[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I guess I see a top ten player differently than most. One great season, followed by several mediocre season, at best, doesn't make for a great player, certainly not one of the ten best players in the game. Consistency over time makes a player great. Anybody can have a career year, and as referenced already, that 2004 season seems suspect, to say the least. He has a 1.017 OPS in '04, and then averages a .759 OPS over the next five seasons, going over .800 only once--barely--in 2007, with an .802.

Then, he goes to Boston, a team notorious for PED use, and boom, he's a .321 hitter with nearly 50 doubles, and 30 home runs, after being a .270 hitter nearly 7,000 plate appearances into his career.

Sorry, I just can't vote him in. One great season, and eleven average, or below average, seasons in his first twelve doesn't scream all-time great to me.

Andre Dawson is the most similar batter according to BBR. HE also had a career year that was clearly better than his norm.

He hit 49 HRs for the Cubs under a famously 'blank' contract...just to get off the turf in Montreal. His next three highest HR totals were 31,31 & 27. Beltre's top four were 48, 36, 32 & 30.

Both had four 100 RBI seasons; both lead the league in Hits and doubles once.

Beltre's Career OPS is .813 to Dawson's .802

The next two most similar batters were Dave Parker (HOF except for baggage either real or assumed) and Billy Williams, another Cubs HOFer.

Dawson did have twice as many gold gloves and a lot more stolen bases, but he is a much closer hitter comparison than Chipper Jones- who is not listed in the top 10 most similar to Beltre (so I'm kind of correcting my previous post ).

I'd have to say that since Dawson is in, Beltre should be.