HOF or Not: Carlos Beltran

[lighthousekeeper]

Worthy to make it in or not?

Carlos Beltran Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

[bhlloy]

Just misses it for me, although he's probably more deserving than some guys who are in. Very very good, but I don't think he was ever quite elite enough with the bat

[cartman]

For OF, his numbers are on the fence. But his post-season play might be his ticket in.

[albionmoonlight]

I voted yes because he had a great season for me in MLB Power Pros this one time.

[tarcone]

Nope. Another very good player, but not one who dominated his contemporaries.

[Logan]

Think he falls short as well.

Maybe if he didn't leave that bat on his fucking shoulder though...

[Capital]

Nice numbers and 19 years in the business is also impressive but just misses for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My gut reaction was no.

I still lean no after looking at his numbers but will admit that it's a closer case than I thought off the top of my head.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by cartman

For OF, his numbers are on the fence.

I thought so too. So I was surprised to see he rates as the 7th best CF ever, according to WAR. Ahead of other HOF luminaries such as Ashburn, Andre Dawson, Kirby Puckett, Duke Snider.

When you read the career CF WAR list like this: Mays, Cobb, Speaker, Mantle, Griffey Jr, DiMaggio, Beltran...it makes you consider.

[britrock88]

8th all-time in JAWS among CFs. All seven ahead of him are HOFers. He's in.

[Breeze]

Just because he's 8th all time in WAR I don't think makes it a given...

Edmunds got no love getting 2.5% of the HOF vote, and he was 16th in WAR and WAR7, and 15 in JAWS. Kenny Lofton got no love at 3.2% on his one ballot and he's only 1 spot below Beltran in WAR and JAWS...

It could depend on who else is on the ballot.

[SteveMax58]

I always feel like you have to have a peak that's elite compared to your contemporaries.

Beltran was very good at his peak. But only very good.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I always feel like you have to have a peak that's elite compared to your contemporaries.

Beltran was very good at his peak. But only very good.

yeah but his WAR7 (7 peak years of WAR) is 9th best ever amongst CFers. Higher than Puckett, Ashburn, Dawson...

[Vince, Pt. II]

Count me among those initially pretty confident in my 'no,' less confident (but still no) after looking again at the stats.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Breeze

Just because he's 8th all time in WAR I don't think makes it a given...

Edmunds got no love getting 2.5% of the HOF vote, and he was 16th in WAR and WAR7, and 15 in JAWS. Kenny Lofton got no love at 3.2% on his one ballot and he's only 1 spot below Beltran in WAR and JAWS...

It could depend on who else is on the ballot.

I actually think Edmonds was the better player between the two. I'd consider both borderline, but hard to keep out considering some of the recent outfielders that have gotten in.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

yeah but his WAR7 (7 peak years of WAR) is 9th best ever amongst CFers. Higher than Puckett, Ashburn, Dawson...

Do you happen to know what it was overall? Or even just for outfielders?

I guess I consider his bat more vs all players rather than just as a CF. Maybe that's wrong headed of me, but I don't tend to award much for playing a harder defensive position unless the player was exceptional at it (ala Brooks). He was a good outfielder generally, but I didn't see him as an elite CF all time, like an Edmonds. His speed made sense for him to play CF because of better range, but not from being spectacular at it.

Maybe it's because, as a Mets fan, I expected (or wanted) more from him. But his batting stats don't scream elite to me...just pretty darn good for a short while, coupled with longevity. I'm a fan of Dawson btw....but not as a HOF'er fwiw.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I actually think Edmonds was the better player between the two. I'd consider both borderline, but hard to keep out considering some of the recent outfielders that have gotten in.

At peak I agree. Edmonds is the player I'd take but both are borderline for HOF to me.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Do you happen to know what it was overall? Or even just for outfielders?

I guess I consider his bat more vs all players rather than just as a CF. Maybe that's wrong headed of me, but I don't tend to award much for playing a harder defensive position unless the player was exceptional at it (ala Brooks). He was a good outfielder generally, but I didn't see him as an elite CF all time, like an Edmonds. His speed made sense for him to play CF because of better range, but not from being spectacular at it.

Maybe it's because, as a Mets fan, I expected (or wanted) more from him. But his batting stats don't scream elite to me...just pretty darn good for a short while, coupled with longevity. I'm a fan of Dawson btw....but not as a HOF'er fwiw.

Beltran was a very good defensive centerfielder. 3 gold gloves and most metrics have him as at least above average there.

A harder defensive position should be an incredibly important factor. If you can handle shortstop, center, or catcher and still handle the bat then you're above your peers. Overlooking position unless you're head and shoulders above everyone else is flawed thinking.

Here's an article from Dave Fleming during Beltran's peak:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/article1021/

[Atocep]

Andrew Jones is probably the most interesting discussion for centerfielders. Most would probably think "hell no", but he's right there with Beltran, Lofton, and Edmonds as borderline guys.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Beltran was a very good defensive centerfielder. 3 gold gloves and most metrics have him as at least above average there.

A harder defensive position should be an incredibly important factor. If you can handle shortstop, center, or catcher and still handle the bat then you're above your peers. Overlooking position unless you're head and shoulders above everyone else is flawed thinking.

Here's an article from Dave Fleming during Beltran's peak:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/article1021/

You are making a good argument why Beltran belongs in the Hall of Good. Not the Hall of Fame.

Dave Fleming's argument is also a good argument for why he was a very good, well-rounded player, and better than Ryan Howard on the whole in 2008. He won 3 gold gloves by that point, and never again. His argument is essentially that Beltran at his peak....was pretty darn good and underappreciated. But as we know, Beltran declined quite quickly from there.

If your argument is that he deserves more money for playing a harder defensive position competently. ...then I'll agree. But sorry, this is the Hall of Fame. And just because marginal players have made it before, doesn't really change the fact that he was simply good....not great.

[claphamsa]

not even close

[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.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

I'll freely admit that it's a factor for me. And when I combine it with my (admittedly imperfect) recollection of Beltran in his prime....it just reinforces the "meh" factor for me.

[Young Drachma]

Especially in the steroid era, stats mean less than they used to. Hall of Very Good, but not sure he was transcendent enough for Cooperstown especially at his position.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Andrew Jones is probably the most interesting discussion for centerfielders. Most would probably think "hell no", but he's right there with Beltran, Lofton, and Edmonds as borderline guys.

And unlike Beltran, he was legitimately a feared bat early in his career. But another guy who lacks the longevity.

I don't think we go back and reimagine history just because some guys have invented new stats to make us see the game differently. We watched it and when I go to Cooperstown, there would be no amount of "oh man..Carlos Beltran, what an elite gawd" plus if we let him in, there are so many other marginal candidates who probably have a sabermetric claim.


Why doesn't SABR just have its own Hall and be done with it.

[cuervo72]

Beltran finished 4th in MVP voting once. Then he had a 9th, a 12th, a couple of 20ths, a 21st, a 26th. I know, I know. But two top-ten finishes doesn't scream HoF to me.

His OPS+ is 121. Tied with Ron Cey. Chili Davis. Mike Hargrove. Chet Lemon. Dale Mur...OK, maybe I'll just stop there. (Al Oliver and Dave Parker also there, and those were damned good players.) I guess he gets points for defense. Of course you should give them to Cesar Cedeno, too.

I dunno. I guess I'm just turning into a grumpy old man about all these guys. I don't immediately think "Oh, Hall of Famer," but modern-day I don't know who I do as much.

[dawgfan]

Falls a bit short for me. In the four measures Baseball Reference monitors on Hall of Fame measures, he's well below-average on two and right at average on the other two. Those may not be the be-all, end-all of HoF measurement, but they confirm for me my gut reaction when considering his qualifications.

[Suicane75]

Not

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

In the four measures Baseball Reference monitors on Hall of Fame measures, he's well below-average on two and right at average on the other two.

Problem with all four of those measures is that they all completely ignore defensive contribution.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Problem with all four of those measures is that they all completely ignore defensive contribution.

Unless you're Ozzie Smith, I'm not sure there's anyone who could make up that kind of gap with their defense.

[stevew]

I'm guessing the list of Hall of Famers who played for 6 different teams is quite tiny.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm guessing the list of Hall of Famers who played for 6 different teams is quite tiny.

Maybe longer than we'd think on first blush, but still pretty darned small

Old-timer Dan Brouthers played for 10 according to one discussion I found, Rickey Henderson & Goose Gossage 9 each, Gaylord Perry 8.

Joe Morgan & Don Sutton, with 5 each, were the next people mentioned.

[cuervo72]

Heck, Frank Robinson even played with five.

edit: Steve Carlton played with six, with the SF/CWS/CLE/MIN hopping he did in his final two seasons.

[stevew]

I'm assuming if Beltran wants to play in 2017 it will not be with the Yankees.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Problem with all four of those measures is that they all completely ignore defensive contribution.

Sure, but WAR - which does attempt to account for defense - has him at 68.8 for his career. That's good, but not exactly clear-cut HoF territory.

[oykib]

How'd we get this far without a Keltner test?

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2006 was his best case for being the best player in the league. He somehow finished a distant fourth to Ryan Howard in the MVP vote. But he was second in offensive WAR while winning a gold glove in center. Only Pujols had a legit case for winning the award besides Beltran. It was close enough to give him a yes here.

Was he the best player on his team?

Yes. He was the best player on his team for five years in KC, his rental in Houston (at least the playoffs) and about half of his Met career.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

This one is a yes. he certainly spent some time as the league's best centerfielder in both the AL and NL.


Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes. He was a big part of three teams that made the playoffs. he was also one of the best rentals a contender ever got for Houston in 2004.

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

He's been doing that for the Yanks the past few years. The argument could be made that he had a significant impact on the Cards when he was past his prime.

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Not even close. Even taking out PED guys and gamblers, he probably wouldn't be.

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes. There are a number of outfielders with weaker career numbers in the hall.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

He makes it fairly easily as a compiler. But he doesn't have that much black or grey ink. He'll finish with 1500 runs and RBI, with 400 homers and 500 doubles as good defensive centerfielder. He's also, arguably, the most efficient basestealer of all time. He is 4th all time in steal%, and has 300 career steals. None of the people around him on the list are really close except for Tim Raines.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Not that I can think of. Modern stats quantify his value fairly accurately.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

He probably is now that Griffey got in. He had a superior career to Lofton, Edmonds or Bernie Williams. If we consider Trout to be a CF, he'll likely pass Beltran by the time Beltran could be voted on.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Beltran had one season above 8.0 WAR. he had another three seasons at ~6.0. He never won an MVP.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

He was selected to eight All-Star games. Players with that number are iffy for the Hall.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

He had about five seasons where he was one of the ten best players in the league. He was the best player on the 2006 Mets who won the NL East. That's a yes.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Nothing I can think of.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I'd say yes in lieu of any bombshells coming out.

[Izulde]

For me, it's a no. Agreed with all those who commented Hall of Very Good, but short of HoF.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My gut reaction was no.

I still lean no after looking at his numbers but will admit that it's a closer case than I thought off the top of my head.

This. Even looking at all the advanced stats and factoring in his defense, I think he just misses out.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This. Even looking at all the advanced stats and factoring in his defense, I think he just misses out.

I don't see how you get past the fact that he's in the top ten all time at his position. If you're that high up and not in, then I think we're evaluating the position incorrectly.

Center Field JAWS Leaders | Baseball-Reference.com

I think it's fairly obvious that we don't evaluate the position properly. The fact that Lofton and Edmonds fell off the ballot in the first year are signs of that. They were at least worth discussion. Having four of the top ten position players doesn't help centerfielders.

Mays
Cobb
Speaker
Mantle

Those guys can't be the standard. But voters seem to be using them as the measuring stick. They throw off the HOF averages at the position.

[Danny]

I think he probably should, especially if he can eek out two more positive value seasons.

He has to get at least a small bonus for absolutely raking in the postseason

[Katon]

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.