More Albert Belle Bashing...
From Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune:
So who is this guy talking about? Ted Williams? Jeff Kent? No, of course he's talking about Albert Belle, everybody's favorite bogeyman.
These are the words of a reporter who covered Albert Belle in 1998. And while I certainly do not deny that Belle was a first-class jerk, this type of pontificating is something that really irks me. The Hall of Fame is not entirely made up of good citizens, although there certainly are some there. It is made up of exceptional baseball players, who through their play on the field, have been inducted for perpetuity. Being a jerk does not remove oneself from Hall of Fame eligibility.
Of course, Greenstein didn't stop there:
What a crock that is. Character counts. If it didn't, Pete Rose would be adding "HOF" to all those autographs he hawks
No, Mr. Greenstein, Rose is not in the Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball, something that carries with it a lifetime ban. If Rose were eligible, he'd already be in the Hall.
I also suppose that Kirby Puckett, who was just as marginal a candidate as Belle should have his plaque taken out because of his recent behavior?
Don't worry, there's more:
But I suppose he'll have no problem lauding Jim Thome, who hit all those home runs in 2002 after the Indians were out of the race. (Note: I'm not ripping on Thome, just making a point).
Listen, I have no problem with voters who won't vote for Belle because his career was so short. But I do have a problem with these blowhard journalists who appoint themselves the arbiters of morality by withholding votes from players they didn't like.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Is a player not supposed to play well in front of sparse crowds? In any case, it didn't happen in Cleveland; that's Chicago's problem!
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Belle is a borderline case to me for the Hall of Fame due to the brevity of his career and the fact that I'm not really sure how much weight to attach to his numbers during his great run due to general inflation of offensive stats during the period. Are his 6 years as good as Koufax's 6? I'm not sure. It doesn't help his case with the writers now that the writers of eleven years ago were such a bunch of self-centered babies they took an MVP from him.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Belle was good, but he was no Ty Cobb. Both were incredible jerks but Cobb's stats were so great that they had to put him in the HOF.
by SpringTrainingFun on Jan 17, 2006 4:55 AM EST reply actions
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
That said, if Puckett would have acted like Belle during his playing career, it's unlikely that he would have been elected.
by SpringTrainingFun on Jan 17, 2006 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
This is exactly my problem. One of the reasons why Puckett snuck into the Hall is because he was perceived to be "a nice guy," always with a smile on his face, always friendly to the media. Yes, character should count for something, but I think it should be a relatively small part of the picture.
Contrast him with Eddie Murray, who didn't talk to the media, but certainly had a much better resume. He received 85% of the vote, while Puckett received 82%.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
And Puckett is a borderline case, swayed by personality/character issues. He wasn't a clear-cut non-HOFer, just as it would be hard to find a clear-cut HOFer excluded for those reasons. It only becomes an issue in borderline cases, and it seems to me that the voters are acting within the letter and spirit of the rules in those cases.
Maybe what really bugs you is that the writers themselves are such biased jerks, in no position to be passing judgment on the character of the players and, as often as not, not even on their on-field achievements. But character is part of the criteria, and the writers have interpreted it as a relatively small part, and any human judgment on character is going to be imperfect.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Partly. I understand that the HOF voting system is going to be inherantly flawed because humans are the ones casting votes. I understand that there should be some room for non-baseball qualities (or iniquities) in the decision process. But the whole "I hated the guy, so screw him" line of thinking is what really bugs me. It's like the voters are finally getting back at the players for ignoring or insulting them from years past.
But that's what you get when the people that vote for the Hall of Fame get to know the players off the field.
Like I said before, wait until Mark McGwire goes on the ballot...at least Belle was clear of all the steroid rumors.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
by SpringTrainingFun on Jan 17, 2006 4:58 AM EST reply actions
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Belle's surly attitude(juice?) endeared him to no one and I never missed him when he left the Tribe. As an die-hard LSU fan, I had held great hopes for him and was thrilled when he was drafted. But face it, he was a JERK. His #'s can't overshadow his character...or lack of.
With guys like this, and especially a Pete Rose, you have to consider the feelings his teammates and those he would share the Hall of Fame with. Lowering the standards(I consider character a standard) for induction affects all who entered before. Perhaps their votes should count most of all.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Bottom line, voters are entitled to consider whether a guy was a jerk.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
I think you'll be seeing this with Mark McGwire next year. When Jeff Kent comes up for induction, will there be writers who won't vote for him just because he's a jerk? Absolutely. That's my problem.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Based on the voting rules, I don't think you can argue with personality playing a factor where the statistics are borderline. (You can disagree with the rules, but you can't say that the writers are mis-applying them.) And I just don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Just a thought... No one held greater contempt for sportswriters than old Lefty, Steve Carlton.
Induction Information
Elected to Hall of Fame by Baseball Writers in 1994, Player
436 votes on 455 ballots 95.82%
They obviously didn't hold it against him.
In checking his bio, I noticed that we share a birthday!
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
Ocker - no
Hoynes - no
Pluto - yes
I find it interesting that while Ocker admits Belle was a jerk, he says he didn't vote for Albert based on longevity. Hoynes straight up says it was Albert's personality - ''His numbers were good," Hoynes says. ''I thought if he played one or two more years at a high level, I'd have to vote for him. But he didn't. He was a bad guy. And what goes around comes around."
And Pluto, who is without question a genuinely nice person, ignored Albert's personality completely and voted yes on the numbers alone.
(BTW, Ryan doesn't let the column end without his own dig at Albert).
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 19, 2006 3:57 PM EST reply actions
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
(1) The writer who will vote against him because he thinks he wasn't good enough (Ocker)
(2) The writer who will look past the character issues and vote for him (Pluto)
(3) The writer who will vote against him largely because of the character issues (Hoynes)
Re: More Albert Belle Bashing...
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 19, 2006 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

by 















