Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?

certainly fits that criteria, being one of the most dominant hitters in baseball during the 1990's. Averaging 37 HR's and 120 RBI's during the 10 main years of his career - 1991-2000. In 12 seasons from 1989-2000, Belle played with The Indians 1989-1996, White Sox 1997 - Orioles - 1998-2000. He had 1,726 hits, 389 Doubles, 381 HR's, 1,239 RBI's, .295 BA, .369 OBP and .564 Slugging %, and scored 974 runs. His career was cut short due to injuries. Everyone knows he had a poor attitude, but I'm not sure if he was ever tied to steroid abuse. If you just use dominance as a criteria, shouldn't Belle get good consideration?



http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/belleal01.shtmlShould Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?I use the criteria of dominance AND longevity. I don't think a player like Harold Baines should get in just because they had a long career and were able to achieve benchmark stats slowly, as I do not think a player that dominates for a period then disappears should automatically get in. The HOF is the total package, the cream of the crop. Players that defined their positions for a generation.



Also, Belle was never tied to Steroids, but there is that famous corked bat incident that he was suspended for.Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?
Belle was always under rated because he didn't act like the sort of black man the white writers liked. 50 doubles and 50 homers in one season -- and all he got was negative coverage. They raped him of the MVP and they WILL keep him out of the hall. He might not go in anyway, but his is a case of being, well, a black acting black man. That's a no-no with the writers unless you hang around as long as Ricky Henderson and Barry Bonds. Jim Rice might not get in for the same reason.



The writers really suck.Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?A home run hitter without 500 career home runs is not a Hall of Famer.
The only thing Albert Belle ever dominated was scaring little kids Trick-or-Treating! LOL



The writers hated him, the veterans hated him, so who's going to elect him?Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?381 HR's for a power hitter isn't going to get you into the Hall.



He was a great player for a period, just not long enough.

.Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?
I think Belle has better credentials than Carter, but because of his perceived attitude he doesn't have a chance. He was dominant, but like the other answer - this is where dominant + longevity plays a role. Others in this category include Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey,and someday Todd Helton.



So I don't think Belle makes it, but he does deserve careful consideration.
In a short career, it is generally not enough to be dominant for your era; you have to have a peak which puts you into the argument of all-time best.

For example, even in a short career, Sandy Koufax led the league in big pitching categories twice as much as an average HOF member.

Belle's numbers are good, but in a short career only being #59 on adjusted OPS doesn't help you (since the expectation would be that you would have gone down with age).



I think there is also some thought that his career was short because he didn't work enough in the off-season. I know, it was arthritis, but he might have been able to do more. Puckett got hit with a baseball and developed glaucoma.



Belle also isn't helped by his so-so fielding.



So, really good numbers for a short time but not amazingly good numbers. An okay fielder. A true asshole. Not much of a clubhouse guy. And even though one guy can't win it by himself (ask Ted Williams), he doesn't get any glow from winning one.



Anyway, I think dominant for a decade is pretty good, but Belle was really only at the very top of the league for about half that. And that half wasn't a peak for the ages.



Nope--don't put him in.Should Albert Belle be a Hall of Famer? If you use the criteria of being dominant for a decade, Belle?
The best comparison for Albert Belle is Jim Rice. But, Jim Rice wasn't a complete asshole and didn't use a corked bat. He also put up some numbers that nobody else could touch at a time when 30hrs was a big deal...and even he isn't in the hall...though he's come close. Rice's career was hampered by injuries as well, but he was dominant from '76-'86. Regardless, he wasn't the sportswriters best buddy, so he hasn't quite made it. Why sportswriters have a say is beyond me...they even admit to being bias toward media-friendly players.



The combination of Belle's massive attitude problem, corked bat usage, and the media's over-emphasis on longevity will doom his chances.
Impressive numbers to be sure. However there are two things going against him. One, he didn't play long enough and two, he was NOT media friendly. Just ask Jim Rice. Rice had better numbers and he's not in the hall.
His numbers would be dominant in any decade......but the 1990's. Averaging 37 homers in the steroid era isn't going to get you in the hall. I think Ozzie Smith hit 40+ twice in the 90's.