Baseball Hall of Fame

[Ksyrup]

Since the results will be announced this afternoon, I thought I'd throw out my predictions for who will be elected and who should be elected, but probably won't.

I think only Molitor and Eckersley will make it this year, both as first-timers. However, I think the following guys should be voted in:

Ryne Sandberg
Alan Trammell
Goose Gossage
Bert Blyleven
Jack Morris

I'm on the fence about a few more, like Bruce Sutter (should probably go in for historic reasons as one of the first closers, although he was not as good as Gossage was), Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, etc...

Jayson Stark did a great piece last year (he looks much better now that he's shaved off the Wannestadt mustache, btw) on the 80's guys who are being left out because no one remembers when (a) hitters didn't put up huge numbers and (b) pitchers threw 250+ innings year in and year out. IMO, the candidacies of guys like Sandberg, Trammell, Morris, and Blyleven have suffered because of this, and even the guys I 'm not sure deserve to get in, still should be getting more support than they are.

And as Jim caple points out in a recent article, in the next few years the first slew of guys you would associate with the 90's are going to start coming up for election, and the 80's guys are going to get lost in the shuffle. You've got Boggs, Ripken, Rickey Henderson, and Gwynn in the next couple of years, then McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc., and then it's on to the 90's-inflated numbers.

Maybe it's because I largely grew up in the 80's that I'm partial to those players, but shouldn't the votes take into consideration the period in which these guys played? Forget about the fact that Jay Bell and Rich Aurelia can hit 30 HR these days, and remember when hitting 30-35 HRs led the league.

[corbes]

I agree, Kysrup, that a lot of the 80s players will suffer from the perception of their stats.

Molitor and Eckersley are obvious.

I think an important criteria for the hall should be the players who defined their position during their time.

With that in mind, I support your arguments for:

Goose Gossage
Jack Morris
Ryne Sandberg
Alan Trammell
Dale Murphy

I was a little late for Blyleven. But I don't hear stories about him being dominant. And I don't think -- though I'm open to rebuttal -- that Rice or Dawson quite made it to that level either.

[Ksyrup]

Murphy is borderline for me. He was clearly great for those 2 back-to-back MVPs, and he had a great run from 1980 to 1987, but then he just fell off a cliff. Had he had a more gradual decline, I don't think there would be any doubt about him.

I lived in Atlanta from 85 to 90, and one of my greatest "live sporting events" memories was of Murphy. He had played something like 700 straight games, but the day before, hurt himself crashing into the wall. The next day the Braves played the Mets (I think this was probably in 86 or 87), with Dwight Gooden on the mound. Murphy sat out the game but pinch-hit late in the game and hit a HR to extend his streak. I don't recall if he won the game with the HR or just tied it, but I know it was off of Gooden. That was a great moment.

Blyleven is a difficult case, because he actually spans the entire 70's AND 80's. He never pitched for good teams, yet always pitched well. As a result, he had a number of 15-14-type seasons. One thing he is remembered for is his curveball - best I've ever seen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If I had a ballot, this year it would read ...

Andre Dawson
Dennis Eckersly
Dale Murphy
Goose Gossage
Ryne Sandberg
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter

And I'd be tempted to include Tommy John, Steve Garvey, and Bert Blylven.

[corbes]

As a Phillies fan, I watched Murphy when he couldn't hit anything. But those years he had in the early/mid 80s were so impressive to me, I('d like to think) they make him a serious candidate.

[corbes]

dola-

Jim Caple mailed in an article about it here (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=1696690).

[Fonzie]

Bert Blyleven is an absolute must for the Hall, and I'm disappointed that he's had to wait this long. He pitched very well for a long time in hitter-friendly parks for a bunch of poor teams that offered him little support. He's fifth in career strikeouts (he had been third but was recently passed by Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens) because of, as Ksyrup pointed out, his astounding curveball.

I'd also vote for Molitor, Sandberg, Eckersley, Dawson, Gossage, and Sutter. I'm on the fence about Smith, Trammell, and Morris, but Murphy and Rice just weren't good enough for long enough.

Just my $.02.

[Darkiller]

How does the Baseball HOF works ?
how many per year can be inducted ?

do you have to have 5 years out of the game to be eligible like in Football ?

[henry296]

Darkiller,

You have to be out 5 years. You need 75% of the total votes cast to be elected. As far as I know, there is no minimum or maximum number elected each year.

There is also a Veteran's Committee that adds memebers, but that is not what is announced today.

[Maple Leafs]

Voters better smarten up in the next few years, because starting in about 2010 you're going to see a parade of guys who fattened up their stats in the boomball era. Does anyone really want to see Richie Sexson and his 450 HRs in the hall of fame?

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm permanently PO'd at the Hall of Fame because they COMPLETELY dismissed Lou Whitaker a couple of years back. He'll get in eventually, I'm sure.

The rest of this post won't be as bitter, but it might be long, as I'm going to look at all the players on the current HOF ballot and tell you what I think of them. It will be long, so I don't mind if you skip this message and head for the nearest "should I buy a..." message.

BERT BLYLEVEN - Many pitchers in the HOF have fewer than his 287 wins. Few have more. A fine pitcher for a long time. I think he's worthy.

JOE CARTER - Good clutch hitter, but just not Hall worthy in my eyes. I prefer Dawson (see below).

DAVE CONCEPCION - Good fielding rep and series rings do not offset mediocre hitting stats. Pass.

DANNY DARWIN - A better pitcher than Jim Deshaies, who got a token vote back in 2001. Darwin may or may not get a vote, but is not to be taken seriously as a Hall of Famer.

ANDRE DAWSON - Time in Wrigley and Boston is mostly offset by Montreal, which was a tough place to hit at the time. Not overwhelmingly qualified, but good enough for me.

DOUG DRABEK - 155 wins won't get you into the Hall unless (1) you have a big heater, and (2) a great W-L record. Drabek doesn't have either, so no thanks.

DENNIS ECKERSLEY - An interesting case. Good starter for a while, then faded to mediocrity. Became a reliever in Oakland and was dominant for almost a decade. I wouldn't vote for him, but I certainly wouldn't anyone for doing so.

JIM EISENREICH - Nice story here too, but not a Hall of Famer.

CECIL FIELDER - I liked him when he was in Detroit, but he didn't last long enough for serious consideration.

STEVE GARVEY - I'm a Bill James disciple, so it's easy for me to pass on him. I think he'll eventually get in, one way or another.

RICH "GOOSE" GOSSAGE - The standards for relievers were in flux throughout his career (and beyond), so I'm not sure what to make of his stats. A fine pitcher, but not worthy of this honor, in my eyes.

KEITH HERNANDEZ - Love the OBP (.384 career) and like the Gold Gloves, but I'm a tough grader and Keith doesn't make my cut. Sorry.

TOMMY JOHN - One of the guys not in the Hall who has more wins than Blyleven (288). I'd vote for him; I don't know what those other guys are waiting for.

JIMMY KEY - Had a better record than I thought (186-117). Close, but no cigar - I prefer Guidry, who's now off the ballot.

DENNIS MARTINEZ - Another guy with a better record than I thought (245-193). A pretty good pitcher with a long career, but it's hard to vote for a guy with a career high in wins of 16. So I won't.

DON MATTINGLY - If he hadn't hurt his back he would probably be a first ballot guy. The injury took enough of his power away that I have to give him a pass.

KEVIN MITCHELL - I'd sooner vote for Cecil.

PAUL MOLITOR - 3000 hits, 500 steals, and other good stats. Even without a position, he's an automatic.

JACK MORRIS - Career record similar to Martinez (245-186), but had bigger years. Very close, but I'd take other guys ahead of him.

DALE MURPHY - Back in the mid-80s, I didn't think he could miss the Hall of Fame. I was wrong.

RANDY MYERS - No thanks.

DAVE PARKER - Another hard case, but I'm inclined to believe he belongs.

TERRY PENDLETON - Good fielder and not the worst hitter in the world, but not HOF material.

JIM RICE - Another guy I thought couldn't miss the Hall. He was helped a lot by Fenway. I prefer Parker by a tiny margin, but Rice is worthy and I think he'll eventually get in. He's not on my ballot.

JUAN SAMUEL - Yeah right.

RYNE SANDBERG - If I'm whining about Whitaker not making the Hall, how can I vote against Ryno? And I won't, though he was helped a bunch by Wrigley.

LEE SMITH - I think he was the best overall reliever of his era - better than Gossage, or Eckersley, or Myers, or Sutter, or Reardon, or any of those guys. That puts him in the Hall in my eyes. Keep in mind he spent his peak years in Wrigley and Fenway.

DAVE STIEB - Good, but just not enough there for a vote.

BRUCE SUTTER - Fearsome in his best years, but just not enough of them to get the top honor.

BOB TEWKSBURY - Another guy who's better than Jim Deshaies but really isn't worth your time to evaluate.

ALAN TRAMMELL - If I'm whining about Whitaker not making the Hall, how can I vote against his double play partner? An obvious Hall of Famer, not that most of the writers will notice. He'll get in eventually.

FERNANDO VALENZUELA - See Dave Stieb.

Let's see, who would I put on my ballot: Blyleven, Dawson, John, Molitor, Parker, Sandberg, Smith, Trammell.

I think the voters will elect Molitor, for sure. Sandberg they SHOULD elect, but he might not get the call this year. Rice and Dawson will be close, but the signs point to no election this time around.

[corbes]

Nice work, Honolulu.

I'd be inclined to support Mattingly. I know his stats don't measure up, but something about Don Mattingly seems more relevant to the history of baseball than, say, Dave Parker.

[Ksyrup]

Can't argue with most of your list, HB, although I think you are overlooking the fact that Goose Gossage was one of the only "closers" to be used in the way Bill James says you should use your best reliever - when the game is on the line, for multiple innings, etc. His numbers were incredible, even if his save totals were so-so.

Also, on Lou Whitaker...I'm not sure. I think Alan Trammell is a clear HoF'er, but I'm not as sold on Lou and I think he's dragging Trammell down with him, to the extent everyone thinks of them as a package and can't bring themselves to vote for one without the other.

[oykib]

Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, and the relievers besides Gossage and Eckersley don't belong in my opinion.

Blyleven is so far above Morris that it's not even close. Morris was a very durable pitcher who happened to pitch in some memorable games. But he's not close to being a Hall of Fame pitcher.

Sandberg
Eckersley
Gossage
Moliter
Blyleven

Trammell would be the closest person to miss.

The biggest losers in this 80s/90s gap are likely to be Tim Raines and Barry Larkin. These were truly historically outstanding all-aroulnd ballplayers whose numbers will be dwarfed by the achievements of lesser players during a bigger-hitting era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FTR, I simply failed to mention Molitor.

He's a first-ballot guy IMO.

[John Galt]

I agree entirely with oykib's ballot. I also think Trammell doesn't make the cut as his numbers fall below HOF caliber.

[Ksyrup]

I don't see how Trammell doesn't make it. Think of the SS's who played in the 80's. This guy was not only a great fielder, but he could actually hit.

Two things to consider:

1. He had the unfortunate opportunity to play SS at the same time as Cal Ripken. He was the 2nd best SS in the American League for the last-half of the 80's, but was the GG winner the 4 years prior to Ripken coming into his own.

2. There were some pretty pathetic SS's in the majors in the 80's - the position wasn't what it is today - and I can only think of Ripken and Ozzie Smith as 2 better SS's who played for the entire decade. And Ozzie wasn't the hitter Trammell was.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I don't see how Trammell doesn't make it. Think of the SS's who played in the 80's. This guy was not only a great fielder, but he could actually hit.

Two things to consider:

1. He had the unfortunate opportunity to play SS at the same time as Cal Ripken. He was the 2nd best SS in the American League for the last-half of the 80's, but was the GG winner the 4 years prior to Ripken coming into his own.

2. There were some pretty pathetic SS's in the majors in the 80's - the position wasn't what it is today - and I can only think of Ripken and Ozzie Smith as 2 better SS's who played for the entire decade. And Ozzie wasn't the hitter Trammell was.

I'm not sure I disagree with anything you have said. I do however, disagree with two things in your methodology:

1) I think many eras don't have depth at particular positions - that doesn't mean we need to throw in the best available players from that time period to represent shallow talent positions.

2) Looking at an arbitrary time period coextensive with a player's career is misleading. It is the same crazy argument that Mark Grace supporters use to say he is HOF caliber (since he led the 90's in hits).

Does a .767 OPS, 2365 H, 1231 R, and 1003 RBI's get you in to the HOF? In Trammel's era, it isn't totally out of the question, but I wouldn't put him on my hypothetical ballot. Maybe I'll change my mind next year.

[McSweeny]

we want Jim Rice!

any Red Sox fan knows he was the most feared hitter of his day. He doesn't ruin his eyes and he is one of the all time greats

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not sure I disagree with anything you have said. I do however, disagree with two things in your methodology:

1) I think many eras don't have depth at particular positions - that doesn't mean we need to throw in the best available players from that time period to represent shallow talent positions.

2) Looking at an arbitrary time period coextensive with a player's career is misleading. It is the same crazy argument that Mark Grace supporters use to say he is HOF caliber (since he led the 90's in hits).

Does a .767 OPS, 2365 H, 1231 R, and 1003 RBI's get you in to the HOF? In Trammel's era, it isn't totally out of the question, but I wouldn't put him on my hypothetical ballot. Maybe I'll change my mind next year.

I understand your points, but looking at his numbers...he had over a 100 point OPS advantage over Ozzie Smith, about as many hits and runs, and way more HRs and RBIs. Plus, he stole some bases. And he was a great fielder, although he certainly didn't have the flash that made Ozzie an automatic GG winner every year.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Ozzie is a first-ballot HoF'er, Trammell should get in within 5-10 years, no question.

I also don't see what is wrong with looking at the era in which he played - I'm not suggesting he had the most "X" during the 80's, I'm just looking at his career and who his contemporaries were. And aside from 2 guys, I think he was far and away a better all-around player.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
In uderstand your points, but looking at his numbers...he had over a 100 point OPS advantage over Ozzie Smith, about as many hits and runs, and way more HRs and RBIs. Plsu, he stole some bases. And he was a great fielder, although he certainly didn't have the flash that made Ozzie an automatic GG winner every year.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Ozzie is a first-ballot HoF'er, Trammell should get in within 5-10 years, no question.

I also don't see what is wrong with looking at the era in which he played - I'm not suggesting he had the most X during the 80's, I'm just looking at his career and who his contemporaries were. And aside from 2 guys, I think he was far and away a better all-around player.

I'm never a big fan of the "If X is in the HOF, then Y should be" because I think it creates a slippery slope (especially if they were voted in by the old Veteran's Committee). However, Ozzie being a 1st ballot one is a more interesting point.

I do think, however, that we all know Ozzie was a special case. His popularity, flashy defense, and charisma made him a first ballot HOFer even if it wasn't deserved. I've never been able to decide how I feel about his HOF case because it was a given that he was going in.

Trammell on the other hand had some decent counting stats, but he played too long to get them (he has Ryno's numbers in a lot longer time frame). He was rarely brilliant in his career, but was generally pretty good. I think he is a reasonably close call, but I'm still inclined to vote, "no."

As for the era argument - I'm all for recognizing era differences for purposes of adjusting stats, but just because there wasn't much talent at a position in a given period, I don't think that that matters. I also wouldn't hold it against a player who just happened to play when a bunch of other greats were at his position.

[digamma]

Originally posted by Ksyrup

I lived in Atlanta from 85 to 90, and one of my greatest "live sporting events" memories was of Murphy. He had played something like 700 straight games, but the day before, hurt himself crashing into the wall. The next day the Braves played the Mets (I think this was probably in 86 or 87), with Dwight Gooden on the mound. Murphy sat out the game but pinch-hit late in the game and hit a HR to extend his streak. I don't recall if he won the game with the HR or just tied it, but I know it was off of Gooden. That was a great moment.



I remember this game. Gooden (solely because we share the same birthday) was my second favorite major leaguer to Murphy. I think the Mets won that game 8-1, and Murphy broke up Gooden's shut-out. I want to say that Gooden only allowed one or two other hits that night.

If Murphy had hit two more home runs to get to 400, would he be a more viable candidate for some people?

[rkmsuf]

Red Sox have announced a press conference for 4:30. Guess that means Eckersley gets in. Maybe he'll f-them over and wear an A's cap...

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
Red Sox have announced a press conference for 4:30. Guess that means Eckersley gets in. Maybe he'll f-them over and wear an A's cap...

Could be Rice also.

[rkmsuf]

Originally posted by Honolulu Blue
Could be Rice also.

Doubtful...

[Honolulu_Blue]

I really hate the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's just one of those topics in sports (like NSCAR, the Kobe Bryant case, Pete Rose, etc.) that I just can't stomach. I leave any further discussions on this matter in the hands of my good twin, H B. He seems to have a very good handle on it and is representing Tiget faithful with excellent insight.

Good day, sirs.

[clintl]

Originally posted by McSweeny
we want Jim Rice!

any Red Sox fan knows he was the most feared hitter of his day. He doesn't ruin his eyes and he is one of the all time greats

Not a Red Sox fan, but that is absolutely true. Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for a decade. He belongs in the Hall.

Dale Murphy is an interesting case. I used to hate it when the Braves played the Giants, because Murphy just killed the Giants. His fall was so fast and so hard, though, that I think he's borderline.

Gossage belongs in the Hall. He was the equal of Rollie Fingers in his day. I don't see how you can include one, and not the other.

Bruce Sutter belongs, too. He was even more dominant than either Gossage or Fingers ever were, and his splitfinger fastball changed the game.

[Honolulu Blue]

So many points to comment on:

Corbes:

I'd be inclined to support Mattingly. I know his stats don't measure up, but something about Don Mattingly seems more relevant to the history of baseball than, say, Dave Parker.

Well, he WAS a pretty devastating player in the mid-to-late '80s. Those things are part of his record and certainly count in his favor. But do 6 great years and 6 not-so-hot years add up to a Hall of Famer? Not to me. But I certainly see the argument. Actually, I hope he does make it, because I have a Mattingly Starting Lineup figure in the box and it will be more valuable if he does make it.

Ksyrup:

Can't argue with most of your list, HB, although I think you are overlooking the fact that Goose Gossage was one of the only "closers" to be used in the way Bill James says you should use your best reliever - when the game is on the line, for multiple innings, etc. His numbers were incredible, even if his save totals were so-so.

Perhaps I am overlooking something with Goose, since he seems to have a lot of support here. It wouldn't be the first time.

Ksyrup again:

Also, on Lou Whitaker...I'm not sure. I think Alan Trammell is a clear HoF'er, but I'm not as sold on Lou and I think he's dragging Trammell down with him, to the extent everyone thinks of them as a package and can't bring themselves to vote for one without the other.

As hitters, Lou and Alan were comparable from day one, and they ended up with very close to the same stats, both gross and averages. Alan did have a couple of minor advantages over Lou:

1) He played shortstop, and good hitting SS's a bit harder to find than 2B's.
2) He hit right handed and took less advantage of Tiger Stadium's infamous right field porch.

I still think they're far more similar than they're different, and if one is Hall worthy, then the other is also.

digamma:

If Murphy had hit two more home runs to get to 400, would he be a more viable candidate for some people?

Not in my eyes. His career was a little short for my liking, he played most of his career at the Launching Pad, and his stats are STILL inferior to Rice and Parker, and others.

[kcchief19]

FOR SURE (in order of preference):
Paul Molitor: No brainer

Bert Blyleven: Should be a no-brainer. Probably punished for being consistent, but never being great. Big part of that was the fact that he played for some bad teams. One consideration -- the '81 strike may habe prevented him from reaching 300 wins and becoming a lock. He was having an excellent season in'81 and would have probably picked up another 5 or 6 wins easily during the strike. That would have put him within 7-8 wins or less, so he might have tried to come back and pitched one more season in 1993.

Tommy John: Forget the 288 wins and the fact that he would have won 300 if he hadn't missed a year and a half in his prime to the rotator cuff. He was the first guy to recover from a surgically repaired rotator cuff and be effective, winning 20 games three times. Hell, they named the surgery after him! His success changed the way player injuries were treated, making it more likely for players and teams to risk surgery and rehab to come back from what once were career-ending injuries. Combine that and his record, and he should be in for his contributions to the game.

Ryne Sandberg: One of the best second basemen of any era. Should be in.

Jack Morris: If you go to baseball-reference.com and look at the similar pitchers for Morris, six of the 10 most similar are HOFers and one more still could be and one is Luis Tiant, a fine pitcher in his own right. Discount that Dennis Martinez and Chuck Finley are the other team and factor in that this guy was probably the best big-game pitcher in baseball for a decade and one of the best of all time, and I think he should go in.

Dennis Eckersley: Guy had two careers -- an above average career as a starter that would have ended his career by age 35, and a second career that made him the best closer in baseball for the better part of a decade. The question becomes whether 6 or 7 years as a superior closer and one or two good years as a starter are enough to get you in. Honestly, I'm torn because if you let Eck in, you have to let Lee Smith in, but if you also probably have to let in John Franco. If Rollie Fingers is the standard for letting closers in, then Eck belongs.

Alan Trammell: I agree the numbers and career duration aren't great, and I agree with the concept that just because a player was one of the best of his era, you don't have to put them in just because the era was weak. However, the new generation of SS has tainted our view of past shortstops. If you compare past SS to the current crop, you'd have to kick more than half of them out. You can't judge SS of the 1980s to those of 2003, and you can't compare them to other positions. Trammell was a slick fielder, probably deserving of more Gold Gloves than he won. He was a far better hitter than Ozzie Smith and was a clutch hitter. I never wanted to see Alan Trammell at the plate when the game was on the line against my team. I think his numbers were also slightly diminished by his role on the Tigers -- he regularly hit No. 2 and his job was to move the runners along for the bats coming up behind. He twice led the league in sacrifice hits. He was a baller.

Keith Hernandez: He wasn't a prototypical 1B, but he was probable the best-fielding 1B in history. I think the HOF should recognize fielding more, but its history is torn. Ozzie Smith is in, but Frank White is not. I put Hernandez in -- and I hate the Cardinals! :)

ON THE FENCE:
Lee Smith and Goose Gossage: career totals inflated by longevity but if Fingers is in, these guys belong.

Jim Rice and Dale Murphy: Similar players in that both had HOF stretches in their career, but both players performance tailed off quickly and ended their careers early. I'm iffy on these guys, but I wouldn't oppose them going in.

Dave Parker: Really should be in. Is probably kept out based on his drug problems.

Don Mattingly: Probably could go in a category with Rice and Murphy, albeit with a higher batting average and lower power numbers. If he played as long as a Molitor, Brett and Boggs, he'd be in. That he retired at 34 will be held against him.

Joe Carter: Really doesn't have HOF numbers, but I love the guy and he did hit one of the two most dramatic HRs in baseball history. The veterans finally put Maz in a couple of years ago. Joe may have to wait.

The thing about HOF balloting in the last decade is that the writers have been pretty strict about voting for too many guys. Tony Perez finally got in in 2000 because Fisk was the only no-brainer on the ballot. If there are two or more sure-bets, it's almost impossible for anybody else to get in. That probably helped get Kirby Puckett in since Winfield was the only sure bet that year.

Prediction: Molitor, Eckerlsey and Sandberg.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by clintl
Bruce Sutter belongs, too. He was even more dominant than either Gossage or Fingers ever were, and his splitfinger fastball changed the game.

Not really. Gossage pitched more innings and for a longer time than Sutter did. And Gossage actually had more "dominant" years than Sutter did, at least looking at park-adjusted ERA+.

It's close, but Sutter and Lee Smith are 2 closers I'm not sure should get in, other than what they represent in the evolution of the position itself. On a historical basis, along with their numbers, maybe they get in. Otherwise, I don't think so.

[kcchief19]

Well, looks like its Molitor and Eckersley only.

[Ksyrup]

That's what I figured. Baseball really needs to elect about 5 guys a year. There are some arguably deserving guys who are being passed by that it wouldn't kill the idea of what the Hall of Fame stands for to let them in.

ESPN doesn't have the voting chart yet. I'll be interested to see where the runner-ups fell. Carter and Hernandez didn't even get 5%.

[Breeze]

Damn Honolulu,

I was going to add my points here, but you pretty much made all of them. Nice writeup.

[Maple Leafs]

ESPN has published the voting breakdown.

I find this interesting: Joe Carter didn't even get enough votes to stay on the ballot. I didn't expect him to get in, but to be dropped completely? Ouch.

[Fonzie]

And poor Bert Blyleven only got 35.4% of the vote. That further firms my belief that there are an awful lot of stupid baseball writers out there.

[Ksyrup]

Now I realize that some writers have an issue with "unanimous" votes, but honestly, who were the 70 or so morons who chose to leave Molitor off of their ballots? It shouldn't be about X% deserving to get in, it should simply be - is this player a HoF'er or not? 3,300 hits pretty much guarantees it.

I'd also like to know who threw a vote Cecil Fielder's way. Eisenreich I can understand, simply because he overcame tourrette's syndrome...but Fielder, Key, Drabek, Kevin Mitchell???

I'm surprised Fernando got as few votes as he did.

[Maple Leafs]

I've never been sold on Blyleven. I was a big baseball fan in the 80's, and I can't ever remember thinking Blyleven was among the top five pitchers in baseball. Maybe top ten in some years, but I always thought more highly of guys like Morris and Stieb. Blyleven had what, two all-star appearances in a 20 year career?

There's something to be said for longevity, of course, but don't confuse it with excellence.

[corbes]

If you don't vote for Molitor, then who DO you vote for?

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I've never been sold on Blyleven. I was a big baseball fan in the 80's, and I can't ever remember thinking Blyleven was among the top five pitchers in baseball. Maybe top ten in some years, but I always thought more highly of guys like Morris and Stieb. Blyleven had what, two all-star appearances in a 20 year career?

There's something to be said for longevity, of course, but don't confuse it with excellence.

Baseball-reference.com has this to say about Blyleven:

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (128) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (22) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (65) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Similar Pitchers
Don Sutton (914) *
Gaylord Perry (909) *
Fergie Jenkins (890) *
Tommy John (889)
Robin Roberts (876) *
Tom Seaver (864) *
Jim Kaat (854)
Early Wynn (844) *
Phil Niekro (844) *
Steve Carlton (840) *
-------------------

In sum, 3 of Baseball-reference.com's 4 HOF measuring sticks say he's comparable to a HOFer, and five of the six pitchers most comparable to him are in the Hall. And most of this was done while playing for bad teams in hitters' parks. He had a career park-adjusted ERA+ of 118, is fifth in major league history in strikeouts, and is ninth in major league history with 60 shutouts.

Is he the greatest pitcher ever? Or even one of the 20 best? Certainly not. But he's certainly impressed me as someone whose career featured both longevity and excellence, and is clearly worthy of enshrinment in the Hall of Fame.

[henry296]

Perhaps some writer believes that if you win a Cy Young Award you get a vote. Drabek won that in 1990.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Fonzie
Baseball-reference.com has this to say about Blyleven:Fair enouh, and I'm a big fan of baseball-reference.com. But I think some their HOF monitors aren't well-suited for measuring players with extremely long careers.

Here's my argument against Blyleven:

- Only one 20 win season in 22 years
- Only two all-star appearances
- No Cy Young awards (and only three top-five finishes)
- Only lead the league in a major pitching category once in his career (strikeouts, in 1985)
- Career winning percentage of .534 is barely above average

Again, I just don't think longevity is a substitute for excellence. Compare his best season to other HOFs. Compare his best five. His best ten. He just doesn't measure up. It's not until you look a the whole 20+ year stretch that he starts to look like a top pitcher. Is that because he was great, or because he just happened to be a good pitcher who was blessed with an arm that held up longer than most?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
- Only one 20 win season in 22 years
- Only two all-star appearances
- No Cy Young awards (and only three top-five finishes)
- Only lead the league in a major pitching category once in his career (strikeouts, in 1985)
- Career winning percentage of .534 is barely above average

My answers to those arguments:

20 wins is an arbitrary benchmark. Further, Wins are a completely team dependent stat and unfortunately, Blyleven was not blessed with good teams.

Cy Young and All-Star voting are worse than HOF voting. Beyond the bad decisions that are made, they also punish players on bad teams (unless they are the team's only all-star rep which means Blyleven was often hurt because he had one other good teammate).

That he only led the league in K's once but still finished 3rd in K's (at the time) attests to his consistency and coincidence.

Wins are too team dependent.

As for the longevity issue, Blyleven shouldn't get in just because he played a long time, but because he was a great pitcher for almost the entire time. At the age of 38 (his last full season), he was 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA. He still had "it" even then.

There are going to be one or two players over the long history of baseball who by luck don't get any breaks. By that I mean they lose in the team dependent game (pitchers not getting W's or getting too many L's from bad timing, hitters not getting RBI's or R's, etc.) through just bad luck. When players like these have good team independent numbers and just didn't get the "breaks," I think they should make it into the HOF. There are probably just a handful in baseball history, but to me Blyleven seems to be the classic case and should be in the Hall.

[Fonzie]

What John Galt said.

There's certainly room for debate about what types of players should make the Hall (i.e., very good players who played for eons vs. absolutely dominant players whose careers were cut short), and I think it's a worthwhile (and fun) discussion to have. But in Blyleven's case I think he's being unfairly penalized for pitching for terrible teams. Had he played for even average teams throughout his career he probably would've gone well over the "magic number" of 300 wins. With that he'd have been a first-ballot HOFer and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Nolan Ryan should be in the HOF?

[The_herd]

Originally posted by Fonzie

Just out of curiosity, do you think Nolan Ryan should be in the HOF?


Definately. The guy was a dominate pitcher on some bad/average teams. Ryan, like Clemens now, is one of the power pitchers all young power pitchers are compared to.

I don't think bringing him up with Blyleven is completely fair though. While Blyleven was a very good pitcher and deserves a lot more consideration than he gets, he was never as dominant as Ryan.

Blyleven is a player that was very, very good for a long time, but never really reached greatness. His 287 wins are enough to get him in, but people look at the 250 losses. I know Ryan lost more games, but he was a pitcher that defines a type of pitcher and put up the numbers Hall of Fame voters look for, while Blyleven never reached that level and came up a bit short of 300 wins and 4000 K's.

If Blyleven ever gets voted in, I would say he's very deserving. However, if he doesn't, then I wouldn't consider it a travesty by any means. I think Blyleven is the definition of the Fringe Hall of Famer and one that should get more attention than he does. Although they were different pitchers, I think his candidacy is very comparable to Jack Morris, another player that should be getting more consideration than he is, but isn't a player that I would lose sleep over if he never gets in the Hall.

[Buccaneer]

Most of you guys are way too generous in continuing to lower the standards of those "deserving" to be in the hall. My only vote this year would be for Blyleven. The rest are all marginal, imo (not enough really good years, just above average players).

[The_herd]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Most of you guys are way too generous in continuing to lower the standards of those "deserving" to be in the hall. My only vote this year would be for Blyleven. The rest are all marginal, imo (not enough really good years, just above average players).

The standards have already been lowered though. To hold the players to different standards than have been established over the past several years would be unfair to the current crop of players. For some reason Tony Perez is the 1st player that comes to mind when thinking of players that have no business in the Hall. Not to take anything away from his accomplishments, but he was in no way, shape, or form a Hall of Fame player.

I'm all for them toughening the Hall standards. I think the Hall of Fame should be for the truely special players, not the very good, or even great. But the standards keep getting lowered and judging current players by that standard I think Sandberg and Blyleven shoud both be in.

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by The_herd
Definately. The guy was a dominate pitcher on some bad/average teams. Ryan, like Clemens now, is one of the power pitchers all young power pitchers are compared to.

Oh, I agree. By asking the question I was trying to illustrate the similarities between Ryan and Blyleven.

Ryan had just two 20-win seasons, and it took him 27 seasons to get his 324 wins. His career winning percentage is even worse than Blyleven's (.526), and while he struck out more batters than anyone in history he also walked more batters than anyone in history (2795), by quite a wide margin (Carlton was next with 1833; Blyleven, in contrast had excellent control and only walked 1322). Ryan uncorked more wild pitches than anyone (277) and also lost the third most games of anyone (292). He only finished in the top-5 for Cy Young voting six times, and never won one. His career park-adjusted ERA+ is 112, lower than Blyleven.

The primary difference between Ryan and Blyleven, it seems to me, lies in the strikeouts (and Ryan's flamethrower style). Or, in other words, Ryan's outstanding fastball was sexier than Blyleven's amazing curveball.

[oykib]

Jack Morris was not p;articularly close to Blyleven. Blyleven gets killed because he played on some bad teams, pure and simple. I'm not seeing the Morris argument at all, to tell the truth. Guidry's a better candidate tan Morris, and he's not even on the ballot anymore.

[The_herd]

Originally posted by oykib
Jack Morris was not p;articularly close to Blyleven. Blyleven gets killed because he played on some bad teams, pure and simple. I'm not seeing the Morris argument at all, to tell the truth. Guidry's a better candidate tan Morris, and he's not even on the ballot anymore.

I don't agree here at all. Blyleven played on some bad teams, but not as many as people are lead to believe. He played on 2 world series teams and, in all, played for 10 teams with winning records. Morris and Blyleven pitched for the same Minnesota teams from '86 to '88. Morris was 54-32, while Blyleven was 42-43.

Jack Morris was quite possibly the best big game pitcher in the mid '80's and early '90's. His postseason accomplishments can not be ignored. He finished with 33 less wins and 64 less losses than Blyleven in 5 less seasons. He managed to do what Blyleven didn't seem to do when he was on the mound. He carried his team to victory. This is why a lot of the writers have a problem voting for him. Morris' numbers are very similar to Glavine's, who was considered a Hall of Famer before this season. So I don't think Morris should be discounted so quickly.



Edit: this wasn't meant to put Morris over Blyleven for Hall consideration. Just to show that Morris was indeed a pitcher that deserves some consideration himself.

[oykib]

There's no evidence anywhere that pitchers pitch to win. THEY pitch well or they pitch poorly and sometimes they are rewarded with a win, sometimes they aren't. BUT They are rewarded more often when their teams can hit and play defense. Generally, BLyleven's teams couldn't.

And Blyleven played longer because he was better. HE was still effective at the end of his career. SOMEtimes longevity does count for something. IN his case where he was good to excellent his whole career, it certainly does.

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by The_herd
Morris and Blyleven pitched for the same Minnesota teams from '86 to '88. Morris was 54-32, while Blyleven was 42-43.

Just a minor correction - Morris only played for Minnesota in 1991. He was with Detroit from 1977-1990.

[clintl]

Originally posted by The_herd
The standards have already been lowered though. To hold the players to different standards than have been established over the past several years would be unfair to the current crop of players. For some reason Tony Perez is the 1st player that comes to mind when thinking of players that have no business in the Hall. Not to take anything away from his accomplishments, but he was in no way, shape, or form a Hall of Fame player.



Whatever you think of Tony Perez, he is nowhere close to being the least deserving player in the Hall of Fame, and some of the least deserving guys (like Rabbit Maranville) were elected fairly early on. To say that there has been a cheapening of the standards over the years is not in any way accurate.

[Buccaneer]

I think Bill James' book, Hall of Shame (I think that's the title) sums it up nicely (talking about the good ol' boys letting their cronies in around 1970). Since then I think the Vet Committee has done a good job of letting more marginal players in.

[Craptacular]

Congrats to The Ignitor!! This will be the only good news for the Brewers this year.

[Tasan]

Originally posted by Fonzie
The primary difference between Ryan and Blyleven, it seems to me, lies in the strikeouts (and Ryan's flamethrower style). Or, in other words, Ryan's outstanding fastball was sexier than Blyleven's amazing curveball.


Whoa whoa whoa there hoss.

SEVEN no hitters.

Nobody can even touch that. So I think you can add another HUGE difference.

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by Tasan
Whoa whoa whoa there hoss.

SEVEN no hitters.

Nobody can even touch that. So I think you can add another HUGE difference.

Impressive? Absolutely. It makes him a unique pitcher and it will be a long time before anyone matches that feat, if ever. But does it represent a HUGE difference between the two pitchers' careers? I'm not so sure. Those seven games account for just 0.86% of the games Ryan was in, and as such can't overwhelmingly affect his career numbers (which is the basis for my comparison of Ryan and Blyleven).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue that Blyleven was a better pitcher than Ryan. Nor am I trying to argue that Ryan shouldn't be in the Hall, because he absolutely should be. I'm merely trying to point out that their careers were similar in several important ways. I know when Ryan was elected to the Hall some of his detractors made the same comments about him that are now being made about Blyleven, but in the end Ryan was forgiven his statistical shortcomings, which were written off by most as a reflection of the quality of the teams he was on and thus largely outside of his control. Blyleven doesn't seem to be getting the same benefit, in my opinion because he was less "flashy" than Ryan, and that strikes me as unfair.

Wow, I've written more about Bert Blyleven today than I think I've ever written about any player in any sport over the entirety of my life. I should probably shut up now. :p