Once again, the writers hosed Bert Blyleven. The Baseball Crank writes that things may be looking up for Blyleven, though:
Blyleven has gained serious momentum with each year, and this year’s addition of a new Bill James study on his side has to help. I think he’ll make it, and it will be some time before a better starting pitcher is on the ballot (Bret Saberhagen is by far the best starter entering the ballot over the next four years; the next people in Bert’s class or better are all active, those being Clemens, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Pedro and Mussina, of whom only Clemens might not return in 2007).
The Crank has more analysis on the rest of the HoF candidates. The Baseball Analysts make the case for Blyleven:
This year marks the ninth time that Blyleven has been on the ballot. Fifteen players have been elected since Bert’s first year. Twelve position players and three pitchers. In other words, only 20% of the honorees during the past eight years have been pitchers, despite the fact that pitching is widely considered to be about 35% of the game. Moreover, no starting pitcher has gained election since 1999 when Nolan Ryan was inducted with a near-record 98.8% of the votes.
The writers are instructed that “voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” I’m not the one to judge integrity, sportsmanship, and character, but the Hall of Fame case for Blyleven based on his playing record and the contributions to his teams is indisputable.
Now that I have made my way up to the top of the mountain and cupped my hands around my mouth, I will shout out the following:
Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.
There are only eight pitchers who rank in the top 20 in wins, shutouts, and strikeouts.
Everyone on that list is in the HoF except- you guessed it- Blyleven. More answers for the critics here.
I will remain faithhul- we got Maz in.
Pooh
I’ll risk a bolt from the blue (i.e. the webmaster here) and ask if Maz objectively deserves to be in the hall…
John Cole
That question is a banning offense here.
Pooh
Spare me?
jaime
#1 Bert had only 1 20 game winning season.
#2 Who are the idiots who didn’t vote NOLAN RYAN in on the first ballot?
#3 How could Bruce Sutter make it into the hall and not Goose Gossage?
norbizness
I’d put Bert in, but neither Gossage nor Sutter deserves entry. It’ll be interesting who of the near-retiring class (especially my two Astro favorites, Bagwell and Biggio) will be treated.
J. Michael Neal
#1 Bert had only 1 20 game winning season.
So what. Take a look at the teams he played for. Run support over his career was a rare and precious thing. Holding it against Blyleven that he played for teams that couldn’t score runs is silly.
If you want to hold something against him, try the fact that he was a terrible prima donna. Walking out on the Pirates in 1980 was the most dramatic, but hardly only, example.
That said, he still belongs in the Hall.
#2 Who are the idiots who didn’t vote NOLAN RYAN in on the first ballot?
No one has ever gotten a unanimous vote from the BBWAA. Tom Seaver came the closest, with about 98.4% of the vote. Of all the people you could complain about this with, Ryan is hardly at the top. Look past the strikeouts and, for the first half of his career, he just wasn’t that good a pitcher. He definitely ramped it up later, and certainly belongs in, but I’d get more worked up about Ted Williams or Steve Carlton not getting a unanimous selection than I would Ryan.
#3 How could Bruce Sutter make it into the hall and not Goose Gossage?
How could Bruce Sutter make it into the Hall, and Dan Quisenberry get dropped after the first time on the ballot because he did’t get 5% of the vote? Take a look at the numbers, and they were pretty much the same pitcher. In fact, I’d probably take Quiz. People have been seduced by that one pitch that Sutter had that could make batters look silly, rather than looking at his overall results.
Hell, for giggles, compare Sutter’s career numbers to Doug Jones. Two other very similar pitchers, and you don’t hear anyone talking about ones’ chances very much.
Sutter is credited with being the first of the true closers, which is a ridiculous thing to give him credit for, since he only got that job because he proved he couldn’t handle Goose’s workload.
I’d put Bert in, but neither Gossage nor Sutter deserves entry.
This is, essentially, an argument that relief pitchers don’t belong in the Hall at all. This is a respectable position, albeit one that I disagree with, but its implications should be spelled out a little more clearly.
Steve
I hope Alan Trammell gets in one of these days. He was basically Cal Ripken without the deification.
Mr Furious
Steve-
Here’s a nice piece advocating for Tram:
It goes on from there, with others chiming in.
Vladi G
Relievers should be held to a higher standard, or rather, you should have to be more outstanding as a reliever to make it into the hall than you’d have to be as a starter. Let’s face it, most relievers are failed starters.
But that’s pretty much the way it is, so I’ve got no problem with it.
Pooh
Steve, you are joking right?
276/340/447 Ripken
vs.
285/352/415 Trammel
Ok, close than I thought, but still, edge slightly for ripken,
adding park effects
.264/.332/.409
264/.330/.401
Hrm. Maybe you ain’t joking…
Jim Allen
[Sigh] Jim Rice didn’t make it, either. Again. Dammit.
Edmund Dantes
The problem for relievers is that the relievers of yesteryear are a completely different breed from the relievers of today. So the great relievers that played right before the transition are getting compared against a completely different animal. Once the “Closer” role became defined “saves” became meaningless as a barometer of how good a pitcher was since there are now guys that rack up 30-40 saves a year that I would never want near a close lead in the bottom of the ninth.
Rivera is a modern reliever that belongs, but there will be relievers that exist in the modern game with numbers such as “saves” (which are problematic as a barometer just like wins) that are close to him, but I’d still take Rivera any day of the week. So Rivera will be hurt by that, but I think he still gets in (and he should).
Goose problem is that he played when saves still meant something, but managers still used their relief pitchers in the highest leverage situations as opposed to the artificial construct of the ninth inning alone.
Full disclosure I’m not a Yankee Fan. I’m a Red Sox Fan so there is no need to worry about “homerism” in my beliefs on this.
Mr Furious
Tell me about it. Watch Rice make it one of the next two years as a thumb in McGwire’s eye. Rice’ll be among the last of the old-school (read: clean) sluggers before the onslaught of juiced behemoths reaching eligibility. Next year it’s McGwire, and I think he will NOT get in on the first ballot. Of course Ripkin and Gwynn come next year too, and they are locks, so that makes it tough on Jim Ed, but Rice (I believe) has one more year after that to make it. I have a feeling they’ll put him in before any of the steroid guys.
Edmund: Another Sox fan who wholeheartedly agrees on Rivera. Simply the best relief pitcher I’ve ever seen. He is the main reason the Yanks won ANY of the recent titles.
MikeyC
As a Red Sox fan, too, I agree that Rivera is far and away the reason the Yankers have been as successful. Rice is probably being jobbed because he was a surly bastard to the press. An argument can be made is that he didn’t last long enough —the last few years, his production fell off dramatically.
As far as pitchers who deserve in, Blyleven surely. My plug would be for El Tiante, as well —the definition of money pitcher!
Pooh
As a Sawx fan, I recognize that Rice’s numbers are bloated all to hell by playing 81 games per year at Fenway.
J. Michael Neal
If Jim Rice, then why not Dale Murphy or Dwight Evans, or Hal McRae, or Reggie Smith, or Jack Clark, or Bobby Bonds, or Fred Lynn, or Ken Singleton, or George Foster, or on and on, just taking outfielders that are rough contemporaries of Rice? If you put him into the context of Fenway Park, particularly since he played his whole career before they added the roof seats, Jim Rice was a very good player, no better or worse than a lot of other very good players.