First, we little people thank you for your permission.
Second, who decides what is true? I think it is true that Beltre used PEDs, you don't. I am not allowed to say that Beltre used PEDs. Therefore, it must be you that gets to decide what is true and what is not. I don't recall appointing you to that position, but maybe I missed it. Does anyone here recall when Craig44 was named Keeper of the Truth?
back to the topic. your methodology is so bad. you just dont see it. or refuse to see it. I cant tell which
It's funny, because you keep saying this, or something like it, but you have never actually addressed my methodology. And you say things like I can't PROVE what I'm saying, or I don't KNOW what I'm saying is true, which makes it crystal clear that you don't even understand my methodology since I've never disagreed with you on either point. What you mean is that I'm not using the methodology you want me to use, and since you are Keeper of the Truth I have to use the one you want me to use. This is why the rabbits are screaming; it has nothing at all to do with Adrian Beltre, about whom I couldn't care less. When dallasactuary thinks your arrogance and self-righteousness have gone too far, you know they've gone too far.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
First, we little people thank you for your permission.
Second, who decides what is true? I think it is true that Beltre used PEDs, you don't. I am not allowed to say that Beltre used PEDs. Therefore, it must be you that gets to decide what is true and what is not. I don't recall appointing you to that position, but maybe I missed it. Does anyone here recall when Craig44 was named Keeper of the Truth?
back to the topic. your methodology is so bad. you just dont see it. or refuse to see it. I cant tell which
It's funny, because you keep saying this, or something like it, but you have never actually addressed my methodology. And you say things like I can't PROVE what I'm saying, or I don't KNOW what I'm saying is true, which makes it crystal clear that you don't even understand my methodology since I've never disagreed with you on either point. What you mean is that I'm not using the methodology you want me to use, and since you are Keeper of the Truth I have to use the one you want me to use. This is why the rabbits are screaming; it has nothing at all to do with Adrian Beltre, about whom I couldn't care less. When dallasactuary thinks your arrogance and self-righteousness have gone too far, you know they've gone too far.
...
Let's take it a step further...welcome to 1987,my friends. Keeper of the Seven Keys by Helloweenhttps://youtu.be/iDpAahKUNB4
I now feel comfortable with the fact that I have done all that I can to help mitigate the differences between any opposing sides in this thread. This was good. This was fun. As @hydrant would say, ciao!
First, we little people thank you for your permission.
Second, who decides what is true? I think it is true that Beltre used PEDs, you don't. I am not allowed to say that Beltre used PEDs. Therefore, it must be you that gets to decide what is true and what is not. I don't recall appointing you to that position, but maybe I missed it. Does anyone here recall when Craig44 was named Keeper of the Truth?
back to the topic. your methodology is so bad. you just dont see it. or refuse to see it. I cant tell which
It's funny, because you keep saying this, or something like it, but you have never actually addressed my methodology. And you say things like I can't PROVE what I'm saying, or I don't KNOW what I'm saying is true, which makes it crystal clear that you don't even understand my methodology since I've never disagreed with you on either point. What you mean is that I'm not using the methodology you want me to use, and since you are Keeper of the Truth I have to use the one you want me to use. This is why the rabbits are screaming; it has nothing at all to do with Adrian Beltre, about whom I couldn't care less. When dallasactuary thinks your arrogance and self-righteousness have gone too far, you know they've gone too far.
Alright, I lied. No, I didn't lie. I meant what I said when I said that I had done all that I had could. There is even proof, in my "private" records.
The reason that I can't stay away is that I have suddenly remembered some things which I think might/may be useful. (@galaxy27 , do you have one for that one. It's an inside joke, he'll know what that means.
Anyway, I digress, I was in high school when Ms. Ross (RIP) , in the midst of a time when she was teaching us, as always, about semantics, asked us to raise our hands and answer a question. I believe it was, and I'm not lying but I am paraphrasing, somehow like the oracle question that we have within this thread. I remember who it was, a friend of mine. I haven't spoken to him in over twenty years. We lost touch in the latish 90s. He did send me a toaster (a nice one) in 2000 when I got married. Anyway, allow me to digress again, he said that he would "like to know everything that would happen to him in the future".
You could hear the record scratch as Ms. Ross began to delve into why , in fact, you do not want to know that.
I thought of all of this because of
1. Semantics
2. Truth/knowledge
There was a reason that I did that, which was inherent in the context. I thought you were bright enough to understand it. My bad, and I won't make that mistake again, but maybe someone else found it amusing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
@Darin said:
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
How bizarre, how bizarre
...
These are some of my favorite things here. You outdid yourself on this one. Thank you!!
@Darin said:
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
How bizarre, how bizarre
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
@Darin said:
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
There was a reason that I did that, which was inherent in the context. I thought you were bright enough to understand it. My bad, and I won't make that mistake again, but maybe someone else found it amusing.
nah.
I am just solidly, comfortably, living in your head. have you started dreaming about me yet?
@Darin said:
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
....
I don't think you are in the minority. In fact, I will say that I know you are not. (but that's just my opinion).
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
I have no idea why craig44 finds this thread enjoyable, and I imagine he has no idea why I find this thread enjoyable. But I'm glad others find it enjoyable, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
I have no idea why craig44 finds this thread enjoyable, and I imagine he has no idea why I find this thread enjoyable. But I'm glad others find it enjoyable, too.
...
I'm glad that you are glad that I find it enjoyable.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
I have no idea why craig44 finds this thread enjoyable, and I imagine he has no idea why I find this thread enjoyable. But I'm glad others find it enjoyable, too.
you are so confused in this thread I am really not sure you know which way is up.
you are so confused in this thread I am really not sure you know which way is up.
Which was my point, since I have had exactly the same thought about you. Yet somehow, while neither one of us has the slightest idea what the other is talking about, we have brought joy to the masses.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
you are so confused in this thread I am really not sure you know which way is up.
Which was my point, since I have had exactly the same thought about you. Yet somehow, while neither one of us has the slightest idea what the other is talking about, we have brought joy to the masses.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
YES, he went from one of the most difficult parks to hit in to probably the EASIEST parks for a right handed batter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
YES, he went from one of the most difficult parks to hit in to probably the EASIEST parks for a right handed batter.
This is, of course, accounted for in OPS+. Hitting at a certain level in Dodger Stadium will get you a certain batting average and a certain number of HR. Moving to Fenway will get you more HR and a higher batting average, but that higher HR total and higher batting average will get you the same OPS+ you had in Dodger Stadium. Unless, of course, something else changed besides just the ballpark. As noted, it is fantastically unlikely for a player to improve his OPS+ by 20-something % after age 30 (with Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre being the only ones I have found who did it). Far more likely, something else changed. What that could possibly be that applies only to Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre is the mystery. Yessiree Bob, it sure is a mystery.
Just for the record, there is another way, although it doesn't apply here, and that is to become a platoon player in your older years. There probably are a handful who have done it that way.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
OPS+ of course, is often wrong. It measures an average. Some hitters are going to be effected more in a hitter unfriendly park than others.
No doubt he had a strange career hitting wise. I have no explanation for his 2004. Three out of his last four years in Seattle were pretty good. Then he has a terrible year. Injured?
He then goes to Boston while hitting his prime and improves a lot.
He has a couple of great years in Texas and it looks like he has a decline after that.
Looking at OPS+ and it's inaccuracy, his OPS+ in 2014 went up when most would say his 2013 was better. I never have trusted OPS+ too many times it makes no sense. An older player who can't play as many games, but can still play well gets a big boost from OPS+.
Plenty of ballplayers played at a high level into their mid to late 30's, how many of them went from one end of the spectrum to the other in hitter friendly parks at the same time?
Could he have used steroids? Sure, you can say that about any ballplayer.
He never got caught, so if he did use he was careful or smart about it.
I'm not comfortable bluntly claiming he did steroids.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I have no explanation for his 2004.
Yes, you do. You don't KNOW for certain, and you can't PROVE what happened, but there is one explanation that is overwhelmingly more likely than all the others. Why you, and craig44, are so reluctant to say it remains a total mystery.
An older player who can't play as many games, but can still play well gets a big boost from OPS+.
That can happen, usually because they start dodging lefties. But it's not relevant here.
Plenty of ballplayers played at a high level into their mid to late 30's, how many of them went from one end of the spectrum to the other in hitter friendly parks at the same time?
Yes, some do that. Three of them - Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre, with Sosa nipping at their heels - got 20% better in their 30's than they had been in their 20's. You can avoid that by reframing it however you want, but the actual evidence of steroid use will remain.
Hank Aaron is an example of what you're talking about. The Braves moved to the launching pad when Aaron was 32, and Aaron kept putting up outstanding numbers for another 10 years. And Aaron more or less defined the extreme level of improvement that a baseball player could have in this 30's vs his 20's when his OPS+ improved from 158 to 161, or about 2%. Had Beltre been the second coming of Hank Aaron and improved 2% in his 30's this thread wouldn't exist. It is that he followed a path previously trod by Bonds and McGwire, and only Bonds and McGwire, that is the issue that nobody but me wants to talk about.
Could he have used steroids? Sure, you can say that about any ballplayer.
And with varying degrees of certainty. My degree of certainty with regard to Beltre is about 98%. What's yours?
I'm not comfortable bluntly claiming he did steroids.
And I understand that; it's being uncomfortable expressing an opinion that I don't understand.
You didn't do this, but telling people that they aren't allowed to express an opinion I do understand, even if it was clearer in the original German.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The big difference that I see is Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all tested positive and/or admitted to using steroids.
Maybe Beltre was just smarter and did them just enough to get a couple of big contracts and didn't try to become a mutant who could hit 60-70 HR a year.
There's enough evidence in his later years the ballpark had a lot to do with his higher numbers.
2004 looks bad as it was such a huge jump, but I'll bring up Joe Mauer again, a guy who crushed the ball in 2009 and never hit that well before or after. Contract year, if I remember correctly.
To answer your question, I would say it's 50/50 on Beltre, not enough to "throw him under the bus".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
YES, he went from one of the most difficult parks to hit in to probably the EASIEST parks for a right handed batter.
This is, of course, accounted for in OPS+. Hitting at a certain level in Dodger Stadium will get you a certain batting average and a certain number of HR. Moving to Fenway will get you more HR and a higher batting average, but that higher HR total and higher batting average will get you the same OPS+ you had in Dodger Stadium. Unless, of course, something else changed besides just the ballpark. As noted, it is fantastically unlikely for a player to improve his OPS+ by 20-something % after age 30 (with Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre being the only ones I have found who did it). Far more likely, something else changed. What that could possibly be that applies only to Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre is the mystery. Yessiree Bob, it sure is a mystery.
Just for the record, there is another way, although it doesn't apply here, and that is to become a platoon player in your older years. There probably are a handful who have done it that way.
Here are some guys who had big jumps in OPS+ after age 30. here are the numbers before/after 30
Justin turner 108/130
Edwin Encarnacion 112/133
Jose Bautista 108/133
Jeff Kent 112/130
Edgar Martinez 135/151
You seem really stuck on OPS+ There are many other numbers you could use. In fact, I seem to remember that it may have been you that mentioned we shouldnt get stuck on one statistic, but use many.
@JoeBanzai said:
YES, he went from one of the most difficult parks to hit in to probably the EASIEST parks for a right handed batter.
This is, of course, accounted for in OPS+. Hitting at a certain level in Dodger Stadium will get you a certain batting average and a certain number of HR. Moving to Fenway will get you more HR and a higher batting average, but that higher HR total and higher batting average will get you the same OPS+ you had in Dodger Stadium. Unless, of course, something else changed besides just the ballpark. As noted, it is fantastically unlikely for a player to improve his OPS+ by 20-something % after age 30 (with Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre being the only ones I have found who did it). Far more likely, something else changed. What that could possibly be that applies only to Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre is the mystery. Yessiree Bob, it sure is a mystery.
Just for the record, there is another way, although it doesn't apply here, and that is to become a platoon player in your older years. There probably are a handful who have done it that way.
Here are some guys who had big jumps in OPS+ after age 30. here are the numbers before/after 30
Justin turner 108/130
Edwin Encarnacion 112/133
Jose Bautista 108/133
Jeff Kent 112/130
Edgar Martinez 135/151
You seem really stuck on OPS+ There are many other numbers you could use. In fact, I seem to remember that it may have been you that mentioned we shouldnt get stuck on one statistic, but use many.
Jeff Kent is a guy with a proven track record of mediocre hitting and then he exploded.
Jeff Kent is similar to Beltre with the main exception of having his career year in the midst of his sudden improvement years as opposed to during his mediocre hitting years.
@craig44 said:
Here are some guys who had big jumps in OPS+ after age 30. here are the numbers before/after 30
Justin turner 108/130
Edwin Encarnacion 112/133
Jose Bautista 108/133
Jeff Kent 112/130
Edgar Martinez 135/151
What you're finding, mostly, is players who didn't make the big leagues until they were 25 or older and who had their peaks at 31-32 rather than the more normal 28-30. Shift your breakpoint just a little to account for their late starts and these guys don't look all that odd; certainly not Beltre-level odd. You also introduced a little apples/oranges problem by making your cutoff age 29 while I had been using 30. If you redo your numbers above using "through" age 30 / after age 30, the splits get a lot less dramatic. For a lot of players it probably doesn't matter that much, but peaking at age 30 is very, very common; way too common to group it with the decline years, especially for players who don't make the roster until they're 25 or older, where 31 or even 32 might be a more appropriate place to make the split.
You seem really stuck on OPS+ There are many other numbers you could use. In fact, I seem to remember that it may have been you that mentioned we shouldnt get stuck on one statistic, but use many.
You say "many", but that's not true. There are a few others but OPS+ does just fine within the confines of one player's career. The key is that any stat to be of even minimal use must be ballpark adjusted, else we just see numbers go up in hitter's parks and down in pitcher's parks and we haven't learned anything. I'd use Win Shares if I had them, but after 2001 I don't. But if you've got a different ballpark adjusted stat that you prefer to OPS+, we can use that one instead.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
Beltre is without question a HOF 3rd basemen
As I said, I'm not comparing Robinson to Beltre over their whole career, just through their first ten full seasons. If we can't agree that Beltre's career took an, um, unusual arc after he left for Boston, I'm not sure what we can agree on. Robinson was noticeably better offensively over the periods in question, with, as I've said, a 33.4-30.7 oWAR or a 111-105 OPS+ or even a 81-61 Rbat. Not hugely better, but definitely there is some daylight there, even if you don't leave out Beltre's suspicious 2004. And Beltre was very good, perhaps great, defensively at 3rd, but I think he was pretty clearly no Robinson out there.
First ten full seasons Robinson was noticeably better than Beltre offensively and significantly better than Beltre defensively. That's my only claim.
And if it's appropriate to compare Beltre to Boggs, Brett, Chipper Jones, and Santo, I agree, but if Beltre's peers are Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, then no, he's not nearly good enough.
@JoeBanzai said:
The big difference that I see is Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all tested positive and/or admitted to using steroids.
Maybe Beltre was just smarter and did them just enough to get a couple of big contracts and didn't try to become a mutant who could hit 60-70 HR a year.
There's enough evidence in his later years the ballpark had a lot to do with his higher numbers.
2004 looks bad as it was such a huge jump, but I'll bring up Joe Mauer again, a guy who crushed the ball in 2009 and never hit that well before or after. Contract year, if I remember correctly.
To answer your question, I would say it's 50/50 on Beltre, not enough to "throw him under the bus".
If the ballpark is responsible for Beltre's big uptick in production then that would make Beltre a product of the ballpark.
So in the end, whether it is steroids or the ballpark, Beltre isn't quite as good as the numbers suggest(including the ballpark adjusted numbers).
@JoeBanzai said:
The big difference that I see is Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all tested positive and/or admitted to using steroids.
Maybe Beltre was just smarter and did them just enough to get a couple of big contracts and didn't try to become a mutant who could hit 60-70 HR a year.
There's enough evidence in his later years the ballpark had a lot to do with his higher numbers.
2004 looks bad as it was such a huge jump, but I'll bring up Joe Mauer again, a guy who crushed the ball in 2009 and never hit that well before or after. Contract year, if I remember correctly.
To answer your question, I would say it's 50/50 on Beltre, not enough to "throw him under the bus".
If the ballpark is responsible for Beltre's big uptick in production then that would make Beltre a product of the ballpark.
So in the end, whether it is steroids or the ballpark, Beltre isn't quite as good as the numbers suggest(including the ballpark adjusted numbers).
In the end any hitter playing in Boston or Colorado etc are going to get help because of the park, just like any pitcher playing for the Dodgers or A's gets a benefit.
I'm not a big Beltre supporter. He was a better hitter than the numbers indicate (except for 1 year) for the first part of his career and not such a good hitter as the numbers indicate, for the time he played in Boston and Texas.
Seems like it kind of evens itself out to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
Beltre is without question a HOF 3rd basemen
As I said, I'm not comparing Robinson to Beltre over their whole career, just through their first ten full seasons. If we can't agree that Beltre's career took an, um, unusual arc after he left for Boston, I'm not sure what we can agree on. Robinson was noticeably better offensively over the periods in question, with, as I've said, a 33.4-30.7 oWAR or a 111-105 OPS+ or even a 81-61 Rbat. Not hugely better, but definitely there is some daylight there, even if you don't leave out Beltre's suspicious 2004. And Beltre was very good, perhaps great, defensively at 3rd, but I think he was pretty clearly no Robinson out there.
First ten full seasons Robinson was noticeably better than Beltre offensively and significantly better than Beltre defensively. That's my only claim.
And if it's appropriate to compare Beltre to Boggs, Brett, Chipper Jones, and Santo, I agree, but if Beltre's peers are Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, then no, he's not nearly good enough.
Betlre was better than Robinson their first season, their first 3 seasons, their first 5 seasons, their first 10 seasons, first 15, for their career. I'm not sure how saying just the first 10 would change anything.
What are you even counting as Robinsons first 10 seasons, 1958 as the first one when he was terrible or do the terrible 50 games in 57 count as well? 77 games of Beltre in his first year was better than those two seasons combined.
You keep saying an unusual arc when he left for Boston thats just not true. He got to Boston at the age of 31 which is still in his prime, had a couple good seasons there and Texas until age 35 which is where declines are expected but was still productive even with the significant fall off, had one last bounce year which is common and then retired after 2 more down years at the end.
His career arc did exactly what you would expect a baseball career to do
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
Beltre is without question a HOF 3rd basemen
As I said, I'm not comparing Robinson to Beltre over their whole career, just through their first ten full seasons. If we can't agree that Beltre's career took an, um, unusual arc after he left for Boston, I'm not sure what we can agree on. Robinson was noticeably better offensively over the periods in question, with, as I've said, a 33.4-30.7 oWAR or a 111-105 OPS+ or even a 81-61 Rbat. Not hugely better, but definitely there is some daylight there, even if you don't leave out Beltre's suspicious 2004. And Beltre was very good, perhaps great, defensively at 3rd, but I think he was pretty clearly no Robinson out there.
First ten full seasons Robinson was noticeably better than Beltre offensively and significantly better than Beltre defensively. That's my only claim.
And if it's appropriate to compare Beltre to Boggs, Brett, Chipper Jones, and Santo, I agree, but if Beltre's peers are Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, then no, he's not nearly good enough.
Betlre was better than Robinson their first season, their first 3 seasons, their first 5 seasons, their first 10 seasons, first 15, for their career. I'm not sure how saying just the first 10 would change anything.
What are you even counting as Robinsons first 10 seasons, 1958 as the first one when he was terrible or do the terrible 50 games in 57 count as well? 77 games of Beltre in his first year was better than those two seasons combined.
You keep saying an unusual arc when he left for Boston thats just not true. He got to Boston at the age of 31 which is still in his prime, had a couple good seasons there and Texas until age 35 which is where declines are expected but was still productive even with the significant fall off, had one last bounce year which is common and then retired after 2 more down years at the end.
His career arc did exactly what you would expect a baseball career to do
Once more, with feeling: Robinson's first ten full seasons were 1958, and then 1960 through 1968. Beltre's were 1999-2008. Comparing Robinson up through 1968 and Beltre through his last year in Seattle, Robinson was better.
And @dallasactuary is wrong. McGwire and Bonds look nothing like Beltre's career arc. No one has ever had a career arc anything like Beltre's. Sammy Sosa is the closest, but he never had a suspiciously good early career season, and he "figured it out" at age 29, not 31 for Beltre.
And @dallasactuary is wrong. McGwire and Bonds look nothing like Beltre's career arc. No one has ever had a career arc anything like Beltre's. Sammy Sosa is the closest, but he never had a suspiciously good early career season, and he "figured it out" at age 29, not 31 for Beltre.
Well, "nothing" goes way too far. I'll grant you that Beltre is unique in that he was bad until he started juicing, but if you double his numbers you aren't that far off from Bonds, who started from "great". Beltre is also unique, as far as I know, in experimenting for one season and then thinking better of it; all the other cheaters stuck to it once they started. This makes identifying some of the other cheaters difficult, even if makes identifying Beltre as a cheater laughably easy.
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
Beltre is without question a HOF 3rd basemen
As I said, I'm not comparing Robinson to Beltre over their whole career, just through their first ten full seasons. If we can't agree that Beltre's career took an, um, unusual arc after he left for Boston, I'm not sure what we can agree on. Robinson was noticeably better offensively over the periods in question, with, as I've said, a 33.4-30.7 oWAR or a 111-105 OPS+ or even a 81-61 Rbat. Not hugely better, but definitely there is some daylight there, even if you don't leave out Beltre's suspicious 2004. And Beltre was very good, perhaps great, defensively at 3rd, but I think he was pretty clearly no Robinson out there.
First ten full seasons Robinson was noticeably better than Beltre offensively and significantly better than Beltre defensively. That's my only claim.
And if it's appropriate to compare Beltre to Boggs, Brett, Chipper Jones, and Santo, I agree, but if Beltre's peers are Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, then no, he's not nearly good enough.
Betlre was better than Robinson their first season, their first 3 seasons, their first 5 seasons, their first 10 seasons, first 15, for their career. I'm not sure how saying just the first 10 would change anything.
What are you even counting as Robinsons first 10 seasons, 1958 as the first one when he was terrible or do the terrible 50 games in 57 count as well? 77 games of Beltre in his first year was better than those two seasons combined.
You keep saying an unusual arc when he left for Boston thats just not true. He got to Boston at the age of 31 which is still in his prime, had a couple good seasons there and Texas until age 35 which is where declines are expected but was still productive even with the significant fall off, had one last bounce year which is common and then retired after 2 more down years at the end.
His career arc did exactly what you would expect a baseball career to do
Once more, with feeling: Robinson's first ten full seasons were 1958, and then 1960 through 1968. Beltre's were 1999-2008. Comparing Robinson up through 1968 and Beltre through his last year in Seattle, Robinson was better.
And @dallasactuary is wrong. McGwire and Bonds look nothing like Beltre's career arc. No one has ever had a career arc anything like Beltre's. Sammy Sosa is the closest, but he never had a suspiciously good early career season, and he "figured it out" at age 29, not 31 for Beltre.
You dont get to skip 1959 though. He was a full time player by then meaning he was awful in his first two full time seasons. Beltre was better than Robinson during that stint as well. 1958 was Robinsons first full season, he was awful, he was awful in 1959 and 1961 as well. Average at best in 1960 and 1963 and 1965 maybe a touch above average. Beltre was better through out the first 10 years of his career and all of his career. Hes just flat out a better player than Brooks Robinson
Beltre was just simply and flat out a better player than Brooks. It doesnt mean Brooks was a bad player, but Beltre was better. Brooks was better at getting the writers to vote for him for awards and won some awards and was much higher in the voting than he should have been quite often and I dont want to discuss why, but they make him look like he was far better than he actually was. Beltre is simply the better between the two
Beltre didnt figure it out at 31, he had been a stud all along aside from when he was 20 playing his first full season and an injury year. His numbers didnt change very much and its well known that the prime of a baseball players career comes around late 20s early 30s
And @dallasactuary is wrong. McGwire and Bonds look nothing like Beltre's career arc. No one has ever had a career arc anything like Beltre's. Sammy Sosa is the closest, but he never had a suspiciously good early career season, and he "figured it out" at age 29, not 31 for Beltre.
Well, "nothing" goes way too far. I'll grant you that Beltre is unique in that he was bad until he started juicing, but if you double his numbers you aren't that far off from Bonds, who started from "great". Beltre is also unique, as far as I know, in experimenting for one season and then thinking better of it; all the other cheaters stuck to it once they started. This makes identifying some of the other cheaters difficult, even if makes identifying Beltre as a cheater laughably easy.
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
This is hilarious. pretty soon you are going to have these guys "alleged" PED cycles right down to the month. on and off.
Just as if it is fact.
Bwaaahahahahahah
Lets say, hypothetically, that Beltre had a singular career.
As you said, "unique in baseball history"
If that were true, there would be no one with whom to fairly compare him to. PED user or non-user. If he truly were unique in all of baseball history, you could have no way of knowing from his statistical record if he used or not.
Yet, you continue to blather on as if you KNOW it to be true. It is either hilarious or sad. I haven't decided which yet
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
>
>
>
He didn't get "significantly better" in his late 30's, he got "significantly better" from 30-35 AT HOME.
Beltre's career arc coincided with him going from hard parks to hit in to easy ones;
7 years with Dodgers his away numbers were .830 OPS and 120 OPS+.
5 years with Seattle his away numbers were .796 OPS and 114 OPS+.
8 years in Texas his away numbers were .783 OPS and 119 OPS+.
Pretty consistent. Must have taken those "Home" steroids while in Texas.
His home OPS and OPS+ while in LA and Seattle were pretty consistent too .720-85 and .713-84. Not too good, must have been taking the "away" roids.
His home numbers in Texas are the ones that jumped to .952-156. If he was taking steroids while in Texas why weren't his road numbers better?
What's really strange is that both in his big year in LA and his one season in Boston he hit quite a bit better on the road than at home!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
>
>
>
He didn't get "significantly better" in his late 30's, he got "significantly better" from 30-35 AT HOME.
Beltre's career arc coincided with him going from hard parks to hit in to easy ones;
7 years with Dodgers his away numbers were .830 OPS and 120 OPS+.
5 years with Seattle his away numbers were .796 OPS and 114 OPS+.
8 years in Texas his away numbers were .783 OPS and 119 OPS+.
Pretty consistent. Must have taken those "Home" steroids while in Texas.
His home OPS and OPS+ while in LA and Seattle were pretty consistent too .720-85 and .713-84. Not too good, must have been taking the "away" roids.
His home numbers in Texas are the ones that jumped to .952-156. If he was taking steroids while in Texas why weren't his road numbers better?
What's really strange is that both in his big year in LA and his one season in Boston he hit quite a bit better on the road than at home!
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
>
>
>
He didn't get "significantly better" in his late 30's, he got "significantly better" from 30-35 AT HOME.
Beltre's career arc coincided with him going from hard parks to hit in to easy ones;
7 years with Dodgers his away numbers were .830 OPS and 120 OPS+.
5 years with Seattle his away numbers were .796 OPS and 114 OPS+.
8 years in Texas his away numbers were .783 OPS and 119 OPS+.
Pretty consistent. Must have taken those "Home" steroids while in Texas.
His home OPS and OPS+ while in LA and Seattle were pretty consistent too .720-85 and .713-84. Not too good, must have been taking the "away" roids.
His home numbers in Texas are the ones that jumped to .952-156. If he was taking steroids while in Texas why weren't his road numbers better?
What's really strange is that both in his big year in LA and his one season in Boston he hit quite a bit better on the road than at home!
Good work Joe! those numbers make sense.
If you just look at away OPS his career arc looks pretty average.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
Didn't Beltre sign a massive contract after his steroid filled season? Like that season put him on the map.if I remember correctly
yes he did.
So you agree that he took steroids. Nice!
who are you?
.. @craig44 I am going to go out in a limb and assume you didn't fully read @perkdog 's question. This was on page 1. It doesn't mesh with your stance. 🤷
@perkdog said:
Didn't Beltre sign a massive contract after his steroid filled season? Like that season put him on the map.if I remember correctly
yes he did.
So you agree that he took steroids. Nice!
who are you?
.. @craig44 I am going to go out in a limb and assume you didn't fully read @perkdog 's question. This was on page 1. It doesn't mesh with your stance. 🤷
Comments
First, we little people thank you for your permission.
Second, who decides what is true? I think it is true that Beltre used PEDs, you don't. I am not allowed to say that Beltre used PEDs. Therefore, it must be you that gets to decide what is true and what is not. I don't recall appointing you to that position, but maybe I missed it. Does anyone here recall when Craig44 was named Keeper of the Truth?
It's funny, because you keep saying this, or something like it, but you have never actually addressed my methodology. And you say things like I can't PROVE what I'm saying, or I don't KNOW what I'm saying is true, which makes it crystal clear that you don't even understand my methodology since I've never disagreed with you on either point. What you mean is that I'm not using the methodology you want me to use, and since you are Keeper of the Truth I have to use the one you want me to use. This is why the rabbits are screaming; it has nothing at all to do with Adrian Beltre, about whom I couldn't care less. When dallasactuary thinks your arrogance and self-righteousness have gone too far, you know they've gone too far.
...
https://youtu.be/iDpAahKUNB4
Let's take it a step further...welcome to 1987,my friends. Keeper of the Seven Keys by Helloween
I now feel comfortable with the fact that I have done all that I can to help mitigate the differences between any opposing sides in this thread. This was good. This was fun. As @hydrant would say, ciao!
now you are speaking in the 3rd person.
Bwwwaaaahaaahahahahahaha!!!!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Alright, I lied. No, I didn't lie. I meant what I said when I said that I had done all that I had could. There is even proof, in my "private" records.
The reason that I can't stay away is that I have suddenly remembered some things which I think might/may be useful. (@galaxy27 , do you have one for that one. It's an inside joke, he'll know what that means.
Anyway, I digress, I was in high school when Ms. Ross (RIP) , in the midst of a time when she was teaching us, as always, about semantics, asked us to raise our hands and answer a question. I believe it was, and I'm not lying but I am paraphrasing, somehow like the oracle question that we have within this thread. I remember who it was, a friend of mine. I haven't spoken to him in over twenty years. We lost touch in the latish 90s. He did send me a toaster (a nice one) in 2000 when I got married. Anyway, allow me to digress again, he said that he would "like to know everything that would happen to him in the future".
You could hear the record scratch as Ms. Ross began to delve into why , in fact, you do not want to know that.
I thought of all of this because of
1. Semantics
2. Truth/knowledge
There was a reason that I did that, which was inherent in the context. I thought you were bright enough to understand it. My bad, and I won't make that mistake again, but maybe someone else found it amusing.
Beltre was without question far better than Robinson. Robinson came in the league young as well just like Beltre and one season from Adrian before 23 was more production than Brooks had from 18-23. Beltres numbers are better by every single measurement career wise as well. Robinson was a poor mans Beltre
As far as being in Seattle, Going from350 days of sunshine to 350 days of rain yea that makes the first year a bit harder. The Seattle lineups had 3-4 people then a bunch of back ups or veterans at the end of their career struggling. They were bad lineups that gave him very little protection.
Defense also matters and WAR and OPS+ arent the end all be all. They dont account for a lot of things although I get that the writers/media and some have really hounded on them. Theres flaws in those stats. Adrian Gonzalez from 2008-2010 is the poster child of whats wrong with the algorithm especially in 2009 and 2010 and I would encourage everyone to go see how bad that Padres lineup was with what he did in the hardest park for a left handed hitter yet he doesnt even sniff the top 500 season of all time according to that stat.
Beltres only bad year in Seattle was his final year and there was a big time injury involved.
Was much better than Brooks without question though
Destination unknown as I check into this thread,
Every freshly pasted post gives off a sense of dread
Oracles and actuary’s, screaming rabbits and Beltres’
who can possibly be better than Yastrzemski
Craig speaks righteous, showy says let’s talk about Brady
Is anyone around here not completely crazy?
How bizarre, how bizarre
Ooh baby, ooh baby
It’s making me crazy
Every time I read this thread
I feel my brain go dead
It’s in my face
Wish ringmaster Todd was still here to settle this place down,
But psa said buddy you need to leave this town
Posters jump and jive but the clowns have stuck around,
Unwilling to give up an inch of highly contested ground
How bizarre, how bizarre
Double D yells here’s Aaron, galaxy says showtime you’re drunk,
Posters wander in hopeful but leave in a funk
How bizarre, how bizarre
Stupid list…. Mistlin
...
These are some of my favorite things here. You outdid yourself on this one. Thank you!!
Which completely misses that Beltre wasn't an elite player in Los Angeles, either, except for the "suspicious" 2004 season.
If you're seriously suggesting that defense is what sets Beltre above Robinson, I don't know that you'll find anyone, anywhere who agrees with you.
Look, no doubt the Boston/Arlington portion of Beltre's career was better than the second half of Robinson's career. I'm even fine saying it makes him better overall, but everyone can see that SOMETHING happened when he went to Boston. It's fantastically unlikely for a good player to become an elite player starting at age 31, or after 6877 PA.
It's also noteworthy that Beltre was never regarded as especially skilled by his peers or the fans. Barring players who played before 1933, and Pie Trainor who was an All-Star in his last two full seasons (1933-34) and Freddie Lindstrom who was mostly a CF by 1933, all HoF 3B played for at least seven All-Star teams (Rolen, Molitor). Beltre made four.
He couldnt even rent a car or legally buy a beer for his first three seasons in LA which were historically good seasons for those ages.
Everything sets Beltre above Robinson. Their offense isnt even comparable. Take your pick, Runs/Hits/Total Bases/Doubles/Hrs/RBIs/Average/Slug/OBP/OPS/OPS+/Stolen Bases/Walks Beltre was better and often significantly better in all. Robinson had a couple more triples and less strikeouts with far less production thats it.
Beltres LA career was significantly better than Robinsons through age 25 as well so no you cant say going to Texas set them apart. Texas wasnt even an easy place to play in with absurdly hot field temps which is why the stadium was replaced so fast for a dome.
Rolen got voted an allstar ever year because Cardinals fans always voted him in. Rolen made an all star game playing 56 games and 65 games when he was horrendous both seasons from injuries. All star fan voting means nothing
Beltre is without question a HOF 3rd basemen
Quite impressive. That is really good.
nah.
I am just solidly, comfortably, living in your head. have you started dreaming about me yet?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This is FANTASTIC!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have to say that the barbs back and forth between @craig44 and @dallasactuary are entertaining, and I may be in the minority opinion, but I think they make a good sports talk thread into a great one.
....
I don't think you are in the minority. In fact, I will say that I know you are not. (but that's just my opinion).
I have no idea why craig44 finds this thread enjoyable, and I imagine he has no idea why I find this thread enjoyable. But I'm glad others find it enjoyable, too.
...
I'm glad that you are glad that I find it enjoyable.
You know how Dwight from The Office loves Bears, Beets and Battlestar Galactica?
Well, I love Rabbits, The Oracle and Speaking in the third person enough to make it my official sig here on CU.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you are so confused in this thread I am really not sure you know which way is up.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Which was my point, since I have had exactly the same thought about you. Yet somehow, while neither one of us has the slightest idea what the other is talking about, we have brought joy to the masses.
Dallas, this is one thing we can truly agree on!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
YES, he went from one of the most difficult parks to hit in to probably the EASIEST parks for a right handed batter.
This is, of course, accounted for in OPS+. Hitting at a certain level in Dodger Stadium will get you a certain batting average and a certain number of HR. Moving to Fenway will get you more HR and a higher batting average, but that higher HR total and higher batting average will get you the same OPS+ you had in Dodger Stadium. Unless, of course, something else changed besides just the ballpark. As noted, it is fantastically unlikely for a player to improve his OPS+ by 20-something % after age 30 (with Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre being the only ones I have found who did it). Far more likely, something else changed. What that could possibly be that applies only to Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre is the mystery. Yessiree Bob, it sure is a mystery.
Just for the record, there is another way, although it doesn't apply here, and that is to become a platoon player in your older years. There probably are a handful who have done it that way.
OPS+ of course, is often wrong. It measures an average. Some hitters are going to be effected more in a hitter unfriendly park than others.
No doubt he had a strange career hitting wise. I have no explanation for his 2004. Three out of his last four years in Seattle were pretty good. Then he has a terrible year. Injured?
He then goes to Boston while hitting his prime and improves a lot.
He has a couple of great years in Texas and it looks like he has a decline after that.
Looking at OPS+ and it's inaccuracy, his OPS+ in 2014 went up when most would say his 2013 was better. I never have trusted OPS+ too many times it makes no sense. An older player who can't play as many games, but can still play well gets a big boost from OPS+.
Plenty of ballplayers played at a high level into their mid to late 30's, how many of them went from one end of the spectrum to the other in hitter friendly parks at the same time?
Could he have used steroids? Sure, you can say that about any ballplayer.
He never got caught, so if he did use he was careful or smart about it.
I'm not comfortable bluntly claiming he did steroids.
Yes, you do. You don't KNOW for certain, and you can't PROVE what happened, but there is one explanation that is overwhelmingly more likely than all the others. Why you, and craig44, are so reluctant to say it remains a total mystery.
That can happen, usually because they start dodging lefties. But it's not relevant here.
Yes, some do that. Three of them - Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre, with Sosa nipping at their heels - got 20% better in their 30's than they had been in their 20's. You can avoid that by reframing it however you want, but the actual evidence of steroid use will remain.
Hank Aaron is an example of what you're talking about. The Braves moved to the launching pad when Aaron was 32, and Aaron kept putting up outstanding numbers for another 10 years. And Aaron more or less defined the extreme level of improvement that a baseball player could have in this 30's vs his 20's when his OPS+ improved from 158 to 161, or about 2%. Had Beltre been the second coming of Hank Aaron and improved 2% in his 30's this thread wouldn't exist. It is that he followed a path previously trod by Bonds and McGwire, and only Bonds and McGwire, that is the issue that nobody but me wants to talk about.
And with varying degrees of certainty. My degree of certainty with regard to Beltre is about 98%. What's yours?
And I understand that; it's being uncomfortable expressing an opinion that I don't understand.
You didn't do this, but telling people that they aren't allowed to express an opinion I do understand, even if it was clearer in the original German.
The big difference that I see is Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all tested positive and/or admitted to using steroids.
Maybe Beltre was just smarter and did them just enough to get a couple of big contracts and didn't try to become a mutant who could hit 60-70 HR a year.
There's enough evidence in his later years the ballpark had a lot to do with his higher numbers.
2004 looks bad as it was such a huge jump, but I'll bring up Joe Mauer again, a guy who crushed the ball in 2009 and never hit that well before or after. Contract year, if I remember correctly.
To answer your question, I would say it's 50/50 on Beltre, not enough to "throw him under the bus".
Here are some guys who had big jumps in OPS+ after age 30. here are the numbers before/after 30
Justin turner 108/130
Edwin Encarnacion 112/133
Jose Bautista 108/133
Jeff Kent 112/130
Edgar Martinez 135/151
You seem really stuck on OPS+ There are many other numbers you could use. In fact, I seem to remember that it may have been you that mentioned we shouldnt get stuck on one statistic, but use many.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Jeff Kent is a guy with a proven track record of mediocre hitting and then he exploded.
Jeff Kent is similar to Beltre with the main exception of having his career year in the midst of his sudden improvement years as opposed to during his mediocre hitting years.
What you're finding, mostly, is players who didn't make the big leagues until they were 25 or older and who had their peaks at 31-32 rather than the more normal 28-30. Shift your breakpoint just a little to account for their late starts and these guys don't look all that odd; certainly not Beltre-level odd. You also introduced a little apples/oranges problem by making your cutoff age 29 while I had been using 30. If you redo your numbers above using "through" age 30 / after age 30, the splits get a lot less dramatic. For a lot of players it probably doesn't matter that much, but peaking at age 30 is very, very common; way too common to group it with the decline years, especially for players who don't make the roster until they're 25 or older, where 31 or even 32 might be a more appropriate place to make the split.
You say "many", but that's not true. There are a few others but OPS+ does just fine within the confines of one player's career. The key is that any stat to be of even minimal use must be ballpark adjusted, else we just see numbers go up in hitter's parks and down in pitcher's parks and we haven't learned anything. I'd use Win Shares if I had them, but after 2001 I don't. But if you've got a different ballpark adjusted stat that you prefer to OPS+, we can use that one instead.
As I said, I'm not comparing Robinson to Beltre over their whole career, just through their first ten full seasons. If we can't agree that Beltre's career took an, um, unusual arc after he left for Boston, I'm not sure what we can agree on. Robinson was noticeably better offensively over the periods in question, with, as I've said, a 33.4-30.7 oWAR or a 111-105 OPS+ or even a 81-61 Rbat. Not hugely better, but definitely there is some daylight there, even if you don't leave out Beltre's suspicious 2004. And Beltre was very good, perhaps great, defensively at 3rd, but I think he was pretty clearly no Robinson out there.
First ten full seasons Robinson was noticeably better than Beltre offensively and significantly better than Beltre defensively. That's my only claim.
And if it's appropriate to compare Beltre to Boggs, Brett, Chipper Jones, and Santo, I agree, but if Beltre's peers are Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, then no, he's not nearly good enough.
If the ballpark is responsible for Beltre's big uptick in production then that would make Beltre a product of the ballpark.
So in the end, whether it is steroids or the ballpark, Beltre isn't quite as good as the numbers suggest(including the ballpark adjusted numbers).
In the end any hitter playing in Boston or Colorado etc are going to get help because of the park, just like any pitcher playing for the Dodgers or A's gets a benefit.
I'm not a big Beltre supporter. He was a better hitter than the numbers indicate (except for 1 year) for the first part of his career and not such a good hitter as the numbers indicate, for the time he played in Boston and Texas.
Seems like it kind of evens itself out to me.
Betlre was better than Robinson their first season, their first 3 seasons, their first 5 seasons, their first 10 seasons, first 15, for their career. I'm not sure how saying just the first 10 would change anything.
What are you even counting as Robinsons first 10 seasons, 1958 as the first one when he was terrible or do the terrible 50 games in 57 count as well? 77 games of Beltre in his first year was better than those two seasons combined.
You keep saying an unusual arc when he left for Boston thats just not true. He got to Boston at the age of 31 which is still in his prime, had a couple good seasons there and Texas until age 35 which is where declines are expected but was still productive even with the significant fall off, had one last bounce year which is common and then retired after 2 more down years at the end.
His career arc did exactly what you would expect a baseball career to do
Once more, with feeling: Robinson's first ten full seasons were 1958, and then 1960 through 1968. Beltre's were 1999-2008. Comparing Robinson up through 1968 and Beltre through his last year in Seattle, Robinson was better.
And @dallasactuary is wrong. McGwire and Bonds look nothing like Beltre's career arc. No one has ever had a career arc anything like Beltre's. Sammy Sosa is the closest, but he never had a suspiciously good early career season, and he "figured it out" at age 29, not 31 for Beltre.
Well, "nothing" goes way too far. I'll grant you that Beltre is unique in that he was bad until he started juicing, but if you double his numbers you aren't that far off from Bonds, who started from "great". Beltre is also unique, as far as I know, in experimenting for one season and then thinking better of it; all the other cheaters stuck to it once they started. This makes identifying some of the other cheaters difficult, even if makes identifying Beltre as a cheater laughably easy.
Anyway, as I've said from the beginning, baseball players simply don't get significantly better in their late 30's than they were in their 20's. They just don't. Until the 1990's, when Bonds, McGwire, and Beltre improved more than 20%. To say that the career arcs of those three don't look anything alike is just wrong; they look very much alike in the only relevant way.
You dont get to skip 1959 though. He was a full time player by then meaning he was awful in his first two full time seasons. Beltre was better than Robinson during that stint as well. 1958 was Robinsons first full season, he was awful, he was awful in 1959 and 1961 as well. Average at best in 1960 and 1963 and 1965 maybe a touch above average. Beltre was better through out the first 10 years of his career and all of his career. Hes just flat out a better player than Brooks Robinson
Beltre was just simply and flat out a better player than Brooks. It doesnt mean Brooks was a bad player, but Beltre was better. Brooks was better at getting the writers to vote for him for awards and won some awards and was much higher in the voting than he should have been quite often and I dont want to discuss why, but they make him look like he was far better than he actually was. Beltre is simply the better between the two
Beltre didnt figure it out at 31, he had been a stud all along aside from when he was 20 playing his first full season and an injury year. His numbers didnt change very much and its well known that the prime of a baseball players career comes around late 20s early 30s
This is hilarious. pretty soon you are going to have these guys "alleged" PED cycles right down to the month. on and off.
Just as if it is fact.
Bwaaahahahahahah
Lets say, hypothetically, that Beltre had a singular career.
As you said, "unique in baseball history"
If that were true, there would be no one with whom to fairly compare him to. PED user or non-user. If he truly were unique in all of baseball history, you could have no way of knowing from his statistical record if he used or not.
Yet, you continue to blather on as if you KNOW it to be true. It is either hilarious or sad. I haven't decided which yet
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
>
>
>
He didn't get "significantly better" in his late 30's, he got "significantly better" from 30-35 AT HOME.
Beltre's career arc coincided with him going from hard parks to hit in to easy ones;
7 years with Dodgers his away numbers were .830 OPS and 120 OPS+.
5 years with Seattle his away numbers were .796 OPS and 114 OPS+.
8 years in Texas his away numbers were .783 OPS and 119 OPS+.
Pretty consistent. Must have taken those "Home" steroids while in Texas.
His home OPS and OPS+ while in LA and Seattle were pretty consistent too .720-85 and .713-84. Not too good, must have been taking the "away" roids.
His home numbers in Texas are the ones that jumped to .952-156. If he was taking steroids while in Texas why weren't his road numbers better?
What's really strange is that both in his big year in LA and his one season in Boston he hit quite a bit better on the road than at home!
Good work Joe! those numbers make sense.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So you agree that he took steroids. Nice!
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
If you just look at away OPS his career arc looks pretty average.
who are you?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
..
@craig44 I am going to go out in a limb and assume you didn't fully read @perkdog 's question. This was on page 1. It doesn't mesh with your stance. 🤷
nope, guess I missed that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂