Berkman's biggest claim to fame is his slugging.

And yes, his career slugging % is 0.539 versus 0.480 for Beltre.

But some interesting observations if you dig deeper:

Beltre finished top 4 in slugging % 3 times. Berkman only did that 2 times.

Beltre finished top 5 in slugging % 4 times. Berkman only did that 3 times.

Quote:

---

Some career and a couple window looks. Just a quick slash line comparison, because again cumulative stats are just that. Cumulative.

Player A: .303/.401/.529 OPS+ 141
Player B .308/.356/.516 OPS+ 132
Player C .286/.338/.480 OPS+ 116
Player D .296/.406/.549 OPS+ 146
Player E .293/.406/.537 OPS+ 144

Who is who? And who is elite? Yes I know its not the full story, but it is a decent start. And one of those is definitely not like the others.

---

I'll add another one:

Player F: .284/.370/.538 OPS+ 136

How many of the players listed are better than Player F? Are players A, D and E more "elite" than player F?

If we're to use those basic stats to determine who is most "elite", at least as a starting point, then Players A, D and E are more elite than Player F.

That means, per these stats, Chipper Jones and Lance Berkman are more elite than Ken Griffey Jr.

So I happen to know who your Player F is. And that slash line perfectly represents what they are known for. And if that player had only played 12-14 seasons instead of the length of time they did, they would not be in the HOF today. Because they would not have the gaudy cumulative stats.

mathguy86 said:

---

So I happen to know who your Player F is. And that slash line perfectly represents what they are known for. And if that player had only played 12-14 seasons instead of the length of time they did, they would not be in the HOF today. Because they would not have the gaudy cumulative stats.

---

Had Griffey walked away after 14 years, he absolutely would have still been a HOFer. First ballot? No. But he was already at 468 HR, 1358 RBI, and had a slash line in SEA of .292/.374/.553 and OPS+ of 144. That's including his last 2 seasons of his career, which pulls those numbers down from his first 11 there.

Griffey would have been a HOFer after 14 years....no question about it. He was also an 11-time All-Star in his first 14 seasons and had 10 Gold Gloves.

This is the danger of using a slash line to determine whose more elite. It doesn't even really give a good starting point either, but even as you mentioned, it leaves out huge parts of the story.

Berkman's issue is that his career wasn't long enough. He wasn't a rookie until he was 24 and he was out of his prime by 36 and done at 37. He doesn't even have 2000 hits. He'll never make the HOF because milestones are held in such high esteem. But his prime is about as good as anyones.

From 2000-2011 here is how he ranks.
#3 WAR, 55.9 - behind A-Rod & Pujols
#5 wRC+, 147 - behind Pujols, Manny, Giambi, A-Rod
#10 SLUG, .548
#5 OBP, .410
#14 AVG, .297
#9 HR, 354
#8 Runs, 1097
#6 RBI, 1178
#16 PA, 7317 - just to prove he's not so high due to more PA in the counting stats.

To me, it isn't close. He's a top 5 player for over a decade. If he started earlier and stuck around a little longer I think more people would agree. Add 5 years to his career with something like .275/.385/.415/.800 with 135 hits, 20 HR, and 75 RBI and he'd hit 400 HR mark, 1600 RBI mark, 2500 Hit mark. He'd be a lock and likely a first ballot guy. But really we're talking about 5 additional below average years. How much should it matter?

I think a fair comparison is Santana. He only amassed only 139 wins & <2000 Ks, but his prime is as good as anyone's. 04-09 he won 2 Cy Youngs, 99 wins, 1.046 WHIP, & 2.86 ERA.

The most likely correct answer for Houston is


Through his first 6 years Altuve 1,046 hits, 199 SBs, 4 AS appearances, 3 SS, and 2 batting titles.

If you assume he stays in his prime (past 3 years) another 6 years (he's 26 currently) then it isn't difficult to project #s like this at 33 with the twilight of his career remaining.

2400 Hits
450 SB
800 RBI
1000 Runs

That might be HOF good already with an average of .320+.

Add in a few more counting years and he'll hit 3000 hits which basically locks you into the HOF.

aggie1906 said:

---

Berkman's issue is that his career wasn't long enough. He wasn't a rookie until he was 24 and he was out of his prime by 36 and done at 37. He doesn't even have 2000 hits. He'll never make the HOF because milestones are held in such high esteem. But his prime is about as good as anyones.

From 2000-2011 here is how he ranks.
#3 WAR, 55.9 - behind A-Rod & Pujols
#5 wRC+, 147 - behind Pujols, Manny, Giambi, A-Rod
#10 SLUG, .548
#5 OBP, .410
#14 AVG, .297
#9 HR, 354
#8 Runs, 1097
#6 RBI, 1178
#16 PA, 7317 - just to prove he's not so high due to more PA in the counting stats.

To me, it isn't close. He's a top 5 player for over a decade. If he started earlier and stuck around a little longer I think more people would agree. Add 5 years to his career with something like .275/.385/.415/.800 with 135 hits, 20 HR, and 75 RBI and he'd hit 400 HR mark, 1600 RBI mark, 2500 Hit mark. He'd be a lock and likely a first ballot guy. But really we're talking about 5 additional below average years. How much should it matter?

I think a fair comparison is Santana. He only amassed only 139 wins & <2000 Ks, but his prime is as good as anyone's. 04-09 he won 2 Cy Youngs, 99 wins, 1.046 WHIP, & 2.86 ERA.

---

And I wouldn't put Santana anywhere close to being a HOFer. Great run, sure, but HOF involves the ability to do it over long periods of time. Berkman was a great hitter, but not a HOFer. It's about the totality of the career, and sometimes those careers just aren't long enough. There are some that can overcome that....see Koufax. But you better be the elite of the elite to do that.

Quote:

---

But his prime is about as good as anyones.

From 2000-2011 here is how he ranks.
#3 WAR, 55.9 - behind A-Rod & Pujols

---

According to Baseball-Reference's WAR, this is not accurate.

And while according to Baseball.Reference he still has an impressive WAR in that period, he was top 10 among NL positional players just 4 times, and top 5 just once.

So while one says a lack of longevity hurt him, it was precisely a certain amount of longevity that makes him "top 5."

Quote:

---

I think a fair comparison is Santana. He only amassed only 139 wins & <2000 Ks, but his prime is as good as anyone's. 04-09 he won 2 Cy Youngs, 99 wins, 1.046 WHIP, & 2.86 ERA.

---

That is not a fair comparison.

Santana won 2 Cy Youngs. Berkman never won an MVP.

Santana finished top WHIP 4 straight years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Santana finished top ERA 3 times in 5 years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Santana finished top K 3 straight years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Etc.

You're not consistently applying "prime."

Santana is a guy who was/is hurt by a lack of longevity. His career was essentially about 8/9 seasons and over at age 31.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

But his prime is about as good as anyones.

From 2000-2011 here is how he ranks.
#3 WAR, 55.9 - behind A-Rod & Pujols

---

According to Baseball-Reference's WAR, this is not accurate.

And while according to Baseball.Reference he still has an impressive WAR in that period, he was top 10 among NL positional players just 4 times, and top 5 just once.

So while one says a lack of longevity hurt him, it was precisely a certain amount of longevity that makes him "top 5."

---

I used Fangraphs.

I had it filtered for 5000 PAs. Bonds was able to 61.9 WAR in only ~4000 PA. So Berkman would be 4th.

If we look at it at a WAR/Game measure Berkman comes out at 0.0298563065460351. I did a search from 1975 to 2016. That would put Berkman 24th ahead of names like Griffey, Manny, Beltran, Thome, Pudge, Gwynn, Raines, Jeter, Biggio, and several other huge names.

I think we all agree his lack of a long career will do him in, but for a short period, he was the elite of the elite and at a higher level than a lot of current HOFers.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think a fair comparison is Santana. He only amassed only 139 wins & <2000 Ks, but his prime is as good as anyone's. 04-09 he won 2 Cy Youngs, 99 wins, 1.046 WHIP, & 2.86 ERA.

---

That is not a fair comparison.

Santana won 2 Cy Youngs. Berkman never won an MVP.

Santana finished top WHIP 4 straight years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Santana finished top ERA 3 times in 5 years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Santana finished top K 3 straight years. Berkman has nothing comparable.

Etc.

You're not consistently applying "prime."

---

How am I not consistently applying prime?

Santana isn't the perfect comparison, but both were excellent for a short period of time and will likely miss the HOF. So maybe Santana was a 9/10 for 6 years while Berkman was a 7/10 for 9 years.

Led the NL in RBIs 2002 and was top 10 4 other years.
Top 7 for runs scored 3 years.
Top 9 in OPS for 7 years, including
Top 9 in OWAR for 6 years
Led in WPA in 2008 and was top 5 for 7 years

I would say these can be somewhat comparable. I'd argue WAR, OPS, WPA may be better statistics than WHIP & Ks.

Quote:

---

That would put Berkman 24th ahead of names like Griffey, Manny, Beltran, Thome, Pudge, Gwynn, Raines, Jeter, Biggio, and several other huge names.

---

This is the danger of relying so much on these advanced metrics and ignoring things like the eye test. In no universe would he even be considered in the same ballpark to a Griffey, Manny, Pudge, Gwynn, Jeter or even a Biggio.

Disagree. Berkman was a stud. Biggio is my all time favorite player of all time. I would still take Berkman's best handful of years over Biggio's, Jeter's, or Pudge's hands down.

aggie1906 said:

---

Disagree. Berkman was a stud. Biggio is my all time favorite player of all time. I would still take Berkman's best handful of years over Biggio's, Jeter's, or Pudge's hands down.

---

Are we talking only about hitting? Berkman was a great hitter, but we're talking about an entire career and we're talking about the all-around ballplayer. This is why simply looking at advanced metrics is shortsighted. You miss everything else a player brings to the game. Sure, Berkman may have been a better hitter than Pudge, but Pudge neutralized the opponent's running game for an entire generation, and is the greatest defensive catcher ever. Jeter had over 200 hits 8 times in his career, and was absolutely enormous when it mattered most.

But you're trying to compare players that filled entirely different roles on a team and at different positions. There's not a GM in baseball that would take Berkman over Pudge or Jeter.

What am I missing on Berkman? He was pretty good for about 8 or 9 years, and that's about it. I don't think he was ever a stud or elite. Finished in the top 10 in the NL in WAR just twice. Finished 3rd in MVP voting twice. Solid career, but nothing spectacular. I don't see it.

Basically from 2000 to 2009 at least 1, if not both, or the top 2 slots for MVP was Bonds or Pujols. That pretty much coincides with Berkman's prime so the fact he never won an MVP isn't that big of a deal to me.

His top 5 years for wRC+
164
163
161
158
156
Career 144

Seems pretty elite to me, but let us compare him to the last 2 HOF classes to see how he stacks up.

Bagwell (career 149)
205
173
166
163
162
He's no Bagwell, but then again, who is?

Raines (career 125)
149
149
148
141
139
Absolutely crushes Timmy.

Pudge (career 104)
149
134
128
125
125
Ouch. Not even a little close.

Piazza (career 140)
183
168
165
153
150
The greatest hitting catcher of all-time matches up evenly I would say.

Griffey (career 131)
164
163
154
148
144
Seems surprisingly low. Berkman > Griffey **ducks**

Quote:

---

Basically from 2000 to 2009 at least 1, if not both, or the top 2 slots for MVP was Bonds or Pujols. That pretty much coincides with Berkman's prime so the fact he never won an MVP isn't that big of a deal to me.

---

Ryan Braun, Joey Votto, Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard, and Jeff Kent won NL MVP's in the "prime" period you were using above.

He finished 3rd twice. Once was behind the Bonds/Pujols pairing. The other was when Ryan Howard won the MVP.

Quote:

---

How am I not consistently applying prime?

Santana isn't the perfect comparison, but both were excellent for a short period of time and will likely miss the HOF.

---

I think there is a difference between Santana who you could argue was the best in the game in his prime of about 6 years and Berkman, whose prime you defined as 12 years and he was never the best or even just "arguably" the best at any point in that period.

It seems a bit of a squirmy way to get around the criticism of Berkman, which is the Hall of Very Good argument.

Ok solid troll. You got me

2000-2011 is also a bit of a convenient historical period to pluck out.

He had a 55.9 WAR on Fangraphs in that period. 4th among hitters behind Pujols, Bonds, and A-Rod.

If you shift to 1999-2010, you add Chipper Jones and Scott Rolen who have a 12-year WAR higher than 55.9.

If you shift to 1998-2009, you add Andruw Jones, Derek Jeter, and Bobby Abreu who have a higher 12-year WAR than 55.9

2002-2013 and you can add Adrian Beltre and Chase Utley.

2003-2014 and you can add Miquel Cabrera.


And it gets muddled real quick about where Berkman stands in that "generation."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

2000-2011 is also a bit of a convenient historical period to pluck out.

He had a 55.9 WAR on Fangraphs in that period. 4th among hitters behind Pujols, Bonds, and A-Rod.

If you shift to 1999-2010, you add Chipper Jones and Scott Rolen who have a 12-year WAR higher than 55.9.

If you shift to 1998-2009, you add Andruw Jones, Derek Jeter, and Bobby Abreu who have a higher 12-year WAR than 55.9

2002-2013 and you can add Adrian Beltre and Chase Utley.

2003-2014 and you can add Miquel Cabrera.


And it gets muddled real quick about where Berkman stands in that "generation."

---

His WAR matches up pretty similarly to all of them. Of that group who won't be a HOFer? Jones and Rolen. The rest probably get in.

aggie1906 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

2000-2011 is also a bit of a convenient historical period to pluck out.

He had a 55.9 WAR on Fangraphs in that period. 4th among hitters behind Pujols, Bonds, and A-Rod.

If you shift to 1999-2010, you add Chipper Jones and Scott Rolen who have a 12-year WAR higher than 55.9.

If you shift to 1998-2009, you add Andruw Jones, Derek Jeter, and Bobby Abreu who have a higher 12-year WAR than 55.9

2002-2013 and you can add Adrian Beltre and Chase Utley.

2003-2014 and you can add Miquel Cabrera.


And it gets muddled real quick about where Berkman stands in that "generation."

---

His WAR matches up pretty similarly to all of them

---

Does it? Would like to see where he stacks up against those players.

aggie1906 said:

---

Basically from 2000 to 2009 at least 1, if not both, or the top 2 slots for MVP was Bonds or Pujols. That pretty much coincides with Berkman's prime so the fact he never won an MVP isn't that big of a deal to me.

His top 5 years for wRC+
164
163
161
158
156
Career 144

Seems pretty elite to me, but let us compare him to the last 2 HOF classes to see how he stacks up.

Bagwell (career 149)
205
173
166
163
162
He's no Bagwell, but then again, who is?

Raines (career 125)
149
149
148
141
139
Absolutely crushes Timmy.

Pudge (career 104)
149
134
128
125
125
Ouch. Not even a little close.

Piazza (career 140)
183
168
165
153
150
The greatest hitting catcher of all-time matches up evenly I would say.

Griffey (career 131)
164
163
154
148
144
Seems surprisingly low. Berkman > Griffey **ducks**

---

Once again, you ignore roles and positions. But, when you end w/ "Berkman > Griffey" I realized you're just trolling.

aggie1906 said:

---

Disagree. Berkman was a stud. Biggio is my all time favorite player of all time. I would still take Berkman's best handful of years over Biggio's, Jeter's, or Pudge's hands down.

---

Jeter's best two years, best five years, and best 7 years by WAR (WAR2, WAR5, WAR7) all exceed Berkman's.

Pudge and Biggio are ahead of him in WAR7 as well.

Berkman's peak wasn't better than these Hall of Famers "hands down", and in fact it wasn't better than their peaks at all.

PS The answer for my team is Mo Rivera