I never really gave it much thought until now. Albert Belle is a Hall of Famer, period. I didn't even think there was a debate. But when the question was brought up this year, it being the first year of Belle's eligibility for induction, I had to re-examine my dogmatic pro-Albert Belle sensibilities. Now, having looked at all the facts, I have to say…I'm even more convinced. Albert Belle is a Hall of Famer.
I've heard all the evidence to the contrary-that he didn't play long enough (utter crap), that he was just one of dozens of players putting up big numbers in the juiced ball era (complete and utter crap) and that he was such a cancer, he shouldn't get elected regardless of his stats (steaming pile of crap).
I guess it doesn't matter, then, that Belle's career OPS (.933) was higher than Hank Aaron's. Or that his career slugging percentage (.564) was also higher than that Aaron's, not to mention Willie Mays', Mickey Mantle's and Stan Musial's.
Of course, the counterargument to that is that Belle was merely a product of generation. Fair enough. In that case, his OPS is higher than that of Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez and Gary Sheffield, and his slugging was better than Ken Griffey Jr.'s, Gonzalez's, Mike Piazza's, Sosa's, Sheffield's and Jeff Bagwell's, all of whom will probably, if not definitely, be elected to the Hall.
I haven't even gotten started. The man won three RBI titles (two-time A.L. MVP Frank Thomas didn't even do it once), finished in the top-four in RBI six times and led the league in total bases three times. And, oh yeah, he was the first player in major league history to hit 50 homers and 50 doubles in the same season-and did so in the 1995 season that was shortened by 18 games.
But enough with the stats. In fact, I don't even usually like stats. I'm sick of stats and only used them in this context because I think it's pretty telling that his numbers compare to some of the greatest hitters to ever play the game, not to mention his own generation.
The fact is he was a better run-producer than Mark McGwire, who is an almost shoo-in for future induction despite the Congressional debacle. For a solid decade, he was an absolute terror, one of the most dominant hitters in the game who hit for average and drove in a ridiculous amount of runs. For nine straight years, he was an RBI machine, and there would have been more had injuries not forced him to retire prematurely at the age of 34.
Throughout the '90s, he was one of the most imposing forces in sports-five or six of his seasons were downright Pujols-esque. Of course, Pujols is a nice guy and everyone likes him, and he doesn't throw raw eggs at trick-or-treating little children. Belle, on the other hand, was a thoroughly unlikable curmudgeon. Few, if any, teammates enjoyed his company. He was a controversial figure, no stranger to league-mandated suspensions and the bane of every local sportswriter's post-game routine. And that seems to be the biggest knock against him.
Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan wrote an interesting piece on Belle just last week, reporting that in his first year on the ballot, Belle received just 7.7 percent of the votes, nearly enough to be taken off the ballot forever.
Ryan himself argued that Belle cast a "negative aura" on clubhouses. I don't doubt that, but come on-that's no reason. The Indians also built a title contender and got to a World Series on Albert Belle's back. The reason they didn't win it all was because they didn't have the pitching-not because Belle was a sourpuss.
The real reason so many voters left him off their ballots is simple: They just don't like him. In a column in The Chicago Tribune, Teddy Greenstein wrote, "He got only 40 votes, or one for every 10 that Bruce Sutter received. So why do I still believe that Albert Belle got way more Hall of Fame support than he deserved? Because I covered him in 1998 when he played for the White Sox."
Huh? Excuse me?! Do you see what's going on here? I'm sorry, but Hall-of-Fame voting is no place for personal vendettas. Frankly, it's an abuse of power. Ryan also left Belle off, writing, "As far as I'm concerned, he and Pete Rose can form their own Hall of Shame."
Right, because gambling on baseball, defrauding and defacing the game for years on end is the same thing as being grumpy and irritable.
The whole thing is completely irrational-people are open, even proud, of the fact that they're voting against him solely on the basis of character. It's their childish little way of sticking it to him.
Daddy, Albert was mean to me and now he won't even talk to me! I was about to give him something really cool, but now I'm not gonna!
Of course, when it comes down to the actual logistics of Belle's potential induction, people argue about his lack of longevity, which is flat-out bull. In his 12 seasons in the big leagues, Sandy Koufax was only great for five years. That's it; you can look up the numbers yourself. The rest of his career, he was an average pitcher. So don't give me this "he didn't play long enough" crap.
Over in the NFL, Jim Brown and Dick Butkus only played nine seasons apiece, and Gale Sayers only played seven. Now, I'm not saying he had that type of impact. What I will say is that if there were another player with Belle's numbers, who had the same kind of impact Belle had on the game for 10 years, only he was cordial and fun-loving and polite, there would be hardly an argument.
No matter what people want to say, Belle wasn't merely a part of his generation-he was one of the defining players of his generation and one of the most productive. Of his nine 100-RBI seasons (just as many as Sammy Sosa, by the way, in five fewer seasons), his lowest total was 101-and that was during the 1994 strike-shortened season, and he did it in 106 games.
Albert Belle was an absolutely terrifying player on a day-to-day basis, one of the few players you could never underestimate. Just ask any pitcher who ever faced him.
c.bellamy@chronicle.utah.edu
