Veteran's Committee to get in, the reality is that third basemen are not HOF voters favorites - there are fewer 3B than any other position in the HOF - and hitting counts for much more than fielding when they do get in.
Absent his obvious cheating, I think Beltre has a solid case, but probably needs to get to 3,000 hits to have a chance. But if we're going to ignore obvious cheating, then there's a long and growing line of far more deserving players ahead of him, so he's probably got a very long wait in any case.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
Absent his obvious cheating, I think Beltre has a solid case, but probably needs to get to 3,000 hits to have a chance. >>
All that other stuff you posted is irrelevant. This is all that will matter. Assuming he stays relatively healthy for 2 more years, he will reach 3000 hits at the age of 38. With no real proof he was a user, he gets in.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
And someone said Nettles probably deserves in, that's hilarious and Nettles should not even be discussed in any conversation concerning the hall of fame. The guy hit over 30 homers only once in his career and had an average under .250. Saying he belongs in the hall doesn't really help your argument on Beltre.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>
And someone said Nettles probably deserves in, that's hilarious and Nettles should not even be discussed in any conversation concerning the hall of fame. The guy hit over 30 homers only once in his career and had an average under .250. Saying he belongs in the hall doesn't really help your argument on Beltre. >>
And Nettles was done at the age of 35 even though he hung around another decade. Was a .239 hitter for his last decade. Although the game has changed, Nettles best year is comparable to Beltre's worst year.
<< <i>And someone said Nettles probably deserves in, that's hilarious and Nettles should not even be discussed in any conversation concerning the hall of fame. The guy hit over 30 homers only once in his career and had an average under .250. Saying he belongs in the hall doesn't really help your argument on Beltre. >>
Just so we're clear, I defined Nettles-Santo as the range in which Beltre fits: he's better than Nettles and not as good as Santo. I think Nettles belongs in the HOF, so by extension I also think Beltre's numbers are Hall-worthy. But I doubt that he'll get in, and I hope he doesn't, since his numbers are so obviously a result of cheating.
And a reasonable debate could be had on Nettles' worthiness for the HOF, but if you think the idea is laughable then you're missing a great game. If you ignore the trivial (like batting averages and 30-HR seasons) and focus on what really matters, you may not agree he's worthy of the HOF, but you'll definitely stop laughing at the idea.
Beltre, by the way, only hit 30 homers once before he started cheating; Nettles did it twice.
<< <i>
Just so we're clear, I defined Nettles-Santo as the range in which Beltre fits: he's better than Nettles and not as good as Santo. I think Nettles belongs in the HOF >>
You use almost purely stats with your Santo-Nettles-Beltre comparisons and still think they are all equal? Nothing else you say in this thread will have any validity. Santo and Beltre are very comparable statistically even though Santo had a much shorter career. Nettles never belongs in a HOF conversation especially if you're going purely by stats. Dude was Dave Kingman without near as many HRs.
<< <i>Through age 30, Beltre wasn't even close. After age 30, he got much, much better than he was before, a feat which had been accomplished previously by approximately nobody who wasn't using steroids. I don't know how much proof you require, but I don't need any more - he's a cheater.
But throw that aside if you're not convinced or don't care. His career OPS+ now exactly equals Dave Kingman's, and as hitters that's a fair comparison. Beltre has played longer, but as a hitter he is no better or no worse than Dave Kingman. So any HOF case that Beltre has rests as much on his fielding as his hitting. Brooks Robinson got in the HOF on the first ballot, but he was widely perceived as the best third baseman in history - the Ozzie Smith of third basemen. Beltre isn't that good, and won't get in that way, so the more comparable players to Beltre are Santo and Nettles, both outstanding fielders. Santo was a better hitter than Beltre by about the same margin that Beltre was better than Nettles, and I don't see that Beltre's fielding was that much better than either Santo or Nettles to make much difference in HOF voting. Where that leaves us, I think is here:
1. If the perception is, as it should be, that Beltre cheated then he'll never get in the HOF.
2. If the perception is otherwise, then his HOF chances are somewhere between those of Nettles, who I think probably deserves to be in, and Santo, who I think should have gone in on his first or second ballot. Since Nettles never got close and Santo needed the Veteran's Committee to get in, the reality is that third basemen are not HOF voters favorites - there are fewer 3B than any other position in the HOF - and hitting counts for much more than fielding when they do get in.
Absent his obvious cheating, I think Beltre has a solid case, but probably needs to get to 3,000 hits to have a chance. But if we're going to ignore obvious cheating, then there's a long and growing line of far more deserving players ahead of him, so he's probably got a very long wait in any case. >>
Beltre doesn't need 3000 hits when the power numbers and his all-around game are already there...as in today. Barring a PED pop, or a paper trail of heavy doubt or dramatic injury, he'll play at least two more years to tag on some hanging-on-Biggio counting stats You're also forgetting that by the time Beltre retires, there's going to be a huge influx of Internet based baseball writers becoming eligible for HOF voting. So more of the guys from Prospectus and Fangraphs and BTBS those types of places who have already been credentialed by the BBWAA and awaiting the 10 year wait for HOF voting are going to be voting on guys like Beltre where shiny milestone counting stats aren't going to be a necessity. They're going to look at everything, and he's already crossed the 3B threshold if he never takes another AB.
<< <i>You use almost purely stats with your Santo-Nettles-Beltre comparisons and still think they are all equal? Nothing else you say in this thread will have any validity. Santo and Beltre are very comparable statistically even though Santo had a much shorter career. Nettles never belongs in a HOF conversation especially if you're going purely by stats. Dude was Dave Kingman without near as many HRs. >>
Maybe if you would explain how you are adjusting each of their raw stats to account for the parks and the eras they played in, I'd understand your position on this better. Santo was a much better hitter than Beltre, even if we ignore that Beltre put up most of his good numbers on steroids. And Santo and Beltre put up their numbers in hitters parks; a straight up comparison to Nettles who played in a pitchers park isn't fair to Nettles. And I don't know if you're being facetious with your Kingman comparison or not, but it's silly. In any event, I'm not talking about only hitting, and Nettles' worth as a fielder dwarfs Kingman's; as an overall player, Nettles was much, much better.
And for those who keep mentioning that Beltre is a "top 10" third baseman, even if that's true that didn't help Santo much. I don't know if anyone wants to argue that Beltre was a better baseball player than Santo, but that's so obviously wrong I don't think I'd bother participating in the argument. The point I'm trying to make here is that HOF voters historically have a strong bias against third basemen, and even if Beltre is perceived as both not a cheater and as a "top 10" third baseman, that doesn't really guarantee him anything. Reaching 3,000 hits is his best chance. But he's 36, his production has fallen off a cliff this year and it's certainly not a sure thing that he'll get there.
<< <i>And for those who keep mentioning that Beltre is a "top 10" third baseman, even if that's true that didn't help Santo much. >>
The HOF always has been and to an extent always will be based on stats. If Santo had been healthy enough to play until he was 38 or 39 instead of retiring at 34, he accumulates enough stats to be a no brainer.
None of your other arguments are worth replying to because they lack common sense.
<< <i>
<< <i>You use almost purely stats with your Santo-Nettles-Beltre comparisons and still think they are all equal? Nothing else you say in this thread will have any validity. Santo and Beltre are very comparable statistically even though Santo had a much shorter career. Nettles never belongs in a HOF conversation especially if you're going purely by stats. Dude was Dave Kingman without near as many HRs. >>
Maybe if you would explain how you are adjusting each of their raw stats to account for the parks and the eras they played in, I'd understand your position on this better. Santo was a much better hitter than Beltre, even if we ignore that Beltre put up most of his good numbers on steroids. And Santo and Beltre put up their numbers in hitters parks; a straight up comparison to Nettles who played in a pitchers park isn't fair to Nettles. And I don't know if you're being facetious with your Kingman comparison or not, but it's silly. In any event, I'm not talking about only hitting, and Nettles' worth as a fielder dwarfs Kingman's; as an overall player, Nettles was much, much better.
And for those who keep mentioning that Beltre is a "top 10" third baseman, even if that's true that didn't help Santo much. I don't know if anyone wants to argue that Beltre was a better baseball player than Santo, but that's so obviously wrong I don't think I'd bother participating in the argument. The point I'm trying to make here is that HOF voters historically have a strong bias against third basemen, and even if Beltre is perceived as both not a cheater and as a "top 10" third baseman, that doesn't really guarantee him anything. Reaching 3,000 hits is his best chance. But he's 36, his production has fallen off a cliff this year and it's certainly not a sure thing that he'll get there. >>
Welp, I guess some people that get paid to research arguments like that are willing to do it.
and you're still wildly underestimating the quality of the HOF voters during Santo's eligibility and today's era where the web based writers have basically forced a good portion of the old school counting stat voters to simply get smarter about their process. See Blyleven's induction and the increase in Tim Raines' vote counts. Santo would have easily gained induction within 5 years of eligibility if he were up for vote now.
<< <i>None of your other arguments are worth replying to because they lack common sense. >>
The masochist in me wants to ask you which things I said "lack common sense", but I won't; life is too short. But if you ever do want to understand any of the things that I said, if you ask nicely I'll explain them to you.
<< <i>
<< <i>None of your other arguments are worth replying to because they lack common sense. >>
The masochist in me wants to ask you which things I said "lack common sense", but I won't; life is too short. But if you ever do want to understand any of the things that I said, if you ask nicely I'll explain them to you. >>
Everything you are trying to defend was shot down in the post before your last one. Guess everyone here along with a lot of nerds smarter than us are wrong but you are the one person that is correct.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Everything you are trying to defend was shot down in the post before your last one. Guess everyone here along with a lot of nerds smarter than us are wrong but you are the one person that is correct. >>
I thought the people who could make my head explode with their rays of ignorance were gone, but here you are.
The post before my last one is fine for what it is, but it didn't shoot down any point I was defending let alone all of them. I'm not convinced you even know what points I'm making, though, so who knows what you see getting shot down.
I will say, though, that while JAWS is a perfectly fine stat, if you understand what it is, it has its deficiencies. But put that aside, and assume that JAWS is the be-all, end-all of player evaluation, which I assume you think it is or else how could you think any point I had made had been shot down. So, if JAWS is what we're looking at to determine what we need to know about third basemen, did you happen to notice the line for "Avg of 13 HOFers at this position"? No, of course you didn't, that would have required going to the original source and not just believing what you read that supports what you already believe. But, assume that you are interested in learning something, and that you did go to the full list and saw that the average JAWS for HOF third basemen was 55.0. Now assume that you moved your eyes up from that line. Do you know who you'd see sitting right above the average HOF third baseman at 55.1? That's right! Graig Nettles!
Now, explain to me how my point about Santo was shot down by a JAWS listing, while at the same time my point about Nettles being worthy company among HOF third basemen was also shot down. This is going to require some fancy footwork, so I'll give you time. Or, just a thought, you could actually read what I've posted, consider it intelligently instead of rejecting it immediately, and ask me to explain the parts you don't understand.
And lanemyer85, the JAWS list is certainly on topic and worth discussing, but I don't know exactly what you think it means since you didn't say. Are you saying that a JAWS list is precisely the same thing as a "best" list? Since it's based on WAR, and WAR is such a crappy defensive evaluation method, I'm not sure how useful it is, but again, I don't know how you're using it. And I hope you're right about the HOF voters getting smarter. I'd be more confident if Raines got the 90% vote he deserved last time around, but at least his vote is increasing. I will say that from the day they elected Jim Rice to the HOF, "smarter" was the only possible direction they could go.
and I'm not really sure how you arrived at - Santo was a much better hitter than Beltre
the only thing Santo has on Beltre is walks and triples. Any difference there would be offset by Beltre's large edge in doubles in addition to his superior defense and baserunning. That also wouldn't be taking into account the eras. Where even with the raised mound in Santo's era, the average SP had two pitches and if he clocked in at 90 MPH on his average FB, he would be considered a 'flamethrower' if you believe in the historical abstracts on pitch usage and velocity of that era. Whereas Beltre has played his entire career in the reliever specialization era where over 80% of today's starters have an average fastball over 90 -in addition to the (much wider usage of) two seamers and changeups. Along with the cutters, splitters etc that Santo never had to face. Over the last 6 years alone, the average FB has risen from 91.2 MPH to 92.1.
And in no way am I arguing against Santo, but what I recall of the debate that was raging when Santo was up for voting by the Vet's committee was addressing the only real substantive argument anyone had was Santo's home and road splits.
Santo
H: .296/.383/.522
R: .257/.342/.406
whereas Beltre is actually better on the road which shouldn't be surprising given that he played over half of his career in power suppressing parks.
Beltre
H: 278/.332/.464
R: 289/.339/.486
it all evens out in the end, but at worst, they're even in the offensive dept. Add in everything else and there should be a slight edge to Beltre when everything is factored in.
<< <i>well, it was more than just JAWS or any one aggregate metric. Maybe you don't care about a player's peak either....regardless, you can use WAR, WAR7, JAWS, win shares, WPA, or any basic/milestone counting stats and still arrive at the same conclusion. Barring a PED pop, Beltre is already in.
and I'm not really sure how you arrived at - Santo was a much better hitter than Beltre
the only thing Santo has on Beltre is walks and triples. >>
First, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that, "barring a PED pop" I think Beltre deserves to be in. I won't say we disagree that he's "already in", I'm just not as confident as you are that HOF voters are smart enough to see it - unless he gets to 3,000 hits. But you may be right, in fact I hope you're right (except that I think the PED pop has already happened).
With respect to Santo, it is not the case that the only things he has on Beltre are walks and triples. That's true enough if we're going to compare a player from the 2010's with a player from the 1960's without acknowledging how much harder it was to score runs in the 1960's, but why would we want to do that? So let's acknowledge the obvious and proceed from there.
If we look only at the stats that do take the circumstances a player faced into account, we see this:
OPS+
Santo: 125
Beltre: 115
Nettles: 110
Batter Wins
Santo: 30.9
Beltre: 18.2
Nettles: 12.3
Win Probability Added
Santo: 34.2
Nettles: 17.1
Beltre: 11.0
I threw in Nettles to show that the distance from Santo down to Beltre is much greater than the distance from Beltre down to Nettles. Santo is a much better hitter than Beltre, and Beltre is a little bit better hitter than Nettles.
And you mentioned peak hitting, too. So here's the top 3 (average) for these guys:
OPS+
Santo: 159
Beltre: 150
Nettles: 129
Batter Wins
Santo: 5.1
Beltre: 3.9
Nettles: 2.2
Win Probability Added
Santo: 5.3
Beltre: 3.7
Nettles: 2.4
On this scale, Nettles falls off but the clear gap from Santo down to Beltre remains. Santo was a much better hitter than Beltre; unless you ignore the vast difference between playing in the 1960's and the 2010's, but that's just too big a factor to ignore.
Here's the numbers above for another third baseman: 119, 21, 22, 147, 4.0, 4.2. Beats Beltre in all three career numbers and two out of three peak numbers.
Or this guy: 119, 28.1, 40.3, 148, 3.4, 4.3. Beats Beltre in four out of six, and even beats Santo in one.
These two weren't elite fielders, but they were better hitters than Beltre. I also happen to think they each deserved a lot more consideration for the HOF than they got. And it's these guys - Nettles, and then Bando and Evans - that I think define Beltre's peer group (although Beltre would be at the top of this group because of his fielding). All great players, all more worthy of the HOF than Jim Rice or other mediocrities that have gotten in based more on ignorance of hitting conditions than actual ability, and none of them in the same league as Ron Santo.
But we can go on like this all day with different numbers like the 100+ edge Beltre has in runs created, get more in depth on splits and so on. Considering stringers weren't utilized in MLB until the early 80s, a lot of the retrosheet data for Santo and Nettles are mined from aren't anywhere near as accurate as they would be for say Ripken or someone of present day ilk.
<< <i>I'm also assuming you're using basic WPA because it suits your argument better than the more encompassing career WPA+ where they're basically dead even at 201.4 and 198.7 respectively. >>
You're pulling my leg, right? WPA is the difference between WPA+ (the good stuff a hitter does) and WPA- (the bad stuff). There is no possible way to look at it where WPA+ is more encompassing than WPA; WPA is, by definition, more encompassing than WPA+, since WPA+ is a subset of WPA. Comparing by WPA+ is like - is EXACTLY like - saying a player who hits 10 more homers is the better player, and ignoring that he struck out every other time he was at bat. The gap in WPA+ between Santo and Beltre is all but meaningless; the gap in WPA more or less ends the debate all by itself.
Now, if you want to use the argument that retrosheet data isn't reliable for Santo, that's different. I disagree that with a gap as enormous as the one between Santo and Beltre that the data gaps matter much, but that can't be proven. But this argument, should you choose to employ it, necessarily ends at the conclusion that players from the 60's can't be compared to players today, so why are we even trying. In other words, I think your choices are to concede that Santo was the better hitter, or to say that we can't know. I don't think a reasonable argument exists that Beltre was the better hitter, though.
somewhat....but I honestly do think it's kind of odd to use basic WPA for a single measure over an entire career because there will always be deception (the true probability of winning in any given situation depends on the run-scoring environment in which the game is taking place along with the discrepancy in weighing 'credit' to the pitching or hitting side that still exists in WPA) in that the relative infrequency of many events will lead to random results, where positive events may inadvertently decrease win probabilities or negative events may inadvertently increase win probabilities. Not to mention the lower run scoring environs of the 60's and early 70's means there will be simply less sample sizes to go from. In addition to that, park factors aren't included in WPA from what I understand.
Considering WP is basically reporting the long-run averages, a +25 WPA doesn’t necessarily mean the true odds in any exact moment are actually 25%. Thus WPA is often not a great predictive statistic because it’s not representative of a player’s true talent. If a player hits a HR in the bottom of the 9th inning of a 1-0 game, he will be credited with more WPA points than if he hits a HR in the first inning of a game that ends at the same score. Or if Beltre tags 4 bombs in a game where the rest of his teammates account for say 7 isolated runs on their own in a 12-1 game, he's awarded next to nothing in WPA points. So really runs created, to me, is a more sound measure of a player's true talent over the course of his career than WPA totals, or even win shares...as much as I like WPA for individual game situations or in a post-season series sample.
and WPA- is vastly more flawed than WPA which is why I don't even bother with it. BTW it doesn't necessarily mean all of a hitter's 'bad things'. A player will be tagged for factors that he really has no control over like lower leverage and other team dependent situations.
What WPA is really great for is analyzing relievers in various sample sizes, I've found.
<< <i>In summary, Beltre is already HOF worthy and will make it in eventually. Santo was good but got in do to the Kirby Puckett effect. Nettles sucked but his nephew is here attempting to validate his HOF credentials which are only slightly better than mine. >>
The stupid. It BURNS!!!
Again, smaller sample sizes coupled with a lower run-scoring environment (3.4 team RPG in Santo's era vs 5.2+ in Beltre's era) will amount to a greater opportunity to bank WPA points. If you want to use WPA to consider Beltre's peak to that of say Scott Rolen, then that makes sense. Beltre to Santo, not so much.
Official defender of Ron Santo
Official defender of Bert Blyleven
Official defender of the HOF against Jack Morris
Jim Rice sucks
Need to add NettlesLuvr to this.
<< <i>Again, smaller sample sizes coupled with a lower run-scoring environment (3.4 team RPG in Santo's era vs 5.2+ in Beltre's era) will amount to a greater opportunity to bank WPA points. >>
Due to a combination of searing brain pain caused by timpatg and my inability to tell when you are pulling my leg, this will be my last post in this thread.
While it is obviously true that a very low run scoring environment provides "greater opportunity to bank WPA points", it is just as obvious that cashing in on those opportunities is equally more difficult. Your statement seems to imply that all the players in the 1960's were putting up more WPA points than players do today, and that simply isn't true. A HR, a triple, a double, etc. were all "worth" more in the 1960's than today, yes, but they were worth more precisely because they were more rare. A player, like Santo, who could put up numbers in the 1960's that look similar to the numbers Beltre put up in the 2010's is a better player than Beltre. Accomplishing the same thing in a more difficult environment is one of the things better players do.
As for "smaller sample sizes" I have no idea what you mean. I looked at every readily available statistic that is park and era adjusted on b-r and put them in my post; there was no "sample". I also asked you, since you had mentioned Win Shares, to post Win Shares for Beltre if you have them. ALL of the available, quality, statistics show Santo as a better hitter than Beltre and that the gap is substantial. (No, I do not consider WPA+ isolated from WPA- to be a quality statistic, but then Santo won that one anyway.)
Again, smaller sample sizes coupled with a lower run-scoring environment (3.4 team RPG in Santo's era vs 5.2+ in Beltre's era) will amount to a greater opportunity to bank WPA points. If you want to use WPA to consider Beltre's peak to that of say Scott Rolen, then that makes sense. Beltre to Santo, not so much.
If we are to accept your implication in the first paragraph that Beltre encounters greater difficulty as a hitter due to the specialization of relievers, pitch selection, and pitchers throwing harder, how do you account for the fact that run production is easier today compared to Santo's era? These two assertions seem to be contradictory in nature. The fact that hitting and run production were statistically more difficult during Santo's era should bolster his case, if anything, given the degree of difficulty in amassing those numbers, despite the perception that team ERA and pitchers give up fewer runs today than in the past because of the factors stated in that first paragraph.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
In looking at OPS+ numbers compared to plain old OPS, Nettles seems to get too much help via the ballpark factor when compared to Beltre.
Lifetime Beltre has a 62 point lead in OPS but only a 5 point lead in OPS+?
As a Twins fan, I always was bothered that we traded Nettles. We got Luis Tiant in the trade and then gave up on him too! Twins have made some bonehead moves in their time!!!!!
I would put Beltre in the Hall, but not Nettles. Despite some of the numbers provided, Adrian is quite a bit better in my opinion. Unless there is evidence of PED use with Beltre.
<< <i>Looking at Nettles' 1976 and 1977 seasons, how does his OPS+ DROP in 1977? looks to be a better year in almost all categories. Did they bring in the fences?
In looking at OPS+ numbers compared to plain old OPS, Nettles seems to get too much help via the ballpark factor when compared to Beltre.
Lifetime Beltre has a 62 point lead in OPS but only a 5 point lead in OPS+?
As a Twins fan, I always was bothered that we traded Nettles. We got Luis Tiant in the trade and then gave up on him too! Twins have made some bonehead moves in their time!!!!!
I would put Beltre in the Hall, but not Nettles. Despite some of the numbers provided, Adrian is quite a bit better in my opinion. Unless there is evidence of PED use with Beltre. >>
OK, I lied; I'll post again.
OPS+ is the ratio of a player's OPS to the league OPS, and the AL OPS went up from 1976 to 1977, which led to Nettles' OPS+ going down. Nettles is getting a little "ballpark" help compared to Beltre, but mostly it's an era thing. It's just easier to score runs now than it was when Nettles played, and the 62 point OPS lead dwindling to a 5 point OPS+ lead is reflecting that.
Tiant and Nettles are very similar - I would put both of them in the HOF, but I know there are reasonable arguments against them. Tiant suffers because he had his best seasons in Boston; Boston fans wanted to believe that Jim Rice was a great hitter, so they had to ignore how easy it was to hit in Fenway. The other side of that coin is that it is damn near impossible to put up good numbers as a pitcher in Fenway, so nobody recognized just how great a pitcher Tiant was.
And I'll repeat myself in case the point was lost along the way - I agree that Beltre was better than Nettles, although I don't think the difference is all that great. I think both Nettles and Beltre had HOF careers, if we ignore that Beltre cheated to have his. There already is overwhelming "evidence" that Beltre used PEDs; just look at his stats through age 30 and then look at his stats after age 30. Beltre's OPS+ through age 30 was 105 - way below Nettles, and way below the level where a third baseman ought to even get noticed by a HOF voter. His OPS+ since then is 134, so people now see him as a HOFer. The thing is, an improvement in OPS+ of 30% after age 30 just doesn't happen. Scour the records and look at as many players as you like, and you just won't find any everyday players who didn't cheat with numbers like that. Hank Aaron had his best season at 37, and is probably the best post-30 player in modern times, but his OPS+ still dropped from 157 to 152 pre- and post- age 30. Willie Stargell defied father time as well as anyone I can think of and his OPS+ improved about 15%, but Pops had multiple great seasons before age 30 and never had an OPS+ below 100 in any season. Two players whose OPS+ improved by about 30% pre- and post- 30 are Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire; if you can find another, by all means let me know. But the stats I've seen say Beltre belongs with Bonds and McGwire on the outside of the HOF looking in.
His jump in OPS also coincides with going to Boston and then Texas, couldn't this be a reason for his numbers? I like to give players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to PEDs.
<< <i>Not starting any furious debate here, but Beltre had a huge year in 2004 and then dropped off for awhile. Was 2004 another 1987?
His jump in OPS also coincides with going to Boston and then Texas, couldn't this be a reason for his numbers? I like to give players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to PEDs. >>
Beltre did have a huge year in 2004, but it was the only good year he had before he turned 31. His OPS+ for 2003-2005 was 88 - 163 - 93. That's either one of the flukiest years ever, or he was cheating in 2004 and briefly thought better of it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just call it a fluke. Take that year away and Beltre was a below-average hitter through age 30. And sure, it's possible that Beltre just discovered how to hit at age 31 and had five of his best six seasons after that, making him the only player in the history of baseball who can make that claim. And it's possible that I'll win the Powerball twice next year. But why bet on either of these when it's so much more likely that Beltre cheated and I won't win any lotteries? To my mind, Beltre is just as likely to have cheated as several others for whom "proof" - in a legal sense - was never established but whose HOF chances are low and dwindling. I see no reason why someone like Beltre, who would be a lower-tier HOFer anyway - should get a benefit of the doubt denied to others, when the evidence that he cheated is just as strong. Worst case, he gets in the HOF and THEN proof is established that he was cheating. Baseball doesn't need that, and I doubt the HOF voters want to be responsible for it.
I would also say he had more than "one good year" before he turned 31, he did have 5 years with an OPS at .780 or above and OPS+ over 100. Certainly good years.
I see your point in his big jump in OPS late in his career, it could indicate steroid use, but his doubles, (see 2005-2007) throwing out the year in Boston, aren't any higher, actually lower. he did have three years of over 30 HR after he turned 31, but he averaged over 30 a season 2002-2004. Yes his "fluke" year drives up the average.
It really looks to me his jump in numbers is more because of his higher BA than extra base hits.
Safeco Field and Dodger Stadium are among the toughest for hitters at #28 and #29, while Globe Life Park is ranked at #15.
Beltre is not as good as Santo and is certainly not a "top tier" HOFer, but I think the move to Boston and then Texas where it's easier to hit, plays a big part in his late career surge.
<< <i>It looks like he cut down on his strikeouts and increased his BA at about the same time he had his jump in OPS. I don't see how taking steroids is going to make you more selective at the plate, in fact I would think just the opposite might be true.
Beltre is not as good as Santo and is certainly not a "top tier" HOFer, but I think the move to Boston and then Texas where it's easier to hit, plays a big part in his late career surge. >>
The number one effect of steroid use is to turn long fly outs into HR. The number two effect is that, now that you are a more serious HR threat, you get walked more often. And that's exactly what you see whether you're looking at Bonds or Beltre. Assume he hits HR just as well after age 30 as he did up to that point (which favors Beltre significantly since everyone else gets at least a little worse as they get older), and his career OPS+ would be about 110 (same as Nettles) instead of 115. Assume he drops off like everyone else and it's more like 105, the same as six-time Gold Glover J.T. Snow who got two votes for the HOF in his only appearance on the ballot. Absent steroids, is Beltre a more valuable teammate than J.T. Snow? If he is, it's not by much.
The move to Boston/Texas probably helped his raw numbers, but could only affect his OPS+ if he improved more going to those parks than everyone else did. Which gets us back to the same question: why does an average hitting player north of 30 get such a bigger boost than everyone else? I know the answer, and HOF voters know the answer, too. Will they choose to ignore it? Beltre's path to the HOF depends on it.
I would not assume he cheated. I am one of those innocent until proven guilty people, and while there is suspicion here, I don't see proof.
Just another reason to dislike the cheaters, now we can never be sure someone was clean.
Sad.