Dawson only inductee..........
 

Guess the spitter will have to wait another year......
Looks like Blyleven WILL make it in sooner or later.......

Someone explain to me why Dawson deserves to make the HOF and not Alomar. And Bert Blyleven gets more votes than Alomar too?

No Alomar?????
 

As I said in the Postwar Forum, I don't understand how Alomar was not a first ballot HOFer.

There seems to be quite a few writers who hold first-ballotee HOF nominees to a higher standard than their counterparts who've been rotting on the ballot for several years. If not for the Hirschbeck incident he almost assuredly could have expectorated to make it this year. Psyched that Hawk finally made it.

I agree with Anthony, I think first ballot nominees are held to a higher standard. I think there is some added significance when a player goes in on his first ballot. I believe this was Dawson's ninth try and I'm glad to see him go in. I saw a lot of Cubs games in the late 80's and loved watching him play. I do think Alomar deserves to be in and will most likely do so next year.

More subjective crap--nowhere in the rules does it tell the voters to analyze the players who are 1st time on the ballot under more stringent standards that repeat offenders. If a guy deserves to get in, he deserves to get in. Maybe they should move to 1 time and out voting so that none of these games are played.

What's gonna be really interesting is to see what happens when the heart of the steroid lineup comes up to bat in the next few years.

last year jim rice, this year dawson...2 wrongs don't make a right!

Alomar stunk at the end of his career and must have been a club house cancer. Two teams in each of his last two years doesn't mean that he was a positive presence for younger players. Plus, for the spitting incident, I would never vote for him. In my book he is scum.

Agreed, but at the least Rice had 8 100+ RBI seasons, a 352 OBP, 298 AVG (which is pretty good for a power hitter of his time) and had some real dominating HOF type years.

Dawson had only 4 100+ RBI seasons, and only 3 seasons of 30+ HR, 323 OBP and a 279 AVG. Seems like Dawson was more of a compiler, but again I can't argue too much, again just a little surprised about Alomar because his stats and accomplishments speak for themself.

It's starting to look like Jack Morris will eventually make it. To me, that 3.90 era should keep him out. It would be the worst era in the hall. At least the current record holder (Red Ruffing) played in an extremely heavy hitting era.

I agree about there being a first ballot bias and I think it's ridiculous. There's no reason why Alomar shouldn't have been a first ballot inductee. Same goes for Barry Larkin.

There are similar strange voting issues in that there has never been a unanimous HOF electee. How could any voter justify not voting for Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, etc.? There should have been many unanimous selections. I guess this will be tested in the next decade with Pedro, Jeter, and Randy Johnson coming up. All three should be unanimous.

I also don't think that Rice or Dawson should have gotten in, but Rice was probably the superior player.

Heartbreaker for Blyleven - at least he should finally get in next year.

I agree about Morris - it would really be a joke if he got in. A lot of voters want to put him in just because of his amazing 10-inning game 7 World Series performance. Under that logic, why not elect Don Larsen?

Just rename it Hall of Very Good

Dawson was a heck of alot more than an accumulator. He won one MVP and came in 2nd twice. That's a couple heartbeats away from 3 MVP's. He also had the most spectacular arm I've ever seen. I still remember a throw he made against the Giants at Candlestick back in the mid-80's. It was a rocket that never rose above 6 feet off the ground. And he played the first 11 years of his career in a gigantic mausoleum (Olympic Stadium), pre-juiced ball, pre-juiced players.

Would someone please tell me again why Bert Blyleven should be in and Tommy John and Jim Kaat shouldn't be?

After Alomar questioned a strike call, Hirshbeck purportedly said "STFU you sp-- fa----" Three cheers to Robbie for giving Hirshbeck what he had coming to him in 1996. Besides, as the years progressed, they eventually forged a friendship. Alomar is undoubtedly a HOFer.

And might I add, the only outfielders with more Gold Gloves lifetime than Dawson:

Clemente 12
Mays 12
Griffey 10
Jones 10
Kaline 10
T. Hunter 9
Ichiro 9

I'll give it a stab. In the modern era: 5th lifetime in strikeouts. 9th lifetime in shutouts. The only pitchers with more shutouts: Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Mathewson, Young, Plank, Spahn, Ryan, Seaver. Ie, 5 deadball pitchers, and Spahn, Ryan and Seaver. That's it. And Ryan and Seaver only had 1 more shutout apiece. He was a dominating pitcher.

Regardless of what one says about Rice, he dominated for a decent period of time (6 years in which he was in the top 5 for league MVP). Dawson -- to a lesser extent in my opinion (3 top 2 MVP seasons -- including finishing first once). Blyleven? 22 seasons pitched, 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes, never finishing higher than third. Hardly a dominant force in the era he pitched. He compiled a lot of great numbers but was never a superstar.

In that same respect Dale Murphy and Roger Maris won back to back MVPS and they most likely aren't getting in. No doubt Dawson was a tremendous player, but I just don't feel he belongs in the HOF.

I love how career long consistency is dimissed as "compiling" or just "sticking around" for a long time. I guess 287 wins and 3700+ K's and a 3.30 ERA over 22 seasons just doesn't mean that much anymore. I guess one has to heave the ball at 100 MPH to be considered "dominant" now. I guess nebulous media awards like the Cy Young are a better barometer than sterling statistics. Granted, the Hall of Fame is also a media award but C'mon Jeff, you're better than that.

Awesome that Dawson made it in. He is truly an all star and deserves to be in.

Kmac

I didn't say he wasn't consistent. He was! He was consistently really good. But in 22 years, only 3 top 5 finishes? And even in those 3 great years he never finished better than third in the Cy Young race? He was really good...just not great. The guy who is mostly compared to Blyleven is Don Sutton. Beyond the fact that Sutton had significantly more wins (which can be debated due to the teams Sutton played for), Sutton finished in the top 5 in the Cy Young race for 5 straight years!

I don't think Hunter or Andruw Jones are HOFers either. I believe there are fewer "automatic" milestones these days. Years back 500HR would make you a lock, but not anymore.

I think Dave Parker's career is very similar to Dawson's.

I'm a big Jim Kaat fan, but he doesn't compare to Blyleven.

Kaat: 283-237, 3.45 ERA, 2461 K, 1.259 WHIP, 107 ERA+

Blyleven: 287-250, 3.31 ERA, 3701 K, 1.198 WHIP, 118 ERA+

The adjusted ERA+ number is the key. Over his career, Kaat was 7 percent better than league average in term of ERA. Blyleven was 18 percent better. That's the difference between good and really good. And, in my opinion, the difference bettween HOF and not HOF.

Ditto for Tommy John (110 ERA+)

Sutton may have had more top 5 Cy Young finishes, but Blyleven was the better pitcher.

Also, the voters get Cy Young and MVP voting wrong so often (though not this year), it's kind of hard to use that as a criteria. If it was wrong when the award was given, why is it right to use it as a HOF criteria?

For example, Jeter never won an MVP and most likely never will. He probably should have won in 1999 and 2006. Should Jeter not get elected because he never won an MVP, even though he should have?

EDIT: My mistake - I misremembered - Pedro should have gotten the MVP in 1999. Jeter was robbed in 2006, though.

Jeff,

Both Blyleven and Sutton pitched pre-ESPN, pre-MLB Network and pre-regional network where every game was on television. Sutton pitched in the media metropolis of Los Angeles and would definitely get more media attention and post-season consideration. Blyleven toiled in obscurity with Minnesota, Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and California (before anyone in Los Angeles noticed). If Blyleven would have pitched in larger media markets, we would absolutely have contended for multiple Cy Young Awards. Blyleven should not be penalized for not getting the media access. With the age we're in now, we can move past that and focus on the pure, hard facts. Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer whatever era he pitched in.

In 1973 Blyleven came in 7th in the AL Cy Young. So he wasn't in the Top 5. This is what he accomplished that season, as compared to the other AL starting pitchers who finished in the top 10 (there was one closer, Hiller):

1st in shutouts 9
1st in WHiP 1.117
2nd in ERA 2.54
2nd in strikeouts 258 (that's the year Ryan set the record)
20 wins

But he came in 7th. 17 loses certainly didn't help matters, but he threw 25 complete games for a .500 team. The only real reason he wasn't a top 5 (or top 2 for that matter) pitcher that year was be played for a mediocre team, whereas Palmer, Hunter, and Blue were with A's and Orioles who dominated the AL in the early 70's and Wilbur Wood was pitching in a huge media market in Chicago.

I think the issue re media exposure is a good point, I agree. But Blyleven still only won 20 games once despite playing on some pretty decent teams. He also only averaged 6.7 strikeouts per 9 innings -- hardly a great ratio. And he made the All-Star team only twice in 22 years. Lots of great players in lousy markets made the All-Star more than twice, right?

In 1979, the year the Pirates won the WS, Blyleven won 12 games in 37 starts and was arguably the third best pitcher on the team. He didn't pitch particularly well in 1987 the year the Twins won it all but I can't blame Blyleven for that as he was old by then.

Really good pitcher, very consistent really good pitcher, sometimes fantastic. But I just don't see him as a player that dominated his era which is my standard to make the HOF.

I believe Blyleven only missed election this time by five votes, and Alomar by eight. Both could have gotten in with just a few more voters going their way.

Wow. What a joke this year's process was.

Glad to see Dawson got in. It's about time. One of the reasons I would keep Blyleven out of the hall of fame is that in 22 years he was an all star only 2 times. How can you be a HOFer if you're not even somewhat regularly an all star? I believe that some of the problem is that those 3,701 strikeouts look really impressive. Before Carlton and Ryan passed Walter Johnson back in the 80's, 3,508 k's was the record. I also don't understand how guys can get so many more votes than they had the previous year. Whether somebody gets votes or not shouldn't have anything to do with who else is up for election. If there were a couple of superstars players up for election this year, Dawson would probably have fell short again and Blyleven and Alomar would have missed by a lot more. Either a guy deserves it or he doesn't. How can voters vote "no" one year and "yes" the next? Did the player do something in that year to deserve the vote they didn't get the previous year?

There are clearly politics involved in the voting process, and I would think that even in a very weak year there is pressure to elect at least one of the candidates. What would happen to the Hall of Fame Induction Weekend if one year nobody got in? Would it be canceled?

Next year's ballot will include Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, Larry Walker, Jeff Bagwell, John Franco and Kevin Brown. This will be the year Blyleven will probably make it whether he deserves it or not. Palmeiro would have been automatic but the steroids will likely keep him out. Gonzo was great but faded away too soon. Walker's totals aren't good enough and he played in Colorado. Kevin Brown-not a chance. Franco-might be deserving. Bagwell- possibly. He should have played 1 more year, then the voters would make sure he goes in along with Biggio who is up for election in 2012.

If I had one vote...
 

It would go to the Dutch guy.

Another vote, another mockery. Congratulations to the Hawk, who in my estimation is a very deserving Hall of Famer. Just imagine if players could be inducted for receiving simply more than half of the votes possible, instead of the almost impossible to attain 75 percent. If that was the case, we'd be congratulating Alomar, Morris, Blyleven and Larkin today as well. Well, it looks like another year ranting and raving about how incompetent the selection process and its voters are.

Anthony.....nice tongue-in-cheek 'expectorated' comment in post #4.....

I'm hoping McGriff gets in some day. In my opinion he really deserves to be. 493 home runs, never a steroid suspect, and a model of consistency. He hit 30 home runs or more 7 years in a row and had 8 100 RBI seasons. His post season numbers are eye popping too. Guy should get in.

I was glad that Larkin didn't get in. To me, he never even comes close to the games greatest players and especially not at short stop. Not a HOFer to me.

Also don't think Raines deserves to get in either. I know people hate the term compiler but I can't help but think of him as one.

Alomar will get in next time no doubt. I never saw Blyleven play but I just looked up his stats. On the surface they seem very impressive. But like others, I have to ask why one of the games best pitchers of all time only managed to be recognized as a premier player in the league twice, and why he never even finished second in Cy Young voting. People say he was on bad teams, but I've looked at the teams he was on in his prime and they were 500 teams. To me, that's hardly a terrible team. Lost 17 games 4 times.

*

I've got nothing against Bert. He was a nice pitcher, but dominant? Not really. There's always been the assumption hanging around that he spent his entire career pitching for lousy teams. His career record is 287-250 .534. The combined teams he pitched for were 1991-1901 (I counted both team records during the years he changed mid-season) for a winning percentage of .512. If he had merely won at the same percentage as his team, he would have had 275 wins. So his domination translated to 12 extra wins in 22 years.


In 22 seasons, the teams he finished the season with, ended up in first place 3 times, second place 3 times, and third place 5 times. Not great, but not awful. He was in a race about half of the time.

To me, he's another borderline case, and sometimes, those guys don't get in.

First of all, I apologize to all the anti-quoters for my multiple transgressions in this thread, but with such specific points being addressed several posts after the post to which I am responding, it just makes it easier to do it this way. Secondly, I should know better than to debate Jeff (I mean that as a compliment, counselor), but here goes.

Two all-star games does seem paltry at first blush. But pitchers aren't voted on by the fans. They're often used to round out rosters in the spirit of throwing a bone to teams with no other viable all-stars, as well as all-star game managers giving preferential treatment to their own players. Consequently, deserving players get left off the roster. Blyleven went 19-7 with a 2.87 era and 1.13 whip for the 1984 Indians. He finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting that year, but didn't make the all-star game. That's a snub.

Same thing in 1989. He went 17-5 with a 2.75 era and 1.12 Whip. He finished 4th in Cy Young voting that year, but once again didn't make the all-star game.

In 1977, he led the AL with a 1.06 whip, which is damn impressive for a pitcher who threw 234 innings that year. He also had a 2.72 era (Tanana led the league at 2.53, which isn't that much better). No all-star game. Among the AL pitchers who did make the squad that year (full season stats): Dave LaRoche with his 8-7 record, 3.51 era, and 17 saves and Jim Slaton, who went 10-14 with a 3.58 era, and 1.37 whip. Once again, Blyleven seems to have been hosed.

The 6.7 career K/9innings ratio is better than Hall of Famers Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Don Drysdale, Bob Feller, Whitey Ford, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, and Walter Johnson (granted a different era and specious, but I like it). Also better than Kevin Brown, Roy Halliday, and Louisiana Lightnin' Ron Guidry. This could be a much longer list.

As for the 1979 Pirates, I agree that Blyeven, despite his 12-5 record, had a subpar year.

Actually, the 6.7 Ks per 9 innings ranks him 115th all-time. This is a somewhat misleading rank because there are plenty of modern relief pitchers with better ratios which has knocked a lot of great pitchers down the list. That being said, Blyleven led the league in strikeouts one time. Feller lost four years of his prime to the war and still managed to lead the league in Ks for five years. Is there any question who the better strikeout pitcher was?

Anthony, all good points. But as someone who grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80s, I guess Blyleven never struck me as a dominant, great pitcher. He was always really good...for many years. One huge stat to me is how he fared compared to the pitchers in his generation -- and comparative ERA is the stat to be reviewed here. Blyleven finished 135th alltime in this category. You'll see that most of the pitchers you listed with worse K/9 inning ratios fared better than Blyleven here.

Nolan Ryan. It's hard to blame Blyleven for being in same league as outlier statistical freak like Ryan for the first decade of his career.

Frank Robinson only led the league in home runs once. Do we discount his 586 lifetime? Barry Bonds only led the league twice.

He struck out over 200 batters eight times in his career. Just missed a ninth time by four strikeouts. I'm willing to bet the list of guys ahead of him on that list is pretty damn short. Without checking, I'd guess top 10 - 15.

Ok, Nolan Ryan never existed. Now Blyleven led the league in Ks one time.

You can always find statistical anomalies. Frank Robinson also won a Triple Crown and won the MVP in each league. Barry Bonds was the greatest statistical player of the modern era and was clearly the best player in the league for years. Blyleven was never even remotely on this level.

Agreed. He was a really consistent really good player. Just never great.

Jeff,

Comparative ERA's a stat I've never checked. Will take a gander at it. I'm willing to guess there are quite a few modern relievers on that list.

Here's one more list from baseball reference ( I notice you sponsor Hal's page, no surprise there). The pitchers Blyleven is "most similar to":

Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry
Fergie Jenkins
Tommy John
Robin Roberts
Tom Seaver
Jim Kaat
Early Wynn
Phil Neikro
Steve Carlton

8 out of 10 in the Hall of Fame.

I also grew up watching baseball in the 70's and 80's, though I rarely watched the Twins or indians, or most of the teams for which Blyleven played. I felt the same way you did about him until a couple years ago, but the closer I looked, the more I liked.

Blyleven does not even come close to comparing to Seaver or Carlton. In an era when there were 4 man pitching staffs, his 162 game average record was 14-12. Sorry, but that's not HOF material. And a 3.31 ERA was nothing to brag about back then.

I think this is a fair list for him to be compared to although Carlton, Jenkins and Seaver are clearly better than the rest of this bunch. Certainly Blyleven can hang with Neikro, Sutton, Perry and the rest.

Kary,

I agree about Seaver and Carlton, but I didn't generate the list, baseball-reference did. No clue what formula they use.

Blyleven
 

I think Blyleven should make it. 287 wins is impressive, in any era. He lost a lot too, but he played on a lot of weak teams. Tracking his career, it seems to me he was usually scheduled against the other team's ace. Thus he came up short on the winning % despite some good stats. If he had found a way to win only 13 more times in 18 years, he would be a sure thing with 300.