[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Guess he was a late bloomer, bill. But in a few years his overall numbers will easily earn him a spot in the hall...easily. I wouldn't be surprised if it took him a while to get in based on how much of a joke voting is. The politics of the game absolutely kill me and it ruins it for a lot of people.

Bill, I respect your opinion, but I don't care at all about the MVP voting...it means nothing to me. They have a system and they stick to it and for the most part, it is bias. Gotta get off of the awards and watch the man play...he is one of the best in the league offensively and defensively...period.

When he finishes his career he will have HOF numbers for sure and nothing he did fifteen years ago will change that unless they find out he did steroids or something of that nature.

Well, you should care about MVP voting, because it's the considered opinions of the people who watch the game played, assess and write about who the best players in the game are. Are you seriously going to tell me that if he had finished in the top five in the MVP Award in those ten years, you wouldn't be bringing that up? Of course you would. And remember, this isn't just a case of his not winning an MVP. He didn't get a single vote....from anybody....in ten of his first eleven years. There are some thirty voters. And those thirty voters get to list, what, five to ten players on their ballots? I'll have to check. All I know is that many years, there are some twenty to thirty players in a league that will garner some kind of MVP votes, even if it's just one point. In 2014, twenty-five players received at least one MVP vote in the National League, and twenty in the American League.

In ten of his first eleven years, with all of those voters, and all of those nominees for the award, he didn't get one single vote...from ANYBODY. Not one. He wasn't one of the top 25 to 30 players in his league..in ten of his first eleven years. Translation? The people who watch the game every day, that write about it, that are considered authorities in the sport...they were not at all impressed with Adrian Beltre.

Now, from age 30 on, he's been terrific. He's balancing off some of the bad years he had earlier in his career. He needs to do more, but he's headed in the right direction.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Frank - That's a great explanation!

Bill- Once again, your research is wonderful, however...as Coach Corso would say, 'Not so fast'.

If you take the 1987 season away from Andre Dawson's resume, would he be more of a candidate than Beltre?

Beltre might not stand out in a PED-heavy era because, evidently, he didn't use.

But his offensive consistency could place him between Tony Perez and Eddie Murray and neither of them were defenders of any repute.

In other words, IMHO, it makes for a more valid comparison if you compare him to those who stayed clean just as he, apparently, has.

First of all, you're kidding about the Dawson comparison, right? Before he even came to Chicago, Dawson was a superstar. Cubs fans were besides themselves when The Hawk came to the Windy City.

First of all, you can't do a straight comparison of his stats to Beltre's. Different era. When Dawson played in Montreal, the average runs per game varied from the high 3s to the low 4s. When Beltre played in Los Angeles, the runs per game varied from the mid 4s to the low 5s. The offensive numbers when Beltre played dwarf the numbers of Dawson's era.

But Dawson, unlike Beltre, was a stud before coming to Chicago. He'd won six Gold Gloves, and three Silver Sluggers. He'd won the NL Rookie of the Year Award, and had received MVP votes five times in those ten seasons, including being the National League MVP runner up in both 1981 and 1983, and 7th place in 1980.

Ten seasons in Montreal, Dawson had a 123 OPS +.
Ten seasons in Los Angeles and Seattle, Beltre had a 108 OPS +.

Ten seasons, Dawson had an oWAR of 37.3
Ten seasons, Beltre had an oWAR of 28.9.

And the kicker there? Those ten year figures include Beltre's monster 2004 season. The ten year figures of Dawson do NOT include his monster 1987 season.

In an era when scoring was suppressed by dominant pitching, Dawson kicked Beltre's butt up and down the field before Dawson even got to Chicago, and THEN had his monster season. And comparing those monster seasons by side? Dawson's was much more impressive. Why?

Here's a quick and dirty way of looking at it, but it's a pretty fair predictor of what we'd see if we did an in-depth statistical analysis of the two men's seasons.

Between 1980 and 1989 (the period Dawson played the prime of his career, from age 25 to age 34), Major League players hit 40 home runs or more in a season a grand total of thirteen times. On average, that means that one player would hit 40 or more home runs in a given season, with one extra player hitting forty within a three year period.

Between 2000 and 2009 (the period Beltre played in the majority of his career prime, from age 21 to 30), Major League players hit 40 home runs or more in a season eighty-seven times.

13 vs 87.

On average, that means that about nine players hit forty or more home runs every year in the first decade of the new millennium.

What about the individual placements of these home run totals in the decades?



Adrian Beltre hit his NL leading 48 home runs in 2004. In the decade, his 48 home runs was the twenty-first best total individually. Actually, two other players had the same 48 home runs, but Beltre's was ranked lowest of the three. I do not know what the math is behind it, perhaps quality of pitching factor. If you want to ignore that, at least 18 other players had higher home run totals in the decade.

What about Dawson's 49 home runs? It's only one more than Beltre's 48, right? Well, here's a look at the Major Leaguers who hit over 40 in the 80s.



Only thirteen hitters had seasons with 40 or more home runs in the entire decade. And Dawson's figure was the best of the decade.

As I always say, context.

In his first ten seasons, Andre Dawson, between 1977 and 1986, hit 225 home runs. 14th best in the Majors over that period.

In his first ten seasons, Adrian Beltre, between 1999 and 2008, hit 235 home runs. 36th best in the Majors over that period. Again, remember that Beltre's huge season is included, and Dawson's is not.

Go one more year. 11 years. Not much of a difference for Beltre, as he's 35th best. But Dawson, by expanding from 1977 to 1987, jumps up to eighth best in the Majors.

One more thing to look at. RBI totals. An imperfect statistic, of course, as it's much influenced by opportunity. But Beltre drove in 121 in 2004. That was eighth best in the Majors in 2004. He did not lead the league, as Vinny Castilla drove in 131 for Colorado. Miguel Tejada and David Ortiz beat him, driving in 150, and 139. What about the first ten year period by Beltre? How does his 121 RBIs hold up? He played on a good team, as the Dodgers won 93 games in winning the NL West.

91st. 90 other players had more RBIs in a single season than Beltre had in 2004, topped by 165 by Manny Ramirez in 1999. Here's the list, in case you are curious.

Top individual RBI seasons between 1999 and 2008.

What about Andre Dawson's 137 RBI in 1987? That was the fifth highest total in the eleven year period between 1977 and 1987.

Top individual RBI seasons between 1977 and 1987.

And Dawson played on a Cubs team that finished at 76-85, in 6th and last place in the NL East.

Though Adrian Beltre had the much better batting average (.334 in 2004 to .287 for Dawson in 1987), it's not even close when comparing runners in scoring position. Beltre hit .295 while Dawson hit .330.

Dawson clearly had the better season than Beltre. And as far as the first ten years of their careers are concerned, there is no comparison. In addition to the defensive accolades for Dawson, and the higher OPS +, Dawson also stole a lot of bases for a home run hitter. Dawson ended with 438 home runs and 314 stolen bases. Beltre has 395 home runs, and 117 stolen bases.

So, yes, if you took away Dawson's 1987 season, he would still be a much better candidate than Beltre. Beltre, in his first ten seasons, was nowhere near a Hall of Fame caliber player. Not even in the ballpark.

Now, the last five seasons he has definitely come on strong. His post prime playing career is going to have him in a position to gain strong consideration for the Hall of Fame.

One more thing. No, Adrian Beltre's offensive production is not really like that of Eddie Murray or Tony Perez. It's actually not even close.

First of all, you have to consider their careers at the same point to get an accurate comparison. If you include all those years that Perez and Murray were older, their averages will come down, obviously. Murray played until he was 41, Perez until he was 44. Even including those older years, Perez and Murray were still better on an annual 162 game basis. But through age 35, they are much better.



The OPS+ metric is based on how much better a player has performed than the league OPS average (the league they played in, not all of Major League Baseball). So, if a league average OPS is .700, and a player's OPS is .825, their OPS + is 115.

Through age 35, Adrian Beltre has a 116 OPS +. Tony Perez through age 35 has a 129 OPS +, and Eddie Murray a 138 OPS +.

Now, compare them against each other.

You said that they were "about the same" production wise. Well, the numbers don't agree. Comparing these players against their peers, and then against each other, we can see who the best players are.

Between 1999 and 2008, I looked at all Major League players with a +110 OPS, and at least 3,000 at bats, which is approximately 6 qualifying seasons (per batting title standards).

81 Major League Players had an OPS + higher than Beltre's during that period, based on these qualifications.

Looking at the period of 1978 to 1991, when Eddie Murray played, with the same qualifications, only eight players had an OPS + higher than Eddie Murray's.

And finally, in the period of 1965 to 1977, only thirty Major League hitters had a higher OPS + than that of Tony Perez.

To put it quite simply, compared against their peers, Tony Perez, and certainly Eddie Murray, were both much more dominant than Adrian Beltre.

Finally, let's look at them head to head expressed in percentages.

Again, to refresh our memories, through their age 35 seasons, these players had the following OPS + metrics:

Tony Perez (1964 to 1977) 129 OPS +
Eddie Murray (1977 to 1991) 138 OPS +
Adrian Beltre (1998 to 2014) 116 OPS +

Tony Perez' OPS + of 129 is 11.2068% better than that of Adrian Beltre's (129-116=13/116=0.112068).

Eddie Murray's OPS of 138 is 18.9655% better than that of Adrian Beltre's (138-116=22/116=0.189655).

To express simply, Tony Perez was 11.2% better against his peers than was Adrian Beltre, and Eddie Murray was 19.0% better against his peers than was Adrian Beltre.

Point of fact, their performances are not at all similar.

What does all of this mean? Well, it means that Beltre, to this point in his career, has not been nearly as good as these Hall of Famers you selected.

Should we look at some others? I'll pick some of the true greats of the game in the Hall, and some at the same position, through age 35. I'll mix in some power hitters, some speedsters, some annual batting title champs-to give us a good cross reference.

Ted Williams 192 OPS +
Hank Aaron 158 OPS +
Harmon Killebrew 149 OPS +
Wade Boggs 139 OPS +
Jackie Robinson 137 OPS +
Roberto Clemente 129 OPS +
Robin Yount 116 OPS +
Lou Brock 114 OPS +


Ok, what about other third basemen?

Mike Schmidt 151 OPS + (1973-1985)
Eddie Mathews 144 OPS + (1952-1967)
Chipper Jones 143 OPS + (1995-2012)
Brooks Robinson 109 OPS + (1955-1972)

Brooks Robinson's OPS +, playing in an era where pitching clearly dominated, is only 7 points lower than Beltre's, and Robinson was consider an average offensive third baseman. He got into Cooperstown because of his 16 Gold Gloves. Beltre, though very good defensively, is nowhere near Brooks Robinson.

Let me state my opinion, based on looking at the numbers extensively over the last few days. What I have presented here is just the tip of the iceberg.

Adrian Beltre is not a Hall of Famer right now. The argument has been made (well, if he gets 3,000 hits). I disagree. It used to be that getting 3,000 hits was a special occurrence, and, in a way, it still is. But because of conditioning improvements, and, until the last few years, a dramatic spike in offensive production, as well as a drop in overall pitching, players are creeping closer and closer to 3,000 hits that should not be considered for Cooperstown.

Look at Johnny Damon. He finished with 2,769 hits. Does anybody think that he's a Hall of Famer? He was a two-time All Star that never finished in the MVP top ten, never won a Gold Glove, a Silver Slugger. He led the league in runs scored once (136 in 2000, when he had a whopping 741 plate appearances), triples once (11 in 2002) and stolen bases once (46 in 2000). A nice player, but does anybody on this forum look at Damon, and think he should be immortalized as an all-time great?

Going back to the all-star comment on Damon. Two selections is not a lot. Now, Robin Yount was only voted to three All Star Games. But voting was different, and he played in tiny Milwaukee (tiny relative to other Major League cities). And, the shortstop position in the American League was loaded with Cal Ripken Jr and Alan Trammell (who should be in), also. Yount was not an All Star caliber player in five of his first six seasons. Remember, the guy started out in the Major Leagues at 18. Between 1980 and 1984, he was one of the top 5 players in baseball, and the best overall shortstop in the game. He had a 139 OPS + averaging 117 runs, 197 hits, 42 doubles, 11 triples, 22 home runs, 95 RBI, 15 stolen bases, and 324 total bases per 162 games played. He hit .303. Then, he destroyed his right shoulder, forcing him to move to center field. He quickly adjusted, and had another great four year period, from 1986 to 1989, where he batted .312 with 162 game averages of 98 runs, 195 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 17 home runs, 20 stolen bases, and 300 total bases. He won the MVP as a center fielder in 1989, but wasn't even elected to the All Star Game.

Johnny Damon was never a Robin Yount caliber player. Damon had some very, very good seasons. But he only had two seasons in his entire career with a 5+ WAR (5 being the baseline for an All Star caliber player). He finished with a 56 WAR. Yount, on the other hand, had seven seasons with a 5+ WAR, and another 4.9 WAR in 1981 that limited him to 96 games because of the strike. Yount played out of his mind defensively, putting up a 2.8 dWAR in 96 games. His 1983 season is one of the most underrated seasons by a shortstop in baseball history, as it was nearly as good as his historic 1982 MVP season. That year, he had a 166 OPS +. In 1983, he had a 150 OPS + on a team that fell from American League Champions to 5th in the AL East. Yount carried the Brewers in 1983. Johnny Damon never carried a team.

Yet, if we are to look solely at his career numbers, and not consider (what's the word, everybody? Context!), he could be mistaken for a Hall of Famer by the casual observer.

Adrian Beltre has become a great player. No, more accurately, I think he has been a very good player, and a great talent, for a long time, though one who did not reach his potential. For whatever reason, he put up serviceable numbers, but outside of his MVP caliber season in 2004, nothing that would really get a baseball writer excited. His 2004 season, with a 166 OPS +, was sandwiched by four seasons with sub 100 OPS +. Then he went to Boston, and he hasn't looked back since.

Yet, as his career stands now, he needs at least two, more than likely three All Star caliber seasons to warrant serious Hall of Fame consideration. He can get them, and I think he will. He should have plenty of protection from an again healthy Prince Fielder.

Beltre had the second best season of his career in 2014. Ignore the power numbers. 19 HR and 77 RBI aren't sexy. But a .324 AVG is. A .388 OBP and a .492 SLG (.879 OPS) is very nice. And a 147 OPS + is dead sexy.

I haven't looked at what his projections are for this season, but I expect Beltre to hit .310 on 500 at bats. That puts him at about 155 hits, 2,759 for his career. Figure about 24 home runs, 88 RBI. Add in another two years hitting slightly north of .300, and he'll plate his 3,000th hit.

The only thing working against him is his age. He's 36 in a week. That Texas heat can take a lot out of a guy, and I am wondering how his conditioning is doing. He's had a poor spring (.162 AVG), but I'm not concerned.

I do think he makes the Hall of Fame. I think it takes him three or four years to get in, because the media seems to be pushing for him to get in. I just don't think he's as close as everybody thinks he is at this moment.