Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
That b-ref page includes something that I think really points to why there's a pretty good amount of "no, I just don't feel it" with him as HOF.
His "black ink" (times leading the league in something) and "grey ink" (times in league top ten in something) scores are well below the HOF average.
Those are simply arbitrary inventions of course but I mention them here because they do sort of (IMO) sum up why a lot of people feel like they feel about him.
To compare that gray ink figure with a few of the names almost mentioned in this thread
Beltran is 329th all-time in that metric
Edmonds is 433rd
Andruw Jones is 557.
Snider is 55th.
Dawson is 70th.
Ashburn is 78th.
Puckett is 159.
|
Looking into that in more detail, it seems like there are two things making Beltran rank so low on the Gray Ink Test, one of which does make for a good argument against him as a Hall of Famer and one of which doesn't.
The thing which shouldn't keep him out of the Hall is that he was basically good at everything, rather than being great at some things and terrible at others. Per 162 games, Beltran would get you 28 homers (in an era where that was above-average for a CF but not sniffing the leaderboards), 22 steals (adding a lot of value when he only gets caught three times, but again hardly going to lead the league), 71 walks (a plus batting eye, but not remarkable), with 172 hits and a .280 average (fine from someone who'll take a walk, but . . . you get the idea). He was a good defensive CF, but he wasn't Andruw Jones. All those numbers were higher in his peak seasons, but not to the point where he was going to lead the league in anything.
At the same time, being good at everything is useful! Picking the two most recent HoF comparables you list, Kirby Puckett would come near to leading the league in hits in a typical year, but he'd also hit 10 less homers, get caught stealing twice as often for half as many successes, hit into five more double plays, and pick up 30 less walks. Andre Dawson had way more power for his era, but is also spotting Beltran 30 walks a year, also a much worse baserunner, and doesn't have Puckett's advantage in batting average. Those two do better on the Gray Ink test and in people's memories because they had one or two really stellar skills, but the idea that Beltran's lack of weaknesses might make him the better player is at least worth considering, and most of the current kitchen-sink stats seem to come down on Beltran's side.
The other thing interfering with his Grey Ink scores, which
is arguably a problem for his HoF case, is that he usually missed a few weeks every year. Beltran played 150+ games 6 times and 160+ twice in 18 full seasons; Puckett hit 150+ 8 times and 160+ three times in just 12 seasons . . . despite two of those years being 1994 and 1995.
Basically, if you take Peak Beltran you'd expect to get 140-150 games of an extremely well-rounded player whose overall value was on the same general per-game level as previous Hall of Fame CFs, even looking at ones like Puckett whose case was mostly about peak value. Whether his missing three weeks a year outweighs the fact that he actually has some hang-around value (unlike Puckett) is an open question; I'd put him in the Hall.