Dawson only inductee..........

[Irwin Fletcher]

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.

[Irwin Fletcher]

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?

[mcap100176]

Just rename it Hall of Very Good

[Jim VB]

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

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

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

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.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

He was a dominating pitcher.

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.

[calvindog]

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 S.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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?

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

He struck out over 200 batters eight times in his career. Just missed a ninth time by four strikeouts.

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

[Anthony S.]

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Irwin Fletcher

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

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.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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 5 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.

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I love how career long consistency is dimissed as "compiling" or just "sticking around" 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. C'Mon Jeff, you're better than that.

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!

[Irwin Fletcher]

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.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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!

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.

[calvindog]

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.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

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.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

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.

Agree 100%. The guy was 5th career in strikeouts, it's not like he was merely a "very good" pitcher. His complete games, shutouts, almost 300 victories. Can you put guys like Sutton and Early Wynn in just because they had 300 wins and ignore Blyleven who pitched on some horrendous teams.

[tbob]

A lot of guys here are too young to have seen Dawson play for the Expos. He was a stellar offensive AND defensive player. I believe he was also the only player who ever won an MVP award while playing on a LAST PLACE team. I still remember the year he played without a contract and told Dallas Green of the Cubs to merely fill in an amount. He had an incredible year and Dallas Green wrote in "$500,000" on the check which made The Hawk the second lowest paid player on the team (according to ESPN).
I had the opportunity to meet Andre Dawson and he, Ernie Banks and Brooks Robinson (who i also met) were the three classiest gentlemen and nicest players I have ever met. Good for the Hawk! Congrats Andre!

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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!

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[canjond]

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