2002 Hall of Fame Final Tally

[Al-Hoot]

No amount of HOF ballot discussion, before, during, or after the voting, is going to change the way I vote. We are here to vote people into the HOF, not discuss them into the HOF. I'm not discouraging discussion, I just won't be part of it, or listen to most of it.

But that is just me and my methodology.

What I meant by this rather terse statement is that it seems we ought to either discuss and come to a consensus about who to put into the HOF, OR have a secret ballot, like we do now. But again, this is probably a false dichotomy - nevertheless it is food for thought, even if not nourishing.

[LambeauLeap]

Because of course anyone who votes for the HOF inductees every year never discusses it before hand with others...

[Al-Hoot]

I did say "false dichotomy."

[blake]

Fred Mcgriff hit .284/.377/.509 with 494 HR. Hes not in the HOF. Gary Sheffield hit .292/.393 /.514 with 509 HR. Hes fairly borderline. Belinda's .262/.308/.551 with 508 HR I don't think would be close to making it in. By this standard any Dave Kingman type slugger that manages to hack out 500 HR is a Hall of Famer in this league.

I think what is critical though is that this isn't MLB. Probably my biggest criteria is "how does player x rank relative to other players in the HOF?". 500 HRs in this league is HOF worthy in this voters opinion. This only gets Really difficult when you have a pitcher who was both a starter and reliever and therefore has no dominating stats that are comparable.

Yeah it's different leagues. But you have a guy basically with no plate discipline that every now and then gets in to one. So we're talking about a super Steve Balboni or Dave Kingman. A one dimensional player that just hits HR. Hes an easy out most of the time. Theres value in sluggers like Belinda but I dont think theyre HOF level players.

[cheekimonk]

Why would it being his first time on the ballot matter? If the guy is the most deserving he should be the one that gets first place votes. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be the best of the best of the best. If we induct just anybody then it loses its integrity.

Yeah, I definitely disagree with this. It's another version of the "MVP = best player or most-critical-to-his-team player or best-on-a-playoff-team player" argument, but "First-ballot Hall of Famer" definitely means something to me. It's not just a "Best Players of All-Time List" it's a Hall of Fame and I think they operate just a bit differently.

As for Belinda, the top 5 HR hitters in the HoF have the following HR/AB: 12.92, 15.58, 15.65, 19.41, 23.38. That 12.92 figure (Billy Wilson) is astounding. Belinda comes in at a HR every 13.33 ABs. So even though his 508 places him 3rd on the list of HR leaders, his prolific rate would put him and Wilson in elite company. No one else is even close. So I think the McGriff/Sheffield/Kingman comparison is not valid (see below). Rotten has the aggregate numbers, but in 19 seasons the impact of that is kind of dulled...so breaking it down he hit a HR every 17.77 ABs. That's impressive and if you slide him in at #4 on the list he kind of fits the progression amongst HR leaders. He certainly deserves to be in the Hall I think that's clear, but so does Belinda.

Breaking the rules a bit, here are the career leaders from MLB:

McGwire - 10.61
Ruth - 11.76
Bar. Bonds - 12.92
Ryan Howard - 13.27
Jim Thome - 13.67
Kiner - 14.11
Pujols - 14.18
Killebrew - 14.22
Sosa - 14.47
A-Rod - 14.62

(Dave Kingman was 15.11, the Crime Dog was 17.76, and Sheffield was 18.11)

[bschr682]

i didn't have Belinda super high on my list but i did take into consideration how much of a homer machine he was in such a short time.

[jcrmoon42]

I don't think anyone would disput that Belinda was a homer machine. Obviously, he was very dangerous in that regard. However, this isn't the "Homer Hall of Fame." How was he as a hitter/fielder overall?

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea that you are comparing him to his contemporaries. You can't really look at the RL HOF and make true comparisons. The measures are different for a number of reasons. When I make comparisons to RL players, I am attempting to do so based on comparison to league and/or impact on RL as compared to impact on the MBWBA. That's why I make the Rockefeller/Koufax comparsion. In my opinion, they are similar in scope and impact to their respective leagues.

Again, Belinda with his 1 All Star game and 120 OPS+ does not measure up, by the metrics we have at our disposal, to the other members of the HOF or the other people on the ballot. How can someone who was not considered great during his career be called great after his career is over?

One thing we are bumping up against here is the age-old discussion of which is more important. Counting stats or percentage stats? There is no correct answer. There is only opinion.

And, by the way, since when in the history of elections, have people NOT spoken about their preferences in an effort to convince others? Is there something sacred about a Hall of Fame that means that people should not speak their minds? Isn't it the very nature of such things to engender debate? The ballot remains secret, but people are more than able to say who they are voting for if they so choose. If such discussion does not succeed in swaying others, then so be it, but let's not suggest that such freedom of speech should be limited in an open forum.

Power to the people! (Who voted for Joe Belinda, even though he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame)

[cheekimonk]

Well, we've been down this road, but you put WAY too much weight on AS games and awards. Belinda's career spanned 1987 - 1999. Going back to 1995 (the furthest I could find), the BOY winners from those years were: Belinda, Mike Clarke, Neil McKinney, Resurrection Santos, Bopper Kengos, Morris Pennebaker, Rafael Rodriguez, Ross White (2), and Chris Coll. Every one of those guys but Belinda is still active and every one of them is probably a future HoFer. Then, in the HoF itself, Belinda's career overlapped with these outfielders: Sawyer Silk, Steve Collins, Frank Boerner, John Bockus, and Tom Laverriere. Add all of those guys to the players who may have been excellent for 1 to 3 years and the number of vote-based awards won by someone just gets too watered down.

But go back to your first sentence: "...Belinda was a homer machine." Belinda wasn't A homer machine. He was, along with Billy Wilson, a freak of nature. For sake of comparison, let's focus on just the "mashers" in the HoF...we'll go with everyone who hit 300+ HRs (excluding the aforementioned Wilson). Combined, those players hit a HR every 19.61 ABs. Belinda was 47% more productive than all of those guys combined (Wilson was 52.7% more productive). He was 17% more productive than the player who hit the 2nd most HRs and 18%, 45.6%, and 75.3% more productive than the next 3 guys on the list.

But hold on...he was an insane strikeout risk, right? Well, the top 5 HR hitters in the HoF struck out at rates of 0.84, 0.88, 0.18, 0.82, and 1.02 times per game (that 0.18 rate was Sawyer Silk...that's insanity). Belinda struck out 0.92 times per game. That's not really THAT ridiculous considering the numbers I laid out above.

Belinda was not the best player of all time. He probably wouldn't make the outfield on an all-time team. But he was most certainly an historic figure in the history of the MBBA and, thus, deserving of the Hall of Fame.

[blake]

Yeah every 13 AB's he hits a HR. Hes an easy out otherwhise though. He K's a ton. Hes not even close to a Hall of Fame talent.

[cheekimonk]

Yeah every 13 AB's he hits a HR. Hes an easy out otherwhise though. He K's a ton. Hes not even close to a Hall of Fame talent.

How do you figure? He K's a lot, but if you look at the numbers I ran he basically struck out at the same rate that the top 5 HR hitters in the Hall did (outside of Sawyer Silk). Also, though 12 years is borderline length for a HoF career, that 13 ABs per HR was maintained over the entire 12 years.

But forget all that and forget Belinda vs. Rotten. Do you honestly exclude the #4 guy on the all-time HR list from the HoF forever? I mean, if a player is Top 5 all-time in any positive category (HRs, hits, RBI, SB, Ws, SVs, K's for pitchers, etc.) they have to be in the Hall...I don't see how that can even be argued.

[aaronweiner]

Belinda is a Hall of Famer, so debating his worthiness is a moot point at this juncture. However, I think it's a valuable discussion for future Hall of Famers...do we vote in the guy with the counting stats or do we vote in the guy with the sabermetric stats? I think there's room in there for both. Belinda would have never been last on my ballot.

[bschr682]

Boy all this talk got me thinking so I fired up OOTP and took a look at the career homerun marks. I actually think i might have changed my mind on this. 500 is an amazing home run total. Look at that list yourself and see. T Rex is the highest active and will threaten Hall of Famer Billy Wilson for the title but no one else is even close. Gary Barr has an outside shot at 500 but hes like 8 thousand years old. Belinda did it in such a short time. Its rediculous how good he must have been and it makes me wonder how he did manage to not make a lot of all star teams or win awards.

[bschr682]

Look at Duane Whitley. The guy is just a monster. He will need to hit 43 homeruns each year for the next 10 years to hit 500 homers in 12 seasons. He'd be 36 when he hit the milestone homer. How likely is that? Belinda did it. 500 may be just a counting stat number but wow. Its a very large number.

[blake]

Yeah every 13 AB's he hits a HR. Hes an easy out otherwhise though. He K's a ton. Hes not even close to a Hall of Fame talent.

How do you figure? He K's a lot, but if you look at the numbers I ran he basically struck out at the same rate that the top 5 HR hitters in the Hall did (outside of Sawyer Silk). Also, though 12 years is borderline length for a HoF career, that 13 ABs per HR was maintained over the entire 12 years.

But forget all that and forget Belinda vs. Rotten. Do you honestly exclude the #4 guy on the all-time HR list from the HoF forever? I mean, if a player is Top 5 all-time in any positive category (HRs, hits, RBI, SB, Ws, SVs, K's for pitchers, etc.) they have to be in the Hall...I don't see how that can even be argued.

You have to think years ahead and the whole picture too. The league is still young. Once history builds up hes going to be about 30 to 40th all-time in HR's with a .262 average and a .308 OBP. Not much else otherwise. He'll look silly being in there surrounded by real Hall of Famers.

Hes just a one dimensional slugger. It's exactly like having a Dave Kingman type in the Hall of Fame.

[bschr682]

who is going to pass him? T rex did and Whitley and maybe Bopper kengos has a shot. Thats it. Its going to take decades before he even falls out of the top 10 if he ever does.

[blake]

So if Mark Reynolds of the Orioles plays 8 or 9 seasons and manages to hit 508 HR's then hes a Hall of Famer? Noone considers Mark Reynolds a Hall of Fame talent. Or Kingman or any other one dimensional slugger. You need something besides just hitting HR's.

[LambeauLeap]

BUt can you vote based on what you think the hall should look like 40 years from now? you dont' know what the future holds in terms of stats. In 1988 did baseball people think (or fans like myyself as a teenager) we'd see so many 60+ HR people around 2000-2001? Heck no. You have to vote based on the periods of present and past, not what you think the norm will be in 2036...

Yeah every 13 AB's he hits a HR. Hes an easy out otherwhise though. He K's a ton. Hes not even close to a Hall of Fame talent.

How do you figure? He K's a lot, but if you look at the numbers I ran he basically struck out at the same rate that the top 5 HR hitters in the Hall did (outside of Sawyer Silk). Also, though 12 years is borderline length for a HoF career, that 13 ABs per HR was maintained over the entire 12 years.

But forget all that and forget Belinda vs. Rotten. Do you honestly exclude the #4 guy on the all-time HR list from the HoF forever? I mean, if a player is Top 5 all-time in any positive category (HRs, hits, RBI, SB, Ws, SVs, K's for pitchers, etc.) they have to be in the Hall...I don't see how that can even be argued.

You have to think years ahead and the whole picture too. The league is still young. Once history builds up hes going to be about 30 to 40th all-time in HR's with a .262 average and a .308 OBP. Not much else otherwise. He'll look silly being in there surrounded by real Hall of Famers.

Hes just a one dimensional slugger. It's exactly like having a Dave Kingman type in the Hall of Fame.

[blake]

His career stats show ratings that would project at 6 Contact, 6 Gap, 10 Power, 4 Eye, 5 Avoid K. Do any of us think we have a Hall of Fame player when we have someone like that? I don't anyway.

[LambeauLeap]

His career stats show ratings that would project at 6 Contact, 6 Gap, 10 Power, 4 Eye, 5 Avoid K. Do any of us think we have a Hall of Fame player when we have someone like that? I don't anyway.

...and that's what makes this discussion and the vote in general so great. It's subjective, just like real life voting for the HOF.

[Al-Hoot]

The man (Belinda) hit 508 homers in 6774 at bats. That is a home run every 13.33 at bats. That is a stupendous number. He also holds the single season record for home runs and, more impressive, a Hack Wilson-like single season record of 180 rbis.

BUT

a) Ben is a better number cruncher than I am, and
b) Blake, sorry, but your arguments are beginning to sound like a broken phonograph record... I don't think they are gonna persuade many people to change the way they vote in future. But people's mileage may vary....