Albert Belle never going to the HOF

by rebop on Jan 10, 2006 2:48 PM EST Comment 13 comments

I was interested to see how Albert Belle would do in his first year of HOF eligibility. The results were not encouraging if you are Albert Belle. Belle got only 40 votes or 7.7% out of a needed 75%. He did get enough votes to make it to the next ballot however.

In short, it's never gonna happen. Personally, I think it's B.S. even though I do not like Albert Belle as a person (who does?). I do think his numbers justify a spot in the hall despite his injury-shortened career.

Looks like Will Clark isn't getting in anytime soon either, getting on only 4.4% of the ballots, not enough to get another shot. (Hardly a shocker).

BTW, congrats to Bruce Sutter.

Poll

Who deserved to get in, but didn't?

Blyleven

4 votes

Lee Smith

3 votes

Jack Morris

1 votes

Tommy John

1 votes

Steve Garvey

1 votes

Alan Trammell

0 votes

Belle

6 votes

Rice

2 votes

Gossage

1 votes

Dawson

6 votes

25 votes | Poll has closed

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Come on folks!

Gossage deserves to be in. Because he was a reliever he shouldn't be in the HOF??? Look at his numbers their good enough. HOF voters are stupid.

by Larry Bigbie3 on Jan 10, 2006 4:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re:

Belle, Blyleven, Trammell and probably Gossage. Closers are interesting because Gossage's numbers aren't dramatically different from, say, Jeff Montgomery's.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 9:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re:

Gossage's numbers aren't dramatically different from, say, Jeff Montgomery's.

Unless you count the extra ONE THOUSAND innings!

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jan 10, 2006 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

A lot of them are padding. And I'm not saying Gossage isn't better, but it doesn't have a lot to do with the extra ONE THOUSAND innings.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Yes it does? You have no value if you don't pitch, and to compare Gossage and Jeff Montgomery in the Hall of Fame context, you'd have to account for the thousand innings Montgomery literally did not pitch.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jan 10, 2006 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Why? The thousand innings Gossage literally did pitch were in a pretty large part spent not making a Hall of Fame case with great performances but 224 innings as a shitty starter (and to be fair, Gossage could've instead spent that season as a great closer but didn't) and about 430 innings in the latter portion of his career not doing much of anything other than literally pitching.

Gossage is much better than Montgomery and I'm not saying otherwise. But I don't think it's the thousand innings that makes the difference.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

It's most definitely the thousand innings. That's a hell of a lot of innings, whether you cherry-pick and assign them to his crappiest years or what. If you want to say Montgomery's best year was as good as Gossage's, that's one thing (and not true, because of innings in that case as well), but the Hall of Fame measures career performance. Gossage's career was over twice as long. These 224 and 430 innings of mediocre pitching represent a significant improvement over Montgomery not pitching at all. This is like fundamental information. Would you rather have the guy with the 112 OPS+ in 11,000 at bats, or the guy with the 132 OPS+ in 4,000? No doubt I'd rather have the 7,000 at bats, because obviously anybody is better than nobody at all. Otherwise you have to admit that Nomar is a much better player than Cal Ripken Jr., despite the fact that Ripken put up his numbers in 7,000 more at bats.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jan 10, 2006 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

These 224 and 430 innings of mediocre pitching represent a significant improvement over Montgomery not pitching at all.

Yes, if I'm putting them on my baseball team for those seasons, but that is not the case. The 1,000 innings are not the great difference in Gossage v Montgomery, the difference is that Gossage was better.

And I didn't really cherry-pick, those years all happened in a row and my case with them is that they are not really a big deal to what I would consider his HOF case, other than to go, "Wow, look at how long Gossage pitched."

And I do understand what you're saying, I'm not being completely thick.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Alls I'm saying is if Jeff Montgomery pitched 1000 more innings and maintained his ERA+, he'd have a case for the Hall of Fame.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jan 10, 2006 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Montgomery

pitched 868 innings, ERA of 3.27 with 304 saves. Gossage pitched 1809 innings with 3.01 ERA and 310 saves. If you get rid of the crappy starter year thats still like 1600 innings pitched. Maintaing a lower ERA over more than 900 innings more pitched is alot more impressive than getting 300 somethin saves over 800 innings. But Hoffman has 436 saves over 822 innings with a 2.76 ERA so both points are sorta right. But Hofmanns ERA is so good but then maybe he couldn't sustain that over 1000 more innings and would en up with a Goose like ERA.

by Larry Bigbie3 on Jan 11, 2006 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus Gossage

should be in the HOF because he has an awesome name especially if you pronoucne it Goose Goosage.

by Larry Bigbie3 on Jan 11, 2006 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jack Morris

I am quite against Jack Morris in the HOF, because he wasn't all that great. In fact he was really never great. He did not have one great season. Remember before Palmeiro was a scumbag and morons like Skip Bayless would go on and on about how it isn't the Hall of Good? That really does apply to Jack Morris.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 10:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs