The Hall of Fame ballot...Ron Santo belongs and other matters.
The Hall of Fame ballot is supposed to be in the mail. I haven't received it yet but should shortly. Not sure on who I will vote for but no doubt others have their opinion.
Really, you don't know for sure until you have the ballot in hand with pen at the ready and www.baseball-reference.com in front of you. Until then, you can only consider it in your mind. But it's not until you have the actual ability to check off somebody's name do you really know who you will vote for.
Some criterion:
1. I prefer - but don't demand - to see ten "Hall of Fame" years. That being ten seasons that were truly excellent years.
2. I prefer that a player's Hall of Fame credentials be spelled out in three sentences or less. Guys who need a full page to have their credentials explained lose me.
3. I like 20-win seasons and Cy Young Awards. I prefer guys who win games.
4. I like Gold Gloves. I know the Gold Glove Award can be suspect at times but I like players who were outstanding on both offense and defense.
5. I like the No. 100. As in 100 runs scored and/or 100 RBI. Look, you have to have some kind of cutoff point. 90 is good too. So is 18 wins. But I like 20 wins and the No. 100.
By the way: Ron Santo should be in the Hall of Fame and anybody who disagrees is dead wrong.
That said...here is the roll call and my initial feeling. None of these are final!! I can be persuaded otherwise.
Rickey Henderson - This is a no-brainer. Move on
Mark McGwire - I'm voting for him every year. The numbers are there. As far as the other stuff, I declined the honor of sitting in judgment on the players who may or may not have used them. My guess is many, many did but have nothing to substantiate that. McGwire gets my vote: now, next year and every year after.
Andre Dawson - What is going on here? I'm missing something. He should be a lock: a superb blend of offense and defense. His offensive numbers aren't overwhelming but combine them with his defense and he is definitely Hall of Fame.
Jack Morris - I go back and forth on this guy every year. I wish he would have won at least one Cy Young Award. I wish his ERA was a little better. I wish he would have won 20-games at least a couple more times. But he was definitely one of the top three pitchers in his league during much of his career. Right now I'm voting for him.
Jim Rice- He put up some outstanding power numbers for a 10-12 year stretch. But if you're going to base your candidacy on offensive numbers alone, shouldn't you at least have a .300 batting average, 450 home runs or 1,500 RBI? Rice was .298 with 382 home runs and 1,423 RBI. He is about three years shy of being a lock.
Bert Blyleven - I spend more time on him each year than any other player. Far more. Far, far, far more. I still don't see it and I really agonize over this. I see one 20-win season. I see no Cy Young Awards and just two All-Star appearances. Two? I see just four seasons where he was at least five games above .500. I don't buy the "bad teams" argument. Between 1977-80, his teams averaged 90 wins a season. Over that same period, he averaged 12 wins per season. He won 12 games for the Pirates in 1979 when they won 98 and the World Series.
Somebody explain to me what I'm missing?????
Lee Smith - Have yet to vote for him but will strongly reconsider him now that Rich Gossage is in. Gossage was better. So was John Wetteland in his prime. So were several others.
Alan Trammell- Methinks this guy is underrated because he played in the shadow of Cal Ripken Jr. I have voted for him in the past but some Detroit friends are only lukewarm in their praise. Interesting.
Tim Raines - Voted for him last year. Thought he deserved more consideration than he did. Again, the shadow of Rickey Henderson may have had something to do with it.
Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly - They were absolutely great, the best in the game, but for too short of a period. Personally I like Parker and Murphy at the top of their game better than Rice.
Tommy John - He did not quite have a Hall of Fame career. His numbers don't merit selection. But here is my point: some players get many points taken away on the so-called "character" issue. If so, why not give Tommy John extra credit on the "character" issue. As a person he is absolutely Hall of Fame material. Top of the chart. But so are Dawson, Blyleven, Murphy, Trammell and Mark McLemore for that matter.
Harold Baines - He has about the same numbers as Rice but took six extra years of DHing to get there.
There are others on the ballot but....
Final word - My ballot is subject to change every year. I go over every player on the ballot and examine his record on www.baseball-reference.com every year. Blyleven especially. There may be a year when I vote for a player and then not vote for him the next year. There are a number of players who I go back and forth on. That's just the way it is.
Yes, www.baseball-reference.com is the final word.
If I'm not mistaken Harold Baines has more RBI than any player who's eligible for the Hall of Fame, but not in. Of course, Rafael Palmeiro will take over that lead in a couple of years.
I think Santo should be there too. Dawson, Rice, Raines and Morris are all watershed guys in my mind and fall into that category of having to use too much evidence to build your case for them and therefore they're not worthy of inclusion. Having said that, I think Rice gets in this year and I don't think it hurts the Hall's reputation any. He was fairly dominant in the 12 year stretch from 1975-'86.
Blylevins should be in. There's to much that goes into getting a W or and L that is out of the pitcher's control that sometime you have to look at the peripheral numbers to see just how great a pitcher was and Blylevin is noticebly better in ERA+ and WHIP than the watershed guy, Morris. He also had more 200+ inning seasons, and that's saying something. Blylevin's 162 game average: 245 innings and a 3.31 ERA while the league ERA during that time was 3.90. Regardless of what his record says, that's a winner.
McGwire is an oddity, statistically, with only 1626 hits. So many of his plate appearances resulted in either a home run or walk that he never got many just regular old base hits relative to other everyday players. He topped 150 hits only twice in his career and never hit more than 28 doubles. But, in the end, it's hard to argue with 583 home runs and a .394 OBP. Those numbers get you in.
Trammell isn't Hall of Famer, but there's no doubt he's underrated. As an AL shortstop of that era he was overshawdowed defensively by Ozzie Guillen and offensively by Ripken. I never felt his double play parter, Lou Whitaker, got his due either. His career numbers are suprisingly close to HOFer Ryne Sandberg's.
I'm interested to see how Barry Larkin is treated in his first year of eligibility next year. His career totals aren't that impressive, but he made 12 all-star games at a key position, won multiple gold gloves and an MVP award. If I had a vote, he'd get it.
Report any abuse or spam
I'm not going to comment on all your choices. I doubt I could change your mind and the Hall doesn't see fit to give me a vote.
Ron Santo not only deserves to get in based on his playing ability but on what he has done after playing. I know of few more courageous and generous fellows. He knows how to make the best of a really bad situation....and to use that to help kids. Ron Santo is a quality guy!
Mark McGwire on the other hand...welll...tell me what's the difference between what he did and what Pete Rose did...One in...all in.
While hating to agree with D'god ..what's the difference between what a young Hamilton did and what McGwire did? (Even if you like Josh and I do...you have to hate what he did.) No to Mark McGwire. Baseball is not a sport of pure angels on the other hand we don't have to go out of our way to award behavior of the other...What next...some one who shoots himself in the thigh will be up for membership????
Report any abuse or spam
One in...all in???
Stupid. What Rose did was not only illegal but detrimental to the game of baseball in general and in specific. His betting on his own team compromised his team, his players, his league and baseball.
When a writer took down Mark McGwyer's bottle of Andro to ask about it, Mark's reply? "It's not illegal and it's not against the rules." It wasn't. Period.
Now it is. But, you can't judge a career in the past on knowledge gained today. If you did that, you'd take away a lot of home runs that bounced over the fences before the over-the-fence-only rule came into play. You'd also remove at least a couple of Hall-of-Fame MEMBERS who used the spitball. And, you'd eliminate several no-hitters because the pitcher lost or the game didn't go the requisite 9 innings.
Wait. They already did that. Funny how today's elitist can go back into books that have long been closed and decide that what that generation posted isn't good enough for their elitist tastes.
Report any abuse or spam
Oh yeah... and if a writer who covers the Texas Rangers EVER votes FOR Harold Baines for ANYthing other than shoveling manure, that writer should be eliminated from the payroll immediately.
Report any abuse or spam
No Blyleven? As good as Jack Morris was, he doesn't even enter the comparative conversation with Blyleven. I know, the explanation of how you adjudge led to your ballot choices, but holy *****, actual and objective pitching performance ought be at least considered.
One thing that should be discounted that has evidently been at least a factor over the years: press popularity. Not everyone in the Hall was actually an elite player. Not eery elite player gets into the Hall. I'm glad you support Santo. I'm disappointed you don't support Blyleven.
Report any abuse or spam
Sullivan. Re Blyeleven, you write: "Somebody explain to me what I'm missing?????"
Well, here's a novel concept: How about you look at how good Blyleven was at preventing runs, and how many innings he provided for his teams?
How in the world do you manage to get through an entire paragraph, after "spending more time on him each year than any other player," and yet NOT CITE A SINGLE METRIC THAT DOES A GOOD JOB OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE?
Wins? Winning percentage? Are you kidding?
Report any abuse or spam
I like Blyleven and think he should be in. I think their are two reasons he isn't, #1 He never pitched in a large enough market, not high profile enough, #2 is his won loss record of 287-250. If Bly really cared about the Hall he should have stuck around 2 more years to get those 13 wins. A record of 300 wins guarantees entry. His ERA of 3.31 is what really sticks out to me though, that and his nasty curveball. If Bly pitched for the Dodgers, Yankees or any other large market team for any length of time then #1 he has more wins and #2 he is readily identifiable with that team. I vote for Smith, Henderson, Dawson and, Trammell, Raines, Parker, Morris and Blyleven. There was a time when Parker was the best right fielder. Raines and Henderson both rediscovered the art of basestealing.
Report any abuse or spam
First off Santo will be in on Monday. Thank God.
Let me persuade you on rice .
1. Led league in h, hr,rbi,slg,total bases,extra base hits,from 75-86
2. led league in of assist during the same period
3. ONLY major league player to have 200 h and at least 39 hr 3 times ( hed did it 3times in a Row)
4.won an mvp and was in top 5 5 other times for a total of 6 top 5 finishes 11 other players have accomplished this and the other 10 are in.
7. 406 total bases was the first time any al player has done this since Dimaggio in 1937 and NO AL player has done it since. His total of 406 is 9th most in a season all time the other 8 seasons were by ruth gehrig fox gehrig dimaggio ruth gehrig gehrig then rice.
8 The man has waited on the fence long enough 15 yrs on ballot and the 5 year wait to get on. It is bordering on cruel and he has always handeled it with class never complaining (like gossage and others have done.) He has the support of every hof member that he played or withor against that I have seen interview Gossage Ripken Gwynn Winfield Reggie fisk yaz etc speak up on his side. He will get in on the vets vote if he fails this year but why make him wait even longer. As we have seen with santo and buck oneil to name a few lets let the man enjoy it while he stll can. Santo can smile on monday lets let rice smile on jan 12th. Check his box PLEASE I promise it will feel good. he will make it or miss by a vote or two. he missed by only16 last year out of 500 something .check the mans box
Report any abuse or spam
*** Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 19th in wins. ***
Report any abuse or spam
T.R. - I'm glad that you seem to be an objective sort who values numbers rather than just anecdotes about how "feared" a slugger was or how "dominant" a pitcher happened to be. That said, you really should revisit the Blyleven pick again. Rich Lederer over at The Baseball Analysts has an ongoing series outlining Blyleven's credentials and they are far more than just HOF-worthy. Here's the link: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/12/another_additio.php
Please read it if you haven't already today. Also, just to reiterate: *** Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 19th in wins. *** Let that sink in for just a moment.....
Report any abuse or spam
It's too bad you determine Hall of Fame worthiness stricly by the numbers. That's the LPGA Hall of Fame mentality -- once you get 30 Tour victories, you're in. There's no need for voting. If it was only about reaching certain milestones, they wouldn't need you guys to vote. The powers-that-be want you to do some analysis.
About Bert Blyleven -- he's not in the Hall of Fame, yet contemporaries of his who cheated (i.e., threw spitballs) and got 300 wins are in the Hall of Fame. Blyleven, who had perhaps the greatest slow curve ever and was a strikeout master, deserves to be in the Hall of Fame ahead of, for example, Gaylord Perry.
Report any abuse or spam
I'm glad you make use of www.baseball-reference.com, but if you're going to use that wonderful tool, then USE it. It provides you with the capability of neutralizing each player's numbers, taking ballparks and run-scoring eras and labor disruptions out of the equation so you can draw unbiased comparisons. Let's do that for Blyleven and a guy you say you'd vote for, Jack Morris. Here are their respective neutralized stats, season by season.
1st season, Blyleven:11-7, 3.31 ERA, 163 IP, 134 Ks
1st season, Morris: 3-2, 3.50 ERA, 46 IP, 28 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
2nd season, Blyleven: 18-12, 3.23 ERA, 276 IP, 221 Ks
2nd season, Morris: 5-6, 4.43 ERA, 106 IP, 47 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
3rd season, Blyleven: 18-14, 3.43 ERA, 291 IP, 230 Ks
3rd season, Morris: 14-8, 2.94 ERA, 202 IP, 115 Ks
Advantage: Close, let's call it a push
4th season, Blyleven: 26-10, 2.49 ERA, 326 IP, 258 Ks
4th season, Morris: 13-14, 3.99 ERA, 250 IP, 113 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
5th season, Blyleven: 20-10, 2.76 ERA, 278 IP, 246 Ks
5th season, Morris: 19-13, 3.25 ERA, 291 IP, 142 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
6th season, Blyleven: 19-12, 3.05 ERA, 280 IP, 236 Ks
6th season, Morris: 14-15, 4.06 ERA, 266 IP, 135 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
7th season, Blyleven: 20-12, 3.13 ERA, 293 IP, 215 Ks
7th season, Morris: 18-14, 3.45 ERA, 292 IP, 230 Ks
Advantage: Close, but Blyleven
8th season, Blyleven: 18-8, 2.63 ERA, 236 IP, 183 Ks
8th season, Morris: 14-12, 3.69 ERA, 239 IP, 147 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
9th season, Blyleven: 16-10, 3.26 ERA, 243 IP, 181 Ks
9th season, Morris: 17-11, 3.26 ERA, 259 IP, 192 Ks
Advantage: Push
10th season, Blyleven: 14-12, 3.59 ERA, 236 IP, 170 Ks
10th season, Morris: 18-11, 3.15 ERA, 269 IP, 224 Ks
Advantage: Morris (he got one!!!)
11th season, Blyleven: 11-12, 4.13 ERA, 213 IP, 165 Ks
11th season, Morris: 18-11, 3.18 ERA, 269 IP, 210 Ks
Advantage: Morris (is it a trend?)
12th season, Blyleven: 17-10, 3.13 ERA, 247 IP, 166 Ks
12th season, Morris: 12-13, 4.14 ERA, 233 IP, 166 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven (nope, I guess not)
13th season, Blyleven: 1-1, 4.87 ERA, 20 IP, 19 Ks (hurt)
13th season, Morris: 7-11, 5.07 ERA, 169 IP, 113 Ks
Advantage: Morris, but only by default
14th season, Blyleven: 9-8, 3.64 ERA, 158 IP, 124 Ks
14th season, Morris: 12-15, 4.55 ERA, 249 IP, 161 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven, even in limited time
15th season, Blyleven: 18-9, 2.76 ERA, 245 IP, 169 Ks
15th season, Morris: 16-11, 3.21 ERA, 249 IP, 164 Ks
Advantage: Close, but Blyleven again
16th season, Blyleven: 20-12, 2.97 ERA, 297 IP, 208 Ks
16th season, Morris: 13-13, 3.94 ERA, 242 IP, 132 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
17th season, Blyleven: 16-14, 3.74 ERA, 275 IP, 217 Ks
17th season, Morris: 6-11, 5.68 ERA, 155 IP, 104 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
18th season, Blyleven: 17-13, 3.41 ERA, 275 IP, 201 Ks
18th season, Morris: 10-13, 4.71 ERA, 210 IP, 148 Ks
Advantage: Blyleven
At that point, Morris stopped pitching, while Blyleven posted four more season, including the equivalent of a 17-9, 2.90 ERA, 239 IP season in 1989. Comparing just their first 18 seasons, Blyleven, in a neutral context, was better than a neutral Morris a ******** 13 times, with another two pushes that could go either way. In short, Blyleven was better than Morris. Significantly better.
THAT'S what you're missing.
Report any abuse or spam
You say you like BBRef, check out the neutralize stat button for Blyleven:
W L WL% IP H ER BB SO ERA WHIP
325 227 .589 5062.0 4780 1897 1362 3763 3.37 1.213
That to me is a hall of famer, no doubt. Of course, even without this neat tool, he is still a HOF pitcher, much better than Morris.
Report any abuse or spam
You're really not going to vote for Blyleven because "I see one 20-win season."
Well, I look forward to you justifying not voting for Maddux because he only had *two* 20-win seasons.
Report any abuse or spam
An amazing Bert Blyleven statistic that I wouldn’t wish upon any major league pitcher:
From his 1970 rookie season through 1977 I’ve accumulated his quality starts that I’ve defined as: 6innings, 2earned runs or less; 7,8,9innings, 3earned runs or less; and 9innings+ 4 earned runs or less in which he garnered a no decision or a loss only……
The totals are:
82 games
658 innings
583 hits
185 runs
160 earned runs
184 base on balls
540 strikeouts
2.19 ERA
His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA
1970 0-3 2.09 9 games
1971 0-6 1.90 9 games
1972 0-9 2.35 13 games
1973 0-8 2.55 9 games
1974 0-8 1.80 10 games
1975 0-6 2.00 10 games
1976 0-8 2.29 15 games
1977 0-5 2.45 7 games
I understand that pitchers put up great games and get snakebit on occasion, but this accounted for almost 1 of every 3 starts, 82 of 279 to be exact or 29%. Show me a Hall of Famer that had to go through this year by year. Fortunately once Blyleven ended up in Pittsburgh and later some good Minnesota teams, this trend eased to what I would consider normal levels (I had researched this in the past but don’t have the numbers on hand)
Imagine 1974, your 17-9 in 27 games, and in the other 10, all of which are essentially quality starts, you post a 1.80ERA and go 0-8. You end up 17-17. If you don’t know the facts, and your voting for the Cy Young award, and you see 17-17. Do you cast a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place vote? Probably not. This is what Blyleven faced in yesteryear, and the same writers, who I contend do not know the facts, are what Blyleven faces every year in the HOF vote.
Go ahead, plug in a different year, or harken back to Baseball-reference and neutralize the stats, do it for every one of Blyleven’s contemporaries. The numbers don’t change much, but for Bert Blyleven, they do. The example given above is my attempt to show why. Teams that didn’t score runs and booted the ball around like it was a soccer match.
Report any abuse or spam