Yes or no?

Not even a question.

 

He should be 1st-ballot, but will probably have to wait a year or two, but he's definitely in.

 

He'll be around 3,200 hits, 500 HRs, 1,700 RBI, 1,500+ Runs scored, a career average close to .290 and an OBP of ~.340.

 

He's got a career WAR of 89.3, which will increase to over 90 by the time he's done. That's good enough for top 30 of all-time.

 

He's won 4 GG, 4 SS, and finished in the top 10 4 times in MVP voting, including a 2nd and 3rd place finish.

Yes. Although he was never considered the best player in the league, never won an MVP, he's been remarkably consistent for a long period of time...really his whole career. He kind of fits into the compiler category, but he's never had a bad year, and he will end with very impressive numbers.

Consistent compiler v. shining star and needs to be rewarded for that.

 

#s aren't even close. Perception is probably 50/50.

Wow...my first instinct was to say no. Now I'm not really a big baseball fan and really have fallen off the wagon the past 4-5 years and can name very few current players. But, after seeing his stats, I had no idea we had compiled those kind of career numbers. Yes, I say HOF.

my rule of thumb is this: If I have to question it for more than 5 seconds, then they're not Hall worthy.

 

When i look at Beltre's numbers, I don't need that long. He should be in.

Alright thread starter, let's hear your thoughts @Clyde

Not even a question.

 

He should be 1st-ballot, but will probably have to wait a year or two, but he's definitely in.

 

He'll be around 3,200 hits, 500 HRs, 1,700 RBI, 1,500+ Runs scored, a career average close to .290 and an OBP of ~.340.

 

He's got a career WAR of 89.3, which will increase to over 90 by the time he's done. That's good enough for top 30 of all-time.

 

He's won 4 GG, 4 SS, and finished in the top 10 4 times in MVP voting, including a 2nd and 3rd place finish.

 

If I voted before seeing your post I would have said no. Like many others, I didn't realize he had that solid of a career.

Alright thread starter, let's hear your thoughts @Clyde

 

 

In.

 

I posed the question because of somethings I saw on Twitter where someone felt he had to stare the case for doubters.

I gotta hear the reasoning behind the "No" crowd's stance.

 

If Beltre isn't a Hall of Famer, I honestly don't know who is.

I gotta hear the reasoning behind the "No" crowd's stance.

 

If Beltre isn't a Hall of Famer, I honestly don't know who is.

 

My guess is it's the "accumulator of stats" vs being one of the elite.

 

My criteria for HOF is elite. IMO you can be really good with a lot of great stats due to longevity and not be elite.

 

Add in that stats today are not equivalent to stats of yesterday and it gives wiggle room for the argument.

My guess is it's the "accumulator of stats" vs being one of the elite.

 

My criteria for HOF is elite. IMO you can be really good with a lot of great stats due to longevity and not be elite.

 

Add in that stats today are not equivalent to stats of yesterday.

 

I don't buy for a second the bolded.

I don't buy for a second the bolded.

 

So you think Bob Gibson could have a 1.12 ERA today?

So you think Bob Gibson could have a 1.12 ERA today?

 

Allow me to clarify:

 

If you're saying the competition is stiffer today than it was back in the "old school days", I'll agree 100%.

 

If you're saying the guys back in the day would dominate today's game, not a chance.

Allow me to clarify:

 

If you're saying the competition is stiffer today than it was back in the "old school days", I'll agree 100%.

 

If you're saying the guys back in the day would dominate today's game, not a chance.

 

Former. I'm saying guys that have big stats today would not have had the same big stats then. So we have to look at stats only as they pertain to the generation they were accumulated in.