HOF votes

[eudubbz]

How is Andre Dawson the best player in this class?? Robbie Alomar should ask for a recount. I also hope the BBWA gets some more analytical guys that will vote in Edgar.

[cwk1963]

I still think there's a bias against DH only just like there is for non-SP. Edgar might not make it at all because of this.

I can't fathom that Bert Blyleven still didn't make it. 242 career CG; 5th all time K; 60 career SHO; almost 5000 career IP; 287 career W. It's a travesty I say.

[JP Kastner]

I agree. Bert Blyleven should make the Hall.

To be honest, I'm really tired of the voting process. Six voters didn't even bother to send in their vote. Don't they realize that this is sacred? They have an obligation.

[lawr]

ugh. Andre Dawson?

i agree re Alomar, and also not only Blyleven, but Jack Morris, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat are more than worthy of consideration.

but, back to Andre. compare him to two guys i think are seriously overlooked, especially in context to Dawson (and this does not count Buckner and Al Oliver, for whom arguments could be made). all three below had close total plate appearances (just over 10K).

Dawson .279-438-1591 with a career .323 OBP, 1373 runs, and 589 BB (plus 300-plus swipes)
Dwight Evans .272-385-1384 with a career .370 OBP, 1470 runs, and 1391 BB (plus arguably the best defender of his era)
Darrell Evans .248-414-1354 with a career 361 OBP, 1344 runs, and 1605 BB (and 40 homers in each league and the oldest to hit 40 on a juggernaut team).

i don't understand the appeal of Dawson in that light. and, i understand HOF stuff is so subjective but i don't understand the logic. ever....

[cwk1963]

I agree. Bert Blyleven should make the Hall.

To be honest, I'm really tired of the voting process. Six voters didn't even bother to send in their vote. Don't they realize that this is sacred? They have an obligation.

This should be 1 strike and you're out. Even if you don't vote for anyone you should return it. Time to open up HOF voting to fantasy writers .

[kjduke]

Dawson was an all-around talent and team player who brought more to the table than just numbers. Is it only about numbers? I don't know anything about Robbie Alomar behind the scenes, but judging from his public Milton Bradleyesque episodes alone I'd say Dawson is a guy I'd rather have on my team. Having played the game every chance I got (nowhere near professionally) when I was younger and having strong opinions on what it means to be a baseball player distinct from being just an a**hole with talent, I may be out of place here among the pure quant crowd ... but Andre Dawson is 100% a hall-of-famer. Sandberg made the same point in his acceptance speech a year or so ago. Ron Santo should be in for the same reason.

Yeah, you got me, I'm a Cub fan - but that's not the source of my bias. I think what one contributes outside the lines as a teammate should be a significant component in the voting process. It can make a greater difference in team success than another 2-3 HRs or extra 6-7 hits per yr, which tacked onto a guy like Dawson's numbers would probably remove any quant argument against him.

[lawr]

i am totally down with santo being in, as his numbers are not far off from evans or evans (or kaat, morris, bert n tj).

alomar essentially redefined the position. the only real bad issue he had was when an umpire mocked his puported sexual preference, and robby spat in anger. bad move. but, hey, the ump was out of line to provoke like that.

but, for years robbie was the best player at his position, and that, along with his body of work goes a pretty long ways.

and, dawson was a very good player. good speed, good power, great defense, and very good career credentials. not, however, good enough to be considered among the best of his generation (any more than dwight or howdy doody) but robbie clearly was indeed the best second sacker the bulk of his career.

[Guest]

Santo should be in. Worst omission in my opinion.
Alomar is a no-brainer.
Raines to me is close.


Blyleven to me is the most interesting one. Dividing his career up into 4 pieces:

1. Early career (ages 19-27): 136-123, 2.81 ERA, 1.14WHIP, 1900K in 2387IP.
2. Supposed prime (28-32): 40-37, 3.61 ERA, 1.30WHIP, 589K in 790IP.
3. Return to Glory (33-34): 36-23, 3.02ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 376K in 539IP.
4. Twilight of Career (35-41): 75-67, 4.21ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 826K in 254IP.

I am going to compare him to someone else, not because the comp is perfect, but it's interesting.

1. Early career (19-24): 100-39, 2.64, 1.11, 1168K in 1291.
2. Entering prime (25-28): 54-42, 3.64, 1.26, 667K in 837.
3. Twilight: (29-35): 40-31, 4.99, 1.53, 458 in 672.

Again, not the same guy and longevity does matter. But if excellence is what is most important... do we basically reward Blyleven for being a #3 starter for the better part of a decade? Or is he an HOF because of how excellent he was in those first 9 years even tough the rest isn't particularly great?

One other interesting comp:
The pitcher above to:

1. Early Career (19-25): 54-53, 3.94, 1.37, 952 in 947.
2. Prime (26-30): 111-34, 1.95, 0.93, 1444 in 1397.

Now let me compare those two one other way:

Player 1 Dominant period: 1291 IP, 100-39, 2.64, 1.11
Player 2 Dominant period: 1397 IP, 111-34, 1.95, 0.93

Player 1 Other: 1510 IP, 94-73, 4.24, 1.38
Player 2 Other: 947 IP, 54-53, 3.94, 1.37

Player 1 pitched in a higher run scoring environment than #2. Player 2 is a legendary HOF. Player 1's highest HOF voting was 3.3%

My last person to compare to all of the above:

Player 3:
Early Career (21-28) 805 IP, 43-42, 3.56, 1.21
Prime (28-37) 2008 IP, 141-81, 3.23, 1.08
Twilight (38-40) 448 IP, 4.30, 1.29

Player 3 is going to be one of the hardest HOF considerations when he comes up in a few years.

[brian]

I see the most interesting year to be 2013 as Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Piazza appear on the ballot for the first time, with the possibility of Bagwell left over from 2011. Do voters ignore the rumors and visual evidence of extreme changes in body size and dimensions, and just vote based on what they thought of those guys before they had to sift everything through the steroid filter?

If I was a voter, I would be very conflicted. Off the cuff, all five of those 2013 names look superior to the guys on the current ballot to me, yet the questions of how much their success was enhanced are impossible to answer. As such, it may be increasingly difficult for 75% of the writers to agree about any given player. I wonder if 75% of us reading this would or 75% of any population sample for that matter given it is such a divisive issue?

[da_big_kid_94]

Wrigley (the former Heywood Giblome) and I had a discussion about Santo on the old boards - he for, me very much against. But that, to me, is not the most glaring omission.

Can ANYONE imagine what the game of baseball would be like today if it were not for Tommy John and Dr. Frank Jobe? How many pitchers would have seen their careers go up in smoke forever if neither of these gentlemen had the guts to do what they did. Here's a partial list;

• Rick Ankiel
• Rocco Baldelli
• Rod Beck
• Erik Bedard
• A. J. Burnett
• Paul Byrd
• Chris Carpenter
• Shin-Soo Choo
• Ryan Dempster
• John Franco
• Éric Gagné
• Mike González
• Tom Gordon
• Matt Holliday - guess THAT $120 mil would have went out the window.
• Tim Hudson
• Jason Isringhausen
• Jimmy Key
• Francisco Liriano
• Paul Molitor
• Matt Morris
• Carlos Quentin
• Mariano Rivera
• Fernando Rodney
• Kenny Rogers
• B. J. Ryan
• John Smoltz
• Joakim Soria
• Rafael Soriano
• Billy Wagner
• Brian Wilson
• Randy Wolf
• Kerry Wood
• Jordan Zimmermann

John and Jobe changed the game forever - THEY are the two most glaring omissions - especially when you consider Smotlz and Mariano may not be the HOF locks they are today if not for those two.

[cwk1963]

I see the most interesting year to be 2013 as Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Piazza appear on the ballot for the first time, with the possibility of Bagwell left over from 2011. Do voters ignore the rumors and visual evidence of extreme changes in body size and dimensions, and just vote based on what they thought of those guys before they had to sift everything through the steroid filter?

If I was a voter, I would be very conflicted. Off the cuff, all five of those 2013 names look superior to the guys on the current ballot to me, yet the questions of how much their success was enhanced are impossible to answer. As such, it may be increasingly difficult for 75% of the writers to agree about any given player. I wonder if 75% of us reading this would or 75% of any population sample for that matter given it is such a divisive issue?

I think you have your answer in Mark McGwire. He got 21.9% last year and not much more (23.7%) this year. Granted, you can argue he was a one dimensional player but he still hit 583 HR - well over the 'automatic' entry into the HOF.

[cwk1963]

Wrigley (the former Heywood Giblome) and I had a discussion about Santo on the old boards - he for, me very much against. But that, to me, is not the most glaring omission.

Can ANYONE imagine what the game of baseball would be like today if it were not for Tommy John and Dr. Frank Jobe? How many pitchers would have seen their careers go up in smoke forever if neither of these gentlemen had the guts to do what they did. Here's a partial list;
...
John and Jobe changed the game forever - THEY are the two most glaring omissions - especially when you consider Smotlz and Mariano may not be the HOF locks they are today if not for those two.

kid - I agreed with you back then and nothing has changed my mind. These 2 certainly deserve to be in for what they did for the game of baseball in general.

[brian]

cwk, I am not sure that voters will treat all players from the steroids era like McGwire, who made himself a poster boy. I doubt the voters will go for years not voting for the most worthy players, instead voting in Harold Baines types or no one. It should be interesting...

[Guest]

1. Early career (19-24): 100-39, 2.64, 1.11, 1168K in 1291.
2. Entering prime (25-28): 54-42, 3.64, 1.26, 667K in 837.
3. Twilight: (29-35): 40-31, 4.99, 1.53, 458 in 672.

One other interesting comp:
The pitcher above to:

1. Early Career (19-25): 54-53, 3.94, 1.37, 952 in 947.
2. Prime (26-30): 111-34, 1.95, 0.93, 1444 in 1397.

Now let me compare those two one other way:

Player 1 Dominant period: 1291 IP, 100-39, 2.64, 1.11
Player 2 Dominant period: 1397 IP, 111-34, 1.95, 0.93

Player 1 Other: 1510 IP, 94-73, 4.24, 1.38
Player 2 Other: 947 IP, 54-53, 3.94, 1.37

Player 1 pitched in a higher run scoring environment than #2. Player 2 is a legendary HOF. Player 1's highest HOF voting was 3.3%

Player 1 is Dwight Gooden, Player 2 is Sandy Koufax.

[cwk1963]

cwk, I am not sure that voters will treat all players from the steroids era like McGwire, who made himself a poster boy. I doubt the voters will go for years not voting for the most worthy players, instead voting in Harold Baines types or no one. It should be interesting...

Now that McGwire has 'fessed up it will be interesting to see how the voters treat him. I also wonder about his motivation. Did he come clean because he's seen 2 years in a row of low 20's percentages; thinking everyone would forgive him and move on? How about the writers? Will they forgive him now or will they look at it as a ploy to get in their good graces? Next year's vote will be very interesting as far as McGwire goes.

[da_big_kid_94]

cwk, I am not sure that voters will treat all players from the steroids era like McGwire, who made himself a poster boy. I doubt the voters will go for years not voting for the most worthy players, instead voting in Harold Baines types or no one. It should be interesting...

Now that McGwire has 'fessed up it will be interesting to see how the voters treat him. I also wonder about his motivation. Did he come clean because he's seen 2 years in a row of low 20's percentages; thinking everyone would forgive him and move on? How about the writers? Will they forgive him now or will they look at it as a ploy to get in their good graces? Next year's vote will be very interesting as far as McGwire goes.

I think he fessed up because of what La Russa said the other day and also that Tony doesn't want training camp to become a zoo. Now a PH role in September will come across as Andy Pettitte style redemption.

[cwk1963]

cwk, I am not sure that voters will treat all players from the steroids era like McGwire, who made himself a poster boy. I doubt the voters will go for years not voting for the most worthy players, instead voting in Harold Baines types or no one. It should be interesting...

Now that McGwire has 'fessed up it will be interesting to see how the voters treat him. I also wonder about his motivation. Did he come clean because he's seen 2 years in a row of low 20's percentages; thinking everyone would forgive him and move on? How about the writers? Will they forgive him now or will they look at it as a ploy to get in their good graces? Next year's vote will be very interesting as far as McGwire goes.

I think he fessed up because of what La Russa said the other day and also that Tony doesn't want training camp to become a zoo. Now a PH role in September will come across as Andy Pettitte style redemption.

I see what you're saying but as of now I still think it's going to become a zoo. All he did in his mea culpa was issue a statement. He didn't face the press himself which he needs to do to finally put this to some sort of rest. I don't think this was the way Tony envisioned him dealing with it.

[da_big_kid_94]

I see what you're saying but as of now I still think it's going to become a zoo. All he did in his mea culpa was issue a statement. He didn't face the press himself which he needs to do to finally put this to some sort of rest. I don't think this was the way Tony envisioned him dealing with it.

The press will be phase two - like he did with Costas last night - it's like the ARod game plan - talk with Gammons, then have a big press conference in, maybe 6 weeks. The more I hear about what went on, the more I want to scratch my head:

• He asked for immunity before Congress and didn't get it? Amazing that 3 hour discussion with Davis the day before never leaked out. I'm impressed.
• The statute of limitations thing - talk about a straw man. Exactly what penalties WAS he facing if he admitted to Congress that he took steroids?
• If you even buy the statue of limitations thing, Ok - the period he could have been held accountable ended in 2006 - why wait until now to admit it - unless the guy who just hired you to be his batting coach said you gotta come clean - we don't need things hanging around the team?

No, the fish still has a hint of aroma to it. And there is one other thing that people have to stop doing - automatically equating steroids with increased performance. if that were the case, Armondo Rios and Velarde et al should have been knocking down the doors at Cooperstown a long time ago.

Robbie will get in next year - the sanctimonious BBWA had to let him know you can't get a pass for spitting on an ump no matter how contrite you are.
Guys like Blyleven and Morris don't look all that great if you use their era as a frame of reference - but if you compare them against today's standards, they look great. Blyleven averaged 226 IP per year ...for 22 years! Morris averages 212 IP per year for 18. Today, most pitchers would faint at those numbers - especially those fourth and fifth staters you PRAY give you five innings, then take a seat for the next four days. And Bert and Jack didn't exactly have Mariano or Joe Nathan backing them up.

[Black Sox]

cwk, I am not sure that voters will treat all players from the steroids era like McGwire, who made himself a poster boy. I doubt the voters will go for years not voting for the most worthy players, instead voting in Harold Baines types or no one. It should be interesting...

Now that McGwire has 'fessed up it will be interesting to see how the voters treat him. I also wonder about his motivation. Did he come clean because he's seen 2 years in a row of low 20's percentages; thinking everyone would forgive him and move on? How about the writers? Will they forgive him now or will they look at it as a ploy to get in their good graces? Next year's vote will be very interesting as far as McGwire goes.

I think he fessed up because of what La Russa said the other day and also that Tony doesn't want training camp to become a zoo. Now a PH role in September will come across as Andy Pettitte style redemption.

I disagree, he admitted to pretty much everything, so you won't have reporters trying to prove he's still not telling the truth. It will be a big story his first couple days, then after that he'll fade to the background. How often do you really hear from hitting coaches reguardless of who they are?

As for Blyleven, for me personally the HOF is not a logevity award. Name me one season where Blyleven was the dominate pitcher of his generation? So what that he pitched for a long time, that too me is one of the biggest problems with the hall, they've let in other mediocre players so they feel obligated to keep lowering the bar. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, if it takes the commitee 10-15 years to decide your a HOF, guess what, your not a HOF. That ranks right up there with the fact that no one ever has received 100% of the votes, and the fact that P.Rose still isn't in the hall. Vote Pete in and include his trangressions right on his plaque. Also baseball writers don't deserve the right to decide who get's in and who dosen't, who better to decide than other HOF players who you know, actually played the game baseball on the highest level, and actually competed against the very people they are deciding on. Just my 2 cents

[da_big_kid_94]

I disagree, he admitted to pretty much everything, so you won't have reporters trying to prove he's still not telling the truth. It will be a big story his first couple days, then after that he'll fade to the background. How often do you really hear from hitting coaches reguardless of who they are?

As for Blyleven, for me personally the HOF is not a logevity award. Name me one season where Blyleven was the dominate pitcher of his generation? So what that he pitched for a long time, that too me is one of the biggest problems with the hall, they've let in other mediocre players so they feel obligated to keep lowering the bar. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, if it takes the commitee 10-15 years to decide your a HOF, guess what, your not a HOF. That ranks right up there with the fact that no one ever has received 100% of the votes, and the fact that P.Rose still isn't in the hall. Vote Pete in and include his trangressions right on his plaque. Also baseball writers don't deserve the right to decide who get's in and who dosen't, who better to decide than other HOF players who you know, actually played the game baseball on the highest level, and actually competed against the very people they are deciding on. Just my 2 cents

First, Pete agreed to his banishment and now he wants someone to take it back. One of the few times he stood up and took his medicine and now he wants a do-over.

You want to see a bar lowered? Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman. Who else pitching right now is a potential HOF'er. Agreed, some have a way to go - maybe Roy Halladay - but realistically. Big difference between longevity then and longevity now. The reason guys like Batisita and Rusch and Silva and Redding and Park and Livan and the rest can still be possible major leaguers is because they still allegedly have a pulse. Blyleven had 242 COMPLETE games in his career, Morris 175 - I think their managers said they give us enough of a chance to win to leave them out there - and they performed that way for a long period of time. And yes, Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer - first or 15th year, no difference. SO is Andre Dawson. What changed about their stats that made them HOF material in their 12th and 15th years? Nothing - it was who else they were up against. Same thing with Cepeda - nice enough ballplayer - but enough writers thought he was good enough for enshrinement - AFTER a long period of time on the ballot. They just care if they get in - not what round it took for them to get in.

[deansdaddy]

Some Random thoughts:

While I will concede that Roberto Alomar is HOF worthy -BUT the spitting incident, his diva attitude, his lack of effort in the playoffs for the Indians in 2001 (if you remember that series vs. Seattle you know what I'm talking about) and his swift decline at the age of 34 are all enough reasons to keep him from the select group of first year inductees.

Lawr - I totally agree with Dwight Evans and did a similar comparison of him on the NFBC boards.

Dawson does lower the bar in my opinion - and there are a lot of guys who now have a much stronger case to make for inclusion starting with Fred McGriff.

As for players I wish we could go back and look at again - Sparky Lyle is one such player. A dominant reliever on championship clubs - he was one of the guys who ushered in the era of the late inning stopper. Gossage, Sutter and Fingers would all take it a step further - but go take a look at Lyle's career. I see a HOF.

Craig Nettles I don't think ever got a real long look either. A dominant defender who hit plenty of HR's for a 3B - How many Gold Gloves did he lose to Brooks Robinson??? If he wins 4-5 more GG's - would he have made the Hall???

[Black Sox]

I disagree, he admitted to pretty much everything, so you won't have reporters trying to prove he's still not telling the truth. It will be a big story his first couple days, then after that he'll fade to the background. How often do you really hear from hitting coaches reguardless of who they are?

As for Blyleven, for me personally the HOF is not a logevity award. Name me one season where Blyleven was the dominate pitcher of his generation? So what that he pitched for a long time, that too me is one of the biggest problems with the hall, they've let in other mediocre players so they feel obligated to keep lowering the bar. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, if it takes the commitee 10-15 years to decide your a HOF, guess what, your not a HOF. That ranks right up there with the fact that no one ever has received 100% of the votes, and the fact that P.Rose still isn't in the hall. Vote Pete in and include his trangressions right on his plaque. Also baseball writers don't deserve the right to decide who get's in and who dosen't, who better to decide than other HOF players who you know, actually played the game baseball on the highest level, and actually competed against the very people they are deciding on. Just my 2 cents

First, Pete agreed to his banishment and now he wants someone to take it back. One of the few times he stood up and took his medicine and now he wants a do-over.

You want to see a bar lowered? Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman. Who else pitching right now is a potential HOF'er. Agreed, some have a way to go - maybe Roy Halladay - but realistically. Big difference between longevity then and longevity now. The reason guys like Batisita and Rusch and Silva and Redding and Park and Livan and the rest can still be possible major leaguers is because they still allegedly have a pulse. Blyleven had 242 COMPLETE games in his career, Morris 175 - I think their managers said they give us enough of a chance to win to leave them out there - and they performed that way for a long period of time. And yes, Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer - first or 15th year, no difference. SO is Andre Dawson. What changed about their stats that made them HOF material in their 12th and 15th years? Nothing - it was who else they were up against. Same thing with Cepeda - nice enough ballplayer - but enough writers thought he was good enough for enshrinement - AFTER a long period of time on the ballot. They just care if they get in - not what round it took for them to get in.

I'll give you that Pete accepted his lifetime banishment ( however he was told up front that he could re apply for re-instatement) HOF is about what he did on the field, not the person he was after he stopped playing ( although I'm not trying to turn this into an elect Pete post ) I just wonder if we put some of the people who are already in the HOF and also the writers who select them under the microscope, what we'd have left

As for Blyeven - Really.... his number of complete games.... that's what your going with? I stand by my points, they speak for themselves. Look at someone like Koufax who only played for 11 seasons, yet does anyone really think he's not a HOF. Any doubt in your mind the people like Maddox / Pedro belong in the hall? Your point about the bar being lowered, brings me to another point. With changes in how games are managed with closers and specialized roles & the steriod era to name a few, the HOF needs to become less and less concerned with statistical bench marks to determine if a player is Hall worthy. I'd venture to say that going forward no one is getting 300 wins, in the same way that 500 HR don't gurantee you enshrinement ( just ask Mark ).

[cwk1963]

I disagree, he admitted to pretty much everything, so you won't have reporters trying to prove he's still not telling the truth. It will be a big story his first couple days, then after that he'll fade to the background. How often do you really hear from hitting coaches reguardless of who they are?

As for Blyleven, for me personally the HOF is not a logevity award. Name me one season where Blyleven was the dominate pitcher of his generation? So what that he pitched for a long time, that too me is one of the biggest problems with the hall, they've let in other mediocre players so they feel obligated to keep lowering the bar. The HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, if it takes the commitee 10-15 years to decide your a HOF, guess what, your not a HOF. That ranks right up there with the fact that no one ever has received 100% of the votes, and the fact that P.Rose still isn't in the hall. Vote Pete in and include his trangressions right on his plaque. Also baseball writers don't deserve the right to decide who get's in and who dosen't, who better to decide than other HOF players who you know, actually played the game baseball on the highest level, and actually competed against the very people they are deciding on. Just my 2 cents

First, Pete agreed to his banishment and now he wants someone to take it back. One of the few times he stood up and took his medicine and now he wants a do-over.

You want to see a bar lowered? Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman. Who else pitching right now is a potential HOF'er. Agreed, some have a way to go - maybe Roy Halladay - but realistically. Big difference between longevity then and longevity now. The reason guys like Batisita and Rusch and Silva and Redding and Park and Livan and the rest can still be possible major leaguers is because they still allegedly have a pulse. Blyleven had 242 COMPLETE games in his career, Morris 175 - I think their managers said they give us enough of a chance to win to leave them out there - and they performed that way for a long period of time. And yes, Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer - first or 15th year, no difference. SO is Andre Dawson. What changed about their stats that made them HOF material in their 12th and 15th years? Nothing - it was who else they were up against. Same thing with Cepeda - nice enough ballplayer - but enough writers thought he was good enough for enshrinement - AFTER a long period of time on the ballot. They just care if they get in - not what round it took for them to get in.

I'll give you that Pete accepted his lifetime banishment ( however he was told up front that he could re apply for re-instatement) HOF is about what he did on the field, not the person he was after he stopped playing ( although I'm not trying to turn this into an elect Pete post ) I just wonder if we put some of the people who are already in the HOF and also the writers who select them under the microscope, what we'd have left

The thing with Pete - he was a MLB manager and bet - either on or against - his team. This was not an oh, by the way rule. It harkens back to the Black Sox. IMO, it doesn't matter if he was told he could apply for re-instatement; this is a justifiable lifetime banning offense.

As for Blyeven - Really.... his number of complete games.... that's what your going with? I stand by my points, they speak for themselves. Look at someone like Koufax who only played for 11 seasons, yet does anyone really think he's not a HOF. Any doubt in your mind the people like Maddox / Pedro belong in the hall? Your point about the bar being lowered, brings me to another point. With changes in how games are managed with closers and specialized roles & the steriod era to name a few, the HOF needs to become less and less concerned with statistical bench marks to determine if a player is Hall worthy. I'd venture to say that going forward no one is getting 300 wins, in the same way that 500 HR don't gurantee you enshrinement ( just ask Mark ).

It's not only the complete games. 242 career CG; 5th all time K; 60 career SHO; almost 5000 career IP; 287 career W. It's all of this in its entirety that gives him HOF credentials.

[da_big_kid_94]

I'll give you that Pete accepted his lifetime banishment ( however he was told up front that he could re apply for re-instatement) HOF is about what he did on the field, not the person he was after he stopped playing ( although I'm not trying to turn this into an elect Pete post ) I just wonder if we put some of the people who are already in the HOF and also the writers who select them under the microscope, what we'd have left

As for Blyeven - Really.... his number of complete games.... that's what your going with? I stand by my points, they speak for themselves. Look at someone like Koufax who only played for 11 seasons, yet does anyone really think he's not a HOF. Any doubt in your mind the people like Maddox / Pedro belong in the hall? Your point about the bar being lowered, brings me to another point. With changes in how games are managed with closers and specialized roles & the steriod era to name a few, the HOF needs to become less and less concerned with statistical bench marks to determine if a player is Hall worthy. I'd venture to say that going forward no one is getting 300 wins, in the same way that 500 HR don't gurantee you enshrinement ( just ask Mark ).

And therein lies the point with Pete - he was told he could apply for reinstatement - no one told him it would actually be granted. If he assumed that? His mistake.

Sure there are several there who are questionable (Maz certainly milked one homer for a lot of miles for instance) - but the bottom line is - he's in.

It's more than just complete games - you obviously don't believe that's all that big a deal -- tell me who's pitching now that will come half as close - who leaves a stiff on the mound to complete games?

As for Koufax - sure he's a HOF - but let's not overlook where he played and how good a team he was on, eh? Like I said previously - Maddox is HOF material, Pedro was an omission - he's HOF worthy. But guys like Blyleven shouldn't be punished because they weren't on teams like Atlanta for Maddox and the Red Sox for Pedro and the Dodgers for Koufax. Compare Koufax to Blyleven over their careers - save for the W/L record, you would be very surprised how similar the numbers they put up were. Koufax was half a run lower in ERA lifetime - but on an average season?

Koufax was a dominant pitcher - but Blyleven wasn't chopped liver either.

[Black Sox]

This subject always gets me fired up for some reason…. I believe that the HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, not good players who had long careers like Blyleven. I’m sure I’m in the minority but I’d like to see the HOF reserved for elite talent, in my book good is not good enough. How hard was it for HOF voters to figure out R.Henderson was a hall of famer…. about as long as it took me to write that, that’s why he belongs in. We can't change the fact that at some point the bar got lowered, what we can change is where the bar is set going forward. Longevity is not a sign of greatness in my book.


As for Pete Rose, I understand why people feel the way they do, I just believe you qualify for the HOF based on what you do in between the lines during your career. What Pete Rose did is one of the worst offenses someone involved with baseball can do, he affected the outcome of games for personal benefit, but that will never change the numbers he put up when he was playing the game, which is what he should be judged on. Besides who affected the integrity of the game more P.Rose or B.Bond / Clemens/ A-Rod and the like. Steroids caused more harm than Pete ever could.

[da_big_kid_94]

This subject always gets me fired up for some reason…. I believe that the HOF should be reserved for the best of the best, not good players who had long careers like Blyleven. I’m sure I’m in the minority but I’d like to see the HOF reserved for elite talent, in my book good is not good enough. How hard was it for HOF voters to figure out R.Henderson was a hall of famer…. about as long as it took me to write that, that’s why he belongs in. We can't change the fact that at some point the bar got lowered, what we can change is where the bar is set going forward. Longevity is not a sign of greatness in my book.


As for Pete Rose, I understand why people feel the way they do, I just believe you qualify for the HOF based on what you do in between the lines during your career. What Pete Rose did is one of the worst offenses someone involved with baseball can do, he affected the outcome of games for personal benefit, but that will never change the numbers he put up when he was playing the game, which is what he should be judged on. Besides who affected the integrity of the game more P.Rose or B.Bond / Clemens/ A-Rod and the like. Steroids caused more harm than Pete ever could.

I would respectfully disagree there - roid users affected themselves - but Pete was a player manager in addition to being a manager - he was betting on events that he had direct influence over. One group had cheated for a performance edge - but Pete was in a position to manipulate the outcome ...and that's far worse, IMHO.

As for elite talent, I don't disagree. Rickey's a no brainer - but the definition of elite talent has slipped over the years because the game has changed. DH, lefty righty specialists, use of setup men and closers - we now settle for this and call it performance because it is now the norm - but where are the elite pitching talents of today? I can think of one - Halliday. Santana? May have been before the Mets. C.C. and Lee? Only in the last three years. The bar got lowered because the game changed and the pitchers we induct over the next decades won't look anywhere near as good records wise as did the guys from the 70s through early 90s. We don't care about shutouts or complete games or innings pitched anymore - because today's pitchers can't measure up. Guys like that are now the exception rather than the rule. So we jump to the conclusion that today's version of the game is better so those old guys can't hang? Teams today are more interested in quality starts and pitch counts and getting them to the 7th inning so the pen can take over.

[cwk1963]

Another thing to consider for SP. Baseball lowered the mound and discourages (actively or passively) coming inside. Hitters are at an advantage now that they weren't 'back then'. They hang over the plate with all kinds of body armor and when they are plunked or it's a near miss the pitcher either gets warned or tossed. Not a very pitching conducive atmosphere IMHO. I don't think it's a thing where hitters have gotten that much better and pitchers that much worse in general. Baseball has been in a hitter's age for a while. Does that mean we punish the pitchers for this?

Blyleven pitched all his career in this era and was still pretty darn good. He pitched 22 seasons and 17 of them he was .500 or better. He also had over 200 IP 17 of those years. His career ERA was 3.31 pitching 90% of the time in the AL with the DH. His career WHIP was 1.19 and a 2.8:1 K:BB. I don't see what the voters don't like besides not winning 300 games.

[Black Sox]

Another thing to consider for SP. Baseball lowered the mound and discourages (actively or passively) coming inside. Hitters are at an advantage now that they weren't 'back then'. They hang over the plate with all kinds of body armor and when they are plunked or it's a near miss the pitcher either gets warned or tossed. Not a very pitching conducive atmosphere IMHO. I don't think it's a thing where hitters have gotten that much better and pitchers that much worse in general. Baseball has been in a hitter's age for a while. Does that mean we punish the pitchers for this?

Blyleven pitched all his career in this era and was still pretty darn good. He pitched 22 seasons and 17 of them he was .500 or better. He also had over 200 IP 17 of those years. His career ERA was 3.31 pitching 90% of the time in the AL with the DH. His career WHIP was 1.19 and a 2.8:1 K:BB. I don't see what the voters don't like besides not winning 300 games.

The easy way to solve this, is each player should be compared to other players of their generation. That way your comparing apples to apples. My memory could be failing, but I remember Blyleven as a solid #2 pitcher throughout his career, that to me is not a HOF. I just think I have different set of standards than most, in my book only the elite should apply.

As for Pete, I'm not trying to lessen his trangressions, but roid players affected WAY more game outcomes than Pete ever did, yet they can apologize and keep on playing. Then you have the godfather of cheating Gaylord Perry who also enjoy's HOF status. It's just so simple you acknowledge what he did right on his HOF plaque. I just have a hard time bringing my son to a HOF that does not include the all time hit's leader, and one of the 50 greatest players ever.

[Hambowen]

Dominance is the reason why Bert has an issue.

His numbers certainly match up to others in the Hall and I think I would put him in if up to me as I would Jack Morris.

However when you look at the dominance of a pitcher like Pedro someone like Bert just does not match up. Pedro playing for the 03 tigers his entire career would have a record significantly above .500.

Again not saying he does not belong in the hall just that I am not really shocked that he isn't.

Dawson is a tough one for me because I felt so strongly about Rice getting in and even though I think Rice was a much better hitter, Dawson has the all around player argument going for him.

[lawr]

well, if it is really the best of the best, then the membership goes down.

which i suppose is ok, but, i don't know if any of you have ever been to cooperstown (i have, to inductions, twice), but purists or not, it is about marketing.

in the area of cooperstown, there are a LOT of other HOFs, including the boxing one, which is way funky. the distinction cooperstown holds, though, was it was the first HOF, but, make no mistake, control of the city, and surrounding area (see how many roadside signs you find in the vicinity, falls to Jean Forbes Clark (check out this link: http://ricklibrarian.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ogues.html). and, i don't say this or give the link to defraud the romance associated with both baseball and the hall. but, well, it is a business.

and, i always understood that players who were dominant during their era, and/or defined their position, were the archetype for inclusion.

but, i guess the early guys who got 300 wins or 500 homers were those type, and they set the barometer. which is still pretty good.

what is strange is so many of the guys we mentioned, particularly blyleven, are not in. but if rice is in, evans should be (i think both) not to mention tj (why don sutton, and not him? and, funny, cos i was a serious dodger fan when they both pitched for the bums) don't get similar consideration.

or dave parker, who was as dominant as rice.

all of whom were as good with as solid a body of work as dawson (which again, was terrific, but not HOF worthy imho). so, why him and none of the rest?

so strange.

btw, love the koufax stuff. he is actually one of my arguments against taking strasburg too early, or expecting much too soon from him. because it took him four years to start to get the hang. most teams would not freeze that long (fantasy, that is) waiting for success.

[da_big_kid_94]

btw, love the koufax stuff. he is actually one of my arguments against taking strasburg too early, or expecting much too soon from him. because it took him four years to start to get the hang. most teams would not freeze that long (fantasy, that is) waiting for success.

The point is well taken, lawr ... but the problem with that is, should you mention the name David Clyde, most folks go; "Huh? Who?". Every time an unknown comes along (and for the most part, "unknown" has two spellings these days... J-A-P-A-N-E-S-E or L-A-T-I-N-O), the hype machine (usually headed by some uber agent) goes into overdrive, and many people forget it when the phenom doesn't wipe everyone out immediately - whether it's Chapman or Dice-K or Viciedo or Ramirez or Van Poppel or Taylor.

But you bring up Koufax. Now ... was he just a late bloomer .. or was he one of those legendary "lefties take longer to develop" cases? And so goes the tale.

[lawr]

funny, cos the two pitchers i have used as agony and ecstasy examples of strasburg are koufax, who became the real thing, and clyde. it took koufax five years to fully get the hang of the majors with no minor league experience, and clyde, who likewise debuted in the majors, was out of the game five years later.

now, my buddy trace wood notes that the comparable pitcher in size, skill, and dominance to strasburg is roger clemens, and it is true that strasburg could develop and be as dominant.

but, i am sure we all agree, the percentages are against it. not that strasburg won't be good. but, well, it is hard. and, i prefer to wait a couple of years after some disappointment, and then get strasburg at a lower price, when he has some experience and is undervalued. and, that may not be his path, but that is, more often than not, the path of hot prospects.

trace also noted that in a 40-man ultra league, with 17 man reserve, roughly one in fifteen prospects selected actually turns into a true value and is worth freezing over a protracted period.

i'll stick with buerhle, thank you. and bert, tj, and their ilk.

[da_big_kid_94]

trace also noted that in a 40-man ultra league, with 17 man reserve, roughly one in fifteen prospects selected actually turns into a true value and is worth freezing over a protracted period.

Ah, but it is what those prospects can get you in trade that makes the cheese more binding, so to speak. As Todd says ...know thy league. Sometimes Alvarez, Brown, Frazier and Tabata can get you Manny, Hanley and Yuniel just in time for your pennant drive - especially when you kept two of those names from the prior year with the specific goal of trading them to a particular owner. Another value of the prospect.

[lawr]

true dat, but, that is why he is lord zola!

[Todd Zola]

So I am in the middle of adding Madison Bumgarner to the projection set and I look at the numbers and say -- blech, that sucks.

So I decide to take a beat, read a little forum postings and see the Strasburg/prospect discussion.

Thanks gents, I ain't changing a thing

I think sometimes we overlook the whole effect of taking these kids out of their element where they are treated like royalty and are thrust into an environment where they are more serfs than kings.

It's a lot different pitching against a bunch of 19-21 year old kids that care more about beer and getting laid than they do about hitting a baseball.

[lawr]

i wish i could remember who i spoke to at spring training ten years ago, but, it was a prospect with the rockies, and he was highly touted.

and, it was his first spring and i asked him what it was like, and he said tough.

i asked why and he said in college things were so different. almost like being in the show. but, for the most part, coaches etc did everything for you, and suddenly it was on the player to have to get up, get to practice, bring their gear, find a place to eat. basically function like a grown up.

so, i asked if it was a shock too, to go from being the star locally, as a kid in little league and american legion and high school, to suddenly going to a competitive environment where everyone is a star. kind of like being the smartest kid in your school, to going to stanford, and suddenly you are with 4000 kids who were all the smartest at their school, and suddenly your skill set has a different context.

he nodded and said that it was so tough to adjust to that, too. suddenly you were one of many "stars."

i think we forget adjustments like this human beings have to make while we are busy being enamored of their statistical resume.