Wizblog

Belle For Baseball HOF?

This guy makes a pretty persuasive case that Albert Belle belongs in Cooperstown. I know there was no more dangerous hitter in the game from about 1994-1996. I personally attended at least ten games in that three year stretch at Jacobs Field that he won with home runs in the Indians' last at bat. And I'm also aware that being a complete asshole is not a disqualifier for election to the Hall of Fame. And since the Hall of Fame has now become a place that elects not only players who were great, but also players who were simply good, but for a very long time, I say why not elect a guy who was truly great just for a while. Even a jerk like Albert Belle.

And here's another article I saw today about a former Cleveland Indian. He's not going to make anyone forget Bo Jackson, but he's a two-sport star now. (via Ben Maller Rumors and Notes)

UPDATE 1/6: Jim Caple throws out the same question in the Albert Belle debate with his column on Koufax vs. Blyleven.

Who do you pick? The Hall of Fame pitcher who had three 25-win seasons, threw four no-hitters and won three Cy Young awards in a four-year span, but who only won a dozen games six times and was done by age 31? Or the non-Hall of Famer who won 20 games only once and never won a Cy Young award, but who won at least 14 games a dozen times, was still pitching at age 42 and finished with 122 more wins than Koufax?

Do you pick a short span of greatness or a long career of good, solid performances? Do you want the spectacular pitcher, knowing you'll have to find someone else to replace him soon? Or do you go for the guy you can build a rotation around for two decades? The pitcher who may put your team over the top right now? Or the pitcher who will help keep your team near the top for years to come?

Basically, I'm asking whether six great seasons (and Koufax was great for only six years and mediocre the rest of his career) are worth more than 15 good years (which is essentially what Blyleven had). It isn't an easy question.