And of the fans in Texas, Beltre expressed his appreciation.

"They have supported me tremendously over the last eight years," Beltre said. "They still show up. It's hot, and they still show up. We sit in the stands for like 10 minutes when we take the team picture, and it's so hot, and you say: 'How do they do it?' But they do. I appreciate everything they have done and all the support."

You've been worth it, Adrian :)

Going by bbref, his defense has been (somehow) as strong as ever, but his offense has taken a nose-dive. I think he should come back next season if only so he can become the fifth person to hit a HR both as a teenager and as a 40+ year old player.

He was also the first player younger than me to appear in MLB. Before I know it, he'll probably be the first player younger than me in the HOF.

It would be cool to see him get to 500 HR, but looks like it would take him two more seasons to get there...

He's still looking up at Schmidt - but has he caught Brett/Boggs for the runner-up at 3B all-time? It's close...

I want him to become the first player in history who who both the youngest player in MLB at the start and the oldest when he stepped away.

I'd put him above Brett simply because the disparity of games played at 3B is overwhelming; Brett spent too much time DHing or playing 1B. Boggs is really a coin flip.

Was it known that he was the youngest when he was the youngest?

He's still looking up at Schmidt - but has he caught Brett/Boggs for the runner-up at 3B all-time? It's close...

I rate Boggs over Brett (and Chipper) primarily because of playing time at 3rd, so I've sorta got to stick to that when comparing Boggs to Belte. Beltre's got an extra 500 games at 3rd, and outside of his frist abbreviated season has never had a negative WAA.

My list:
Schmidt
Beltre
Boggs
Mathews (under Boggs because of time-lining)
Brett (over Jones because of his peak, and pretty much all negative WAA was as at 1B)
Jones

I'd add two more names to the list to find the #2 3B, Chipper Jones and Eddie Mathews.

Edit: need to hit refresh before posting

[6] His age was certainly a prominent issue.

Lasorda Says Many Players Sign Illegally
Dodgers: Daly defends former manager. Agent says team simply wanted Beltre that badly.
November 17, 1999|ROSS NEWHAN | [LA] TIMES STAFF WRITER

[...]


The commissioner's office is investigating a complaint by Beltre's agent, Scott Boras, that his client was signed by the Dodgers out of the Dominican Republic at 15 rather than the minimum age of 16 for foreign players not subject to the amateur draft. Boras has asked that Beltre be declared a free agent.

Link

It looks like Aramis Ramirez would have been considered younger than him when Adrian played his first game.

My list:
Schmidt
Beltre
Boggs
Mathews (under Boggs because of time-lining)
Brett (over Jones because of his peak, and pretty much all negative WAA was as at 1B)
Jones

I think this is pretty much how I'd rank them. I might flip Brett and Jones.

If he retires, it may be impossible for him to overtake Pujols in bWAR (which I know is a top-3 reason for him to sick around).

They're currently:
Pujols (38) - 99.8 bWAR (last two years: -1.4 bWAR)
Beltre (39) - 95.7 bWAR (last two years: 5.8 bWAR)

And, of course:
Pujols (21-29) - 73.8 bWAR
Beltre (19-29) - 41.3 bWAR

Going by bbref, his defense has been (somehow) as strong as ever, but his offense has taken a nose-dive

This is true by observation as well. Beltre's power is nearly gone. He can still make good contact, but that makes his success dependent on the vagaries of BAbip. And he has never been one to work the count and draw walks very much. Some guys can do that more as they get older, but he's probably wise not to try to turn himself into a TTO guy right now.

But at 3B, yes, he looks fine: reflexes, glove, arm. This is not all that surprising, because other genius-level 3B like Robinson, Nettles, Gaetti also looked pretty good with the glove at an advanced age. The trouble is that Beltre can't play 3B very much, because of minor injuries. And if he's called on to run full out, he is in danger of hurting a hamstring. Just sheer age :(

I want him to become the first player in history who who both the youngest player in MLB at the start and the oldest when he stepped away.

It also looks like he's one of the last two men standing from the '90s, unless I'm forgetting anyone. I'm pulling for him and Bartolo to make the four-decade list.

If he retires, it may be impossible for him to overtake Pujols in bWAR (which I know is a top-3 reason for him to sick around).

On the other hand, if Pujols sticks around, he could undertake Adrian.

My list:
Schmidt
Beltre
Boggs
Mathews (under Boggs because of time-lining)
Brett (over Jones because of his peak, and pretty much all negative WAA was as at 1B)
Jones

I don't think you can put Beltre above Boggs, simply because Boggs' peak was so much better.

At his best from 83-91 Boggs had 6344 PA, hit 345/436/473, for a 147 OPS+, 66 WAR 47 WAA.
Beltre best from 08-16 is 5472 PA, 301/351/501, for a 126 OPS+, 54 WAR, 35 WAA.

If you don't care about consecutive peak, the top 10 seasons rank by WAR.

Boggs 9.1, 8.4, 8.3, 8.3, 8.0, 7.8, 6.4, 6.3, 4.5, 4.3
Beltre 9.6, 7.8, 7.2, 6.7, 6.5, 5.9, 5.6, 5.6, 5.6, 5.4

6 MVP type seasons, vs 3 is a big difference.

To counter that, Beltre has a lead of only 4 WAR for his career, but two fewer WAA. You really have to care about volume to prefer Beltre.

If he retires, it may be impossible for him to overtake Pujols in bWAR (which I know is a top-3 reason for him to sick around).

They're currently:
Pujols (38) - 99.8 bWAR (last two years: -1.4 bWAR)
Beltre (39) - 95.7 bWAR (last two years: 5.8 bWAR)

I think you're underestimating what Pujols can do in the next 3 years he's under contract.

To counter that, Beltre has a lead of only 4 WAR for his career, but two fewer WAA. You really have to care about volume to prefer Beltre.

Eh, 2 WAA and 4 WAR is essentially within the margin of error. That's why I don't really see a material difference between Boggs and Beltre, although I'm open to arguments that Boggs' numbers should be timelined a bit.

Eh, 2 WAA and 4 WAR is essentially within the margin of error. That's why I don't really see a material difference between Boggs and Beltre,

Call it even. Boggs put up the same value in 1250 fewer PA, that makes him better. Plus 6 season of 8+ WAR. Not too many guys have done that. If career value is essentially equal, how can you not prefer the guy who did it in a shorter, peakier career?

And we're going to timeline the 1980s and 1990s? That's ridiculous.

And we're going to timeline the 1980s and 1990s? That's ridiculous.

Why? The level of play is constantly improving, so why not account for it? I don't think it'd move the needle much with regard to Boggs vs. Beltre, but it's always worth considering.

And we're going to timeline the 1980s and 1990s? That's ridiculous

.

The 80's were 30 years ago. Of course it should be timelined. The quality of play and overall fitness levels have improved considerably since those days.

The 80's were 30 years ago. Of course it should be timelined. The quality of play and overall fitness levels have improved considerably since those days.

And if you don't believe this, go back and watch footage of a game from the mid-'80s. The differences in player physique and mechanics are striking.

And if you don't believe this, go back and watch footage of a game from the mid-'80s. The differences in player physique and mechanics are striking.

So what? A rising tide like fitness lifts all boats. Dinging old-time players because they didn't know about workout regimens is like dinging them because they had smaller glove. If they were playing today, they'd work out too.

The only timelining argument that make sense are around the player pool expanding, e.g. pre-integration. But given the declining birth rate in the U.S., and the rising popularity of other sports among youth, I don't think it's at all clear that baseball is drawing from a larger talent pool today than in 1980, when you were at peak baby boom in terms of player ages.

And as the Dominican Republic clearly shows, enthusiasm for the sport is as important as population. We're at least 50 years past peak enthusiasm for baseball in the U.S.

I completely disagree.

"Dinging" a player in either case is the same thing. The environment is the environment.

A rising tide like fitness lifts all boats.

The crew of the S.S. Bartolo begs to differ.

The environment is the environment.

That's an argument against time lining. In their respective environments the old time great were more dominant than current greats.

The whole point of time lining is to put everybody in a neutral context.

That's an argument against time lining. In their respective environments the old time great were more dominant than current greats.

I don't care about "in their respective environments" though because older environments were crap. If I take a grade 4 math test and get 100% while a bunch of kids average 75% that is not more impressive than someone getting 70% on the worlds hardest math test when their contemporaries average 67%.

All players are a product of their environemnt. Talking about "Babe Ruth if he were born in 1994" is a meaningless thing because then he wouldn't be Babe Ruth; you are slipping into a weird dimension of genetic hypotheticals that is of no interest to me.

The players today are better across the board, so Mike Trout's achievements relative to much stronger contemporaries makes him significantly more impressive than someone dominating the game 40 years ago when his competition would show up to spring training with beer bellies.

Clearly there are two ways to look at this - the "time machine" hypothetical and the "raised with modern nutrition etc" hypothetical - we should all know this, having seen this debate dozens of times - and should be aware enough at this point to declare allegiance to one or another before starting these huffy arguments.

It's useful to remember that the general pattern of "the evolution of a talent distribution" is not that the top end gets substantially better but that the average gets substantially better, leading to a tighter distribution. I doubt that Trout is substantially "fitter" or better overall than prime Mays, Mantle, Banks ... or Bobby Bonds or Cesar Cedeno or the young Andre Dawson (or Ruth). Beyond the obvious trends in strikeouts and the jump 25 years ago in on-contact production, it seems to me the major change in the distribution is the Javy Baezes. I just noticed that Torres, Didi and Andujar all have ISOs over 200 -- that's what we've never seen before.

Of course that also argues that what Trout has done in relative comparison is that much more impressive in some theoretical absolute comparison. But, as good as he's been, Trout's relative batting rates still don't comp to Ruth's. Trout has a 175 career OPS+ so far compared to Ruth's 206; for ages 23-26, it's 182 vs 231. I think we all agree that a time-lined Ruth would never be able to put up those same gaudy OPS+ numbers due to improved competition but he's got a big cushion before he becomes a worse relative hitter than Trout.

To put it another way, I don't think that JD Martinez is nearly as good (in an absolute sense) as Ruth, Mays, Mantle, etc. I'm not convinced that Trout (or Betts or Soto or whoever) is substantially better (or even better at all) than those guys were. But I am 100% convinced that Javy Baez is a bejillion times stronger than Don Kessinger and Rabbit Maranville.

If career value is essentially equal, how can you not prefer the guy who did it in a shorter, peakier career?

Because we are assessing which individual player was "better."

In Boggs v Beltre, it's all trivial as the career difference is just 2000 PA or about 3 full seasons. And Beltre has a weird career pattern. Still, Boggs career is 91 WAR. From ages 23-39, Beltre put up 87 WAR in 83 more PA than Boggs' career. That's a difference of only 4 WAR over a total of 16 seasons, you couldn't get more trivial. Then Beltre adds 8 WAR over those 3 seasons' worth of extra PAs (in this case at young ages when Boggs wasn't ML quality).

The question is better asked as "why would you prefer a 4 WAR difference spread over 16 seasons over an 8 WAR difference spread over 3-4 seasons?" Beltre was much better than Boggs at young ages and essentially equally valuable for the other 16 seasons. By WAR/WAA, Beltre was the (slightly) better player.

We can make that comparison more dramatic. In his top 8 WAR seasons, Boggs put up 62.6 WAR, 46 WAA in about 5550 PA. That leaves him with 29 WAR, 11 WAA in his other 4500 PA.

In his top 8 seasons, Beltre had 55 WAR, 37 WAA in about 5050 PA. His next 9 best seasons totaled about 37 WAR, 18 WAA in about 5250 PA. That leaves him with 5 WAR, -0.5 WAA in about 1800 PA.

So Boggs was 7-8 wins better in the top 8 years, Beltre was 7-8 wins better in the 8-9 non-top years, then Beltre adds 5 WAR when Boggs wasn't playing in the majors.

Why are 8 wins in period 1 worth more than 8 wins in period 2? And why in the world would we consider those 8 wins in period 1 to be "better" than 8 wins in period 2 plus those extra 5 wins?

As I noted, this comp is pretty "extreme" in that the differences in WAR and playing time (and therefore WAA) are all trivial. But contrary to our popular conception, when you see two players with equal WAR but unequal WAA, what you are usually comparing is a player with a relatively small edge over (say) 10 years with a player who was much more valuable over another 5 years (because player #1 wasn't playing at all). From a value perspective, it's far from clear why (say) a 10-WAR gap over 10 years is more valuable than a 10-WAR gap over 5 years, especially in answering the question "which individual player was more valuable?"** Even in trying to answer the question of "which player was better?" it's not clear why being (say) a 6-WAR player vs a 5-WAR player over 10 years is a big enough gap in quality to offset being sufficiently durable to be a 2-WAR player vs a non-playing player for an additional 5 years. That's preferring a small difference over a long period of time vs. a big difference over a small period of time -- the exact opposite of what the "peak" argument is supposed to be.

No doubt we could come up with extreme cases, whether they be hypothetical or the occasional real one. Maybe 10 years of 5 WAR each is both better and more valuable than 20 years of 2.5 WAR each. That's a big, potentially highly important difference during the peak that possibly isn't balanced off by an additional 10 years of average-ish play.

** The main argument is that the peak player would (on average) be replaced by an average player for those extra 5 years. But there's obviously no reason to credit the peak player with those wins that he didn't produce vs. the wins the career player actually did produce. The question isn't which "team" did better over those 15 years, it's which player was better. Add in that we are talking about a hypothetical team in the case of the peak player and it becomes even more tenuous.

The other argument is "pennants added" during the peak but the pennants added by a 6-WAR player relative to a 5-WAR player is trivial ... and of course purely hypothetical.

But, as good as he's been, Trout's relative batting rates still don't comp to Ruth's. Trout has a 175 career OPS+ so far compared to Ruth's 206; for ages 23-26, it's 182 vs 231.

That seems to understate the difference in dominance between them relative to their competition. I'd bet that Ruth was like 4 standard deviations from the mean where Trout may be 3, i.e., best all time versus best in a typical season.

Beltre was much better than Boggs at young ages...

?? Beltre only became a great player in his 30's (that one fluke season early on nonwithstanding)...

I think he meant, like, age 19, 20.

Why are 8 wins in period 1 worth more than 8 wins in period 2? And why in the world would we consider those 8 wins in period 1 to be "better" than 8 wins in period 2 plus those extra 5 wins?

First, I didn't say definitively that Boggs was better, just that you can't say Beltre was better. But, for the HoF, if you have to pick, pick the guy with the higher peak, and the higher WAA.

Second, 8 WAR over 3 extra years does of PT does nothing much to add to a HoF case, while an extra 8 WAR in your prime adds a tremendous amount. There's no amount of average play that can get you into the HoF.

If you had 2 players with the following WAR distribution: A - 8 WAR per season for 10 years, B - 4 WAR per season for 20 years, we'd say A was indisputably better. He has much more value to a team, shown by his far greater WAA.

Clearly there are two ways to look at this - the "time machine" hypothetical and the "raised with modern nutrition etc" hypothetical - we should all know this, having seen this debate dozens of times - and should be aware enough at this point to declare allegiance to one or another before starting these huffy arguments.

Correct.

I'm always using the "born at the same time hypothetical", because the time machine hypothetical is frankly stupid. It's like comparing Alexander the Great to Tommy Franks as generals, and saying Franks was clearly better because his army would beat Alexander's.

The only hypothetical that makes sense is how good would the players be if they had played in the same environment

But I am 100% convinced that Javy Baez is a bejillion times stronger than Don Kessinger and Rabbit Maranville.

Sure, but he's not any stronger than Joe Morgan or Ryne Sandberg or Rico Petrocelli or Vern Stephens or Ernie Banks or many other middle infielders of the past. There are more of those guys around today, power hitters who can play in the middle infield, but it's not like they never existed before. Rogers Hornsby, man.

Meanwhile, we don't have any really good-hitting catchers around now. No Johnny Benches or Yogi Berras or Gary Carters or even Jorge Posadas. With Buster Posey down and possibly out, the best-hitting catcher in the game is JT Realmuto, who is nobody's idea of a superstar. Unless I missed something, there isn't a single regular catcher in the AL with an OPS+ over 100. I think these things just come and go sometimes.

Bryce Harper should've stayed behind the plate.

Meanwhile, Beltre has looked kind of futile in these last two games against Tampa Bay (and the Rangers haven't scored in 21 innings!)

On Monday night, down 3-0 with two outs in the ninth, Beltre drew a walk. But then Jeff Banister didn't pinch-run for him. What was he thinking? It's September, there's eight or ten call-ups who can do nothing but run bases. Was Banister assuming the Rangers would score exactly three runs, and he'd need Beltre on defense in the 10th? If the next guy up had hit one to the gap, Beltre would have pulled a hamstring, or at best stopped way short of where a healthy runner could have.

Fortunately the next guy struck out :)

Come on BDC, Beltre's run "doesn't matter" in that scenario. The two batters behind him also need to score, so the odds that Beltre's speed will come into play are fairly low.

I guess it's an OK move if Beltre was clearly instructed to jog to second base on anything but a home run. But he tends to run flat-out at the start, and think about his hamstring only after he pulls it.

To be fair, I never think about Adrian Beltre's hamstrings until after he's pulled one either.

Touching moment at the game yesterday. Adrian started the day at third, then before the sixth inning Odor came out to play the field in his place, allowing Beltre to take the slow walk back and soak in the standing ovation. Seems like a moment befitting of somebody that has made the decision to retire, although I hope he comes back. His last two plate appearances at home were strikeouts, and I know he wouldn't it to be that way.

Clearly there are two ways to look at this - the "time machine" hypothetical and the "raised with modern nutrition etc" hypothetical - we should all know this, having seen this debate dozens of times - and should be aware enough at this point to declare allegiance to one or another before starting these huffy arguments.

This is... kind of true? (Fair warning, I'm gonna ramble about timelining for a minute here.)

To me, there are two separate aspects of timelining that get unfairly conflated into one argument. I'll phrase them as two questions to ask about baseball as it existed at any particular time.

1. How good was the 100th best baseball player in the world in (say) 1918, as compared to 2018?
2. How many of the 100 best baseball players in the world in (say) 1918 were in the major leagues, as compared to 2018?

The focus is usually placed on question 1, which is... maybe not quite unanswerable, but close enough in my opinion. (Players are a product of their environment; if you put Aaron Judge in 1918, maybe he's Babe Ruth or maybe he can't hit home runs with the dead ball or maybe he's somewhere in between. Or maybe he tries to adapt to the dead ball style, and succeeds or fails. But we can't put Aaron Judge in 1918, so I honestly don't care.)

Question 2 seems far more important, to my mind. Babe Ruth dominated his competition far more than any modern player has (insert Bonds discussion here), but he was able to do so at least in part because his competition was limited by segregation and partially independent minor leagues. This strikes me as being an issue that actually could be studied with at least some semblance of rigor; my approach would be to adjust the replacement level upward for years in which the level of competition was demonstrably lower (because the worst players in the majors in 1918 are the ones who would be displaced by minorities and/or minor leaguers in the modern system).

Applied to Boggs vs. Beltre specifically, by the time Boggs came up the major leagues had already been integrated for over 30 years and the minor leagues had been totally repurposed toward getting the best players into the majors, so I wouldn't make much if any timeline adjustment between the two. (Although, speaking of minor leagues, Boggs didn't debut until he was 24; he repeated AA after posting a .400 OBP, then repeated AAA after posting a .396 OBP, so you could argue he should have been in the majors at least a year earlier than he was, and credit accordingly if you are inclined to do so. Certainly nothing about his rookie year, 3.9 WAR in 104 games, suggests that he wouldn't have been ready before.)

On a separate note, Beltre is one of my favorite non-Cubs of all time, and I got to see both his 300th (and 301st) home run and his 2999th hit in person (plus a couple of missed opportunities for #3000), which is pretty good for someone who usually makes it to one Rangers game per year. He has been both a great player and a distinctive one; I can immediately summon the image of him appealing to the first base umpire on a checked swing (as a hitter), or... let's just say "reacting" when someone touches his head.

I would love to see him come back, because he is in striking range of the record for the most games played at third base -- 112 behind Brooks.

Also, it may be a last hurrah kind of thing, or it may be that his legs are finally feeling better again, but the last week he has been hitting better.

As to Boggs, I think he that, at the very worst, he is obviously a top-5 overall third baseman, but I have always thought that the advanced metrics may have slightly overrated him. I think his walks, as a practical matter, were less valuable due to his slowness afoot, and I don't know that the metrics really captured that.

The 80's were 30 years ago. Of course it should be timelined. The quality of play and overall fitness levels have improved considerably since those days.

Yet I don't see Beltre or any other current player being able to drink 64 beers on a cross country flight.

Yet I don't see Beltre or any other current player being able to drink 64 beers on a cross country flight.

"Hold my beer. No, wait, give it back." --Matt Harvey