Laurila on Beltre, Nettles and Brooks

[Frobby]

From Fangraphs’ David Laurila:

Should Nettles be in the Hall of Fame? His accolades and accomplishments include 390 home runs, six All-Star berths, two Gold Gloves — he’d have won more were it not for Brooks Robinson— and a pair of World Series rings. All told, he played in five Fall Classics. Back when Jay Jaffe was writing for Sports Illustrated, my esteemed colleague tabbed Nettles as the most-overlooked player at his position when it comes to Hall of Fame worthiness.

Meanwhile, was Beltré better than Robinson? A clear majority of the people who voted in a Twitter poll I ran yesterday feel that he was. Of the 337 people who weighed in, 61.7% opted for Beltré, while only 38.3% sided with the legendary Baltimore Orioles Hall of Famer.

This is a case of “better” and “most historic” having different meanings.

Beltré has the edge in both JAWS (71.1 to 62.1) and WAR (84.1 to 80.2). Robinson had 15 All-Star seasons, was awarded 16 Gold Gloves, and captured an MVP award. He was also a stalwart on four Baltimore World Series teams, two of which took home a title. As great as he was, Beltré can’t come close to matching those bona fides.

Consider me in Robinson’s corner.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-lets-look-at-adrian-beltre-brooks-robinson-and-graig-nettles/

Sorry, Cal.

 

[Moose Milligan]

I'm assuming most people on Twitter haven't seen Brooks or don't know much about him.  Beltre wins due to recency bias.

 

 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm assuming most people on Twitter haven't seen Brooks or don't know much about him.  Beltre wins due to recency bias.

 

 

He was certainly the better hitter (116 OPS+ vs. 105).    Brooks had a few excellent years with the bat but overall was pretty average there.   For me his glove was clearly one of a kind, with Beltre at the top of the next tier.   

[InsideCoroner]

Considering that the HOF has evolved from inducting only the best players to also admitting some very, very good players, I think Nettles probably deserves it by today’s standards. You can certainly make a more compelling case for Nettles than you could for Harold Baines… or Lee Smith. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, InsideCoroner said:

Considering that the HOF has evolved from inducting only the best players to also admitting some very, very good players, I think Nettles probably deserves it by today’s standards. You can certainly make a more compelling case for Nettles than you could for Harold Baines… or Lee Smith. 

I think the Hall of Fame has almost from inception voted in some guys who weren’t at the very top.  I mean, Rabbit Maranville’s been in there since 1954.   

[Oriole1940]

Brooks was second to none for his superior ability  play in very clutch situations.  All three had the prowess to turn their abilities into overdrive when needed to help their team.  Brooks would have ranked higher in hitting, but his first few years in the league as I recall were not as good as the last few.  He made himself a better hitter as time passed which is not the easiest thing to do at the major league level. A managers dream to have any of the 3 play 3rd base for you.  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

What hurt Nettles the most in not making the HOF is he wasn't a regular starting player until his age 25 season. Plus his career batting average of .248 in an era where batting average mattered a whole lot more. 

If Nettles becomes a starting player earlier he likely hits 450+ home runs and is in the HOF. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, InsideCoroner said:

Considering that the HOF has evolved from inducting only the best players to also admitting some very, very good players, I think Nettles probably deserves it by today’s standards. You can certainly make a more compelling case for Nettles than you could for Harold Baines… or Lee Smith. 

That transition happened circa 1945.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think the Hall of Fame has almost from inception voted in some guys who weren’t at the very top.  I mean, Rabbit Maranville’s been in there since 1954.   

Tommy McCarthy (career WAR lower than Matt Wieters) got in in 1946.  I guess he's in because someone told a story that he invented the hit-and-run, which probably isn't true.  Hughie Jennings was awesome for just about five years and was inducted in '45.  Hugh Duffy was almost as good as Jim Rice, he also went in in '45.  Same with Jimmy Collins, who the oldtimers thought a lot of but might not be better than Manny Machado if Manny retired today.  Tinker/Evers/Chance were part of a great team, but aren't anything like inner circle guys, they all went in as a group in '46.

Maranville was about on par with most of the guys I mentioned above.

Yes, they still induct a Harold Baines or a Lee Smith sometimes today.  But the standards for players born after maybe 1960 is much higher than before.  Someone like Miguel Tejada... zero chance he's inducted in the next 10-20 years, but he's better than 5-6 SS's in the Hall.  I could make a case that Kenny Lofton is better than a dozen enshrined CFers, Jim Edmonds was almost that good.  Try to make a straight-faced argument for Hack Wilson over Dale Murphy or Fred Lynn or Andruw Jones.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

From Fangraphs’ David Laurila:

Should Nettles be in the Hall of Fame? His accolades and accomplishments include 390 home runs, six All-Star berths, two Gold Gloves — he’d have won more were it not for Brooks Robinson— and a pair of World Series rings. All told, he played in five Fall Classics. Back when Jay Jaffe was writing for Sports Illustrated, my esteemed colleague tabbed Nettles as the most-overlooked player at his position when it comes to Hall of Fame worthiness.

Meanwhile, was Beltré better than Robinson? A clear majority of the people who voted in a Twitter poll I ran yesterday feel that he was. Of the 337 people who weighed in, 61.7% opted for Beltré, while only 38.3% sided with the legendary Baltimore Orioles Hall of Famer.

This is a case of “better” and “most historic” having different meanings.

Beltré has the edge in both JAWS (71.1 to 62.1) and WAR (84.1 to 80.2). Robinson had 15 All-Star seasons, was awarded 16 Gold Gloves, and captured an MVP award. He was also a stalwart on four Baltimore World Series teams, two of which took home a title. As great as he was, Beltré can’t come close to matching those bona fides.

Consider me in Robinson’s corner.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-lets-look-at-adrian-beltre-brooks-robinson-and-graig-nettles/

Sorry, Cal.

 

There is certainly some recency bias with Beltre vs. Brooks.  But Brooks' case is hurt a bit by having about seven seasons where he wasn't very good.  The Orioles started calling him up at 18, and he wasn't anything like a HOF-caliber player until 23.  Then his age 38-40 seasons he hit .201 with a .539 OPS. 

Beltre actually had more career PAs than Brooks, and was at least reasonably productive almost his entire career.

Of course I love Brooksie, but it's hard to make an objective case that he's better than Beltre.

[Pickles]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is certainly some recency bias with Beltre vs. Brooks.  But Brooks' case is hurt a bit by having about seven seasons where he wasn't very good.  The Orioles started calling him up at 18, and he wasn't anything like a HOF-caliber player until 23.  Then his age 38-40 seasons he hit .201 with a .539 OPS. 

Beltre actually had more career PAs than Brooks, and was at least reasonably productive almost his entire career.

Of course I love Brooksie, but it's hard to make an objective case that he's better than Beltre.

I think you can make a pretty solid case that he had a better prime.

[sevastras]

I think all HOFers should be judged against the competition they played against. Barry Bonds deserves to be in more than David Ortiz but Ortiz was way more like able and somehow that enables writers to ignore the clear signs of PED use when Bonds had zero positive tests. 
Beltre was better than Brooks, but Brooks was far better than any other third baseman during the majority of his career. Beltre wasn’t that far and above his peers. 

[Yossarian]

If Dale Murphy can't get in, there is no way Craig Nettles deserves to get in.  Granted, Murphy didn't play third base, but you should expect more offensive prosuction from a third baseman.

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, Yossarian said:

If Dale Murphy can't get in, there is no way Craig Nettles deserves to get in.  Granted, Murphy didn't play third base, but you should expect more offensive prosuction from a third baseman.

Craig Nettles: 67.9 rWAR

Dale Murphy: 46.5 rWAR

Nettles had a borderline HOF career.   Murphy had a very good 9-year run, but his other 9 years he was basically replacement level.   

[DrungoHazewood]

6 hours ago, sevastras said:

I think all HOFers should be judged against the competition they played against. Barry Bonds deserves to be in more than David Ortiz but Ortiz was way more like able and somehow that enables writers to ignore the clear signs of PED use when Bonds had zero positive tests. 
Beltre was better than Brooks, but Brooks was far better than any other third baseman during the majority of his career. Beltre wasn’t that far and above his peers. 

Best seven years of rWAR:

Brooks - 45.8
Santo - 53.8
Nettles - 42.4
Ken Boyer - 46.3
Buddy Bell - 40.5
Bando - 44.4
Dick Allen - 45.9

Beltre - 48.7