PDA

View Full Version : The doors to Cooperstown open today for who?


Fenway
01-12-2009, 11:33 AM
Henderson is a lead pipe cinch to get in on the first ballot and nobody can argue against him.

The big question is will Jim Rice make it on his final ballot. It looks like he has picked up some voters.

Honestly if he had not missed the 1975 post-season he would have been in by now because I have no doubt if Rice had played in the World Series Boston would have won.

Playing at Fenway actually hurt Rice's HR totals. I remember one night at Comiskey he hit 2 line shots into the left field seats that at Fenway would be singles off the wall.

I would also like to see Andre Dawson make it.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm putting my money on Henderson, Blyleven, John, and Smith

downstairs
01-12-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm betting on Henderson and only Henderson. Not saying that's what I want to see, but that's my guess as to what will happen.

sox1970
01-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice

Fenway
01-12-2009, 11:55 AM
I'm betting on Henderson and only Henderson. Not saying that's what I want to see, but that's my guess as to what will happen.

Rice needs to pick up about 16 votes as he was at 72 percent last year. He has picked up at least 5 from Chicago writers who announced their ballots.

The vote system is weird as the Montreal writers can still vote but the Washington Post can not. Thomas Boswell said he would vote for Rice if allowed. Friend who writes for the Montreal Gazette told me he voted for Rice just to shut me up. :tongue:

I think Rice wil get in as he has never cried about it like someone in Chicago....

beasly213
01-12-2009, 12:03 PM
The Hall of Fame voting makes no sense. If you're not a hall of famer your first time on the ballott why are you a hall of famer on your 2nd or third time on the ballott?

Do your numbers change? Or are the writers just so full of themselves that they have to make some dumb and snobby point by making players wait to get into the hall of fame?

Marqhead
01-12-2009, 12:05 PM
Rickey Henderson believes that today is Rickey's day.

sox1970
01-12-2009, 12:07 PM
The Hall of Fame voting makes no sense. If you're not a hall of famer your first time on the ballott why are you a hall of famer on your 2nd or third time on the ballott?

Do your numbers change? Or are the writers just so full of themselves that they have to make some dumb and snobby point by making players wait to get into the hall of fame?

Pretty much sums up my feelings. That's what the five year wait should be about. Gives plenty of time for the voters that actually watched them play determine if they're worthy. It's a bad system, but that's the way the Hall likes it, so it leaves a lot to political bull****.

areilly
01-12-2009, 12:09 PM
Rickey Henderson believes that today is Rickey's day.

Which is to say, Rickey Henderson will find this a fitting capstone to the remarkable career Rickey Henderson had playing baseball in such a way befitting Rickey Henderson, or a player of Rickey Henderson's caliber, of which Rickey Henderson was the only such player.

Fenway
01-12-2009, 12:11 PM
Back in the day there were writers who didn't vote for Cy Young, Ty Cobb or some guy named George Herman Ruth.

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 12:36 PM
Back in the day there were writers who didn't vote for Cy Young, Ty Cobb or some guy named George Herman Ruth.

There's never been a unanimous selection, correct?

Fenway
01-12-2009, 12:40 PM
There's never been a unanimous selection, correct?

No. I think Tom Seaver came the closest at 97 percent.

haganaga
01-12-2009, 01:03 PM
Official: Henderson and Rice get in.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 01:04 PM
I'm putting my money on Henderson, Blyleven, John, and Smith

I don't think either of these two make it. If one does, it is Blyleven, not John.

downstairs
01-12-2009, 01:20 PM
Congrats to Henderson (one of my favorite players of all time) and Rice (a stand-up guy who probably got the HoF shaft for too long).

Fenway
01-12-2009, 01:22 PM
Congrats to both. It will be nice to see #14 retired at Fenway (and maybe now they will retire Boggs' number as well

viagracat
01-12-2009, 01:30 PM
Yeah, Rice was way overdue. Good for him. :smile: Next to get in who's been shafted up to now should be Blyleven.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Rice is in - the bar gets lower...Andres Galaraga, Ellis Burks, Joe Carter, Dave Parker, Moises Alou and Chili Davis all are "similar batters" according to baseball reference. (So are Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams and Willie Stargell)

Rice was good. At times great. But in my opinion he belongs with Ron Santo in the Hall of Good.

Hendu
01-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Rickey was my favorite player growing up...he's also one of the more quotable players in the game. Congrats. Though I'm sure he'd rather still be playing. Rickey can't score from the Hall of Fame!

munchman33
01-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Jim Rice in the Hall is a textbook example of why the Hall is meaningless.

They should just let Santo in now. Because now it's the Hall of better than average.

TDog
01-12-2009, 01:50 PM
So, I guess today Ricky Henderson is the greatest of all time. I'm surprised he was named on almost 95 percent of the ballots. I thought it would be closer to 90.

The Jim Rice election is interesting in that the Red Sox had Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski in left before Rice went there in 1975. I'm not a Red Sox fan or a big fan of Fenway Park, but the leftfield wall is perhaps the most famous outfield wall in baseball, so it seems fitting.

I'm just glad Harold Baines got enough votes to stay on the ballot. He was on 10 more ballots than Mark Grace, who didn't make the cut. Among Chicago baseball writers, Grace was probably on 10 more ballots than Baines, though. If I had a ballot, I would have voted for Harold.

BadBobbyJenks
01-12-2009, 01:55 PM
Tim Raines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Rice

TommyJohn
01-12-2009, 02:02 PM
Rickey would like to thank the one person who made this possible...Rickey. Rickey also is waiting for a phone call from Gwynn.

whitesox901
01-12-2009, 02:04 PM
Congrats to the two of them

PKalltheway
01-12-2009, 02:04 PM
Congratuations to Rickey Henderson on making it. I never thought that Jim Rice was a Hall of Famer, and I still don't, but nevertheless, congrats to him on finally making it in.

Rice isn't the worst player in the Hall of Fame, but now you have to wonder about a slippery slope. Should Andre Dawson get in? Dale Murphy? Dave Parker? All three of those guys have either similar, or better numbers than Rice, but since Rice benefitted from playing in Boston his whole career, he got the extra attention from writers.

Heck, why is Bert Blyleven still not in there as far as pitchers go?

thomas35forever
01-12-2009, 02:18 PM
I had the privilege of seeing Henderson play in person for the Padres in 2001. He took off on a few pitches, but all those balls made contact with the bats.

Congrats to him and to Rice on getting in on his final try.

Flight #24
01-12-2009, 02:19 PM
Isn't Santo off the ballot now and only on the veterans committee ballot?

If so, how crappy does he feel right now that a similar caliber player in Rice gets in - if Ron was on the ballot next year he'd have a stronger case then he did last year! But the vets won't let anyone in so he's shafted.

(Not that I mind since he's so freakin annoying!)

MushMouth
01-12-2009, 02:23 PM
I'm with everyone on the Rice question - if Rice gets in, why not Parker and Murphy?

Murph had 2 mvp's - similar numbers

Parker was a better player than Rice imo. MVP (and 1 second place, 2 third place finishes), 3 Gold Gloves, 2 Batting Titles, more RBI...

Just food for thought. I think Rice definitely got the Boston advantage here.

areilly
01-12-2009, 02:23 PM
So, I guess today Ricky Henderson is the greatest of all time. I'm surprised he was named on almost 95 percent of the ballots. I thought it would be closer to 90.

Really? I would have had him closer to 98 percent and am actually quite shocked 18(!) people found a reason not to vote for Henderson.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Really? I would have had him closer to 98 percent and am actually quite shocked 18(!) people found a reason not to vote for Henderson.

The BBWAA is a total joke, and unfortunately, only one writer was ballsy/stupid enough to publish he didn't vote for Rickey. Luckily, ol' Corky Simpson is now a national laughingstock, so that counts for something.

soxinem1
01-12-2009, 02:50 PM
Rice is in - the bar gets lower...Andres Galaraga, Ellis Burks, Joe Carter, Dave Parker, Moises Alou and Chili Davis all are "similar batters" according to baseball reference. (So are Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams and Willie Stargell)

Rice was good. At times great. But in my opinion he belongs with Ron Santo in the Hall of Good.

Exactly. In 1985 I thought Rice was well on his way. Then he hit the brakes. I just don't think he was superior long enough. As it stands, he was a good one-dimensional player.

I wonder if Rice makes it as a member of SEA, CHW, or MIL................

If this is the case, Harold Baines should make it too.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 02:52 PM
Exactly. In 1985 I thought Rice was well on his way. Then he hit the brakes. I just don't think he was good long enough.

I wonder if Rice makes it as a member of SEA, CHW, or MIL................

Doubtful, on ESPN one of their chuckleheads mentioned that Rice had something like the 5th most MVP votes of all time, as if that is somehow a meaningful statistic.

Oblong
01-12-2009, 02:53 PM
Back in the day there were writers who didn't vote for Cy Young, Ty Cobb or some guy named George Herman Ruth.

This article (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-joe-dimaggio-forever-changed-cooperstown-voting) explains the early voting process and how confusion regarding who was even eligible led to many of these situations. I learned a lot from this.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 03:09 PM
I wonder if Rice makes it as a member of SEA, CHW, or MIL................


I don't think he does.



If this is the case, Harold Baines should make it too.

He won't

TDog
01-12-2009, 03:54 PM
Really? I would have had him closer to 98 percent and am actually quite shocked 18(!) people found a reason not to vote for Henderson.

I don't know if I would have voted for him this year. I probably would have, but it would have taken forgetting some of my Ricky Henderson memories. I don't know if I would have voted for Tim Raines or Andre Dawson. I know I wouldn't have voted for Bert Blyleven. It's a moot point because I don't have a ballot. And I don't think the voting is a joke that not everyone agrees with me.

I felt ill will toward the writers who didn't vote for Henry Aaron because of everything he went through and the class with which he performed while hitting more home runs than anyone before him after coming from a team in a segregated less-than-major (in the eyes of the world) league. But that was an exception.

The Baseball Hall of Fame isn't about the numbers. It never has been. You can't say, this player had these numbers and he is in, so this player with the same or better numbers should be in.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 04:08 PM
The Baseball Hall of Fame isn't about the numbers. It never has been. You can't say, this player had these numbers and he is in, so this player with the same or better numbers should be in.
First and foremost, why not? Defense is a factor, but there is precedent set in the votes.

And secondly, how on earth would you not cast a vote for Blyleven/Henderson?

doublem23
01-12-2009, 04:11 PM
The Baseball Hall of Fame isn't about the numbers. It never has been. You can't say, this player had these numbers and he is in, so this player with the same or better numbers should be in.

Yes, yes you can. That's the only sane way, otherwise you're at the subjective mercy of idiots that aren't sure if Rickey Henderson should be in the Hall of Fame.

Daver
01-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Yes, yes you can. That's the only sane way, otherwise you're at the subjective mercy of idiots that aren't sure if Rickey Henderson should be in the Hall of Fame.


At least their the same idiots that DID put Don Drysdale in the hall but not Billy Pierce.

TDog
01-12-2009, 05:04 PM
First and foremost, why not? Defense is a factor, but there is precedent set in the votes.

And secondly, how on earth would you not cast a vote for Blyleven/Henderson?

I don't believe Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. A lot of other people who saw him pitch agree with me.

Simply put, it never has been about the numbers. Typically, the players in the Hall of Fame have numbers, and people apply those numbers as qualifications.

If it were about the numbers, Mark McGwire wouldn't have been on the ballot because he would already have been elected. What he did, he did with the knowledge and blessing of Major League Baseball.

Daver
01-12-2009, 05:11 PM
I don't believe Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. A lot of other people who saw him pitch agree with me.


Jim Rice shouldn't be in there either, like has been mentioned already, they should change the name of it to the Hall of Above Average.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 05:12 PM
I don't believe Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. A lot of other people who saw him pitch agree with me.

Simply put, it never has been about the numbers. Typically, the players in the Hall of Fame have numbers, and people apply those numbers as qualifications.

If it were about the numbers, Mark McGwire wouldn't have been on the ballot because he would already have been elected. What he did, he did with the knowledge and blessing of Major League Baseball.
If the numbers aren't qualifications, what are? Statistics are a benchmark of performance.

Bert Blyleven has very comparable numbers to many pitchers already enshrined. I don't understand how he couldn't be in. You are basing your opinion off of the fact you saw him pitch. Well, his statistical record doesn't agree with your anecdotal and subjective evidence.

areilly
01-12-2009, 05:12 PM
I don't believe Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. A lot of other people who saw him pitch agree with me.

Simply put, it never has been about the numbers. Typically, the players in the Hall of Fame have numbers, and people apply those numbers as qualifications.

That explains Blyleven but, numbers or no numbers, why wouldn't you vote for Rickey?

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 05:16 PM
Also, saying that the BWAA agrees with you isn't a good thing. There were people who didn't vote for Rickey Henderson. Unbelievable.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Also, saying that the BWAA agrees with you isn't a good thing. There were people who didn't vote for Rickey Henderson. Unbelievable.

Though it's pathetic that there were people who apparently didn't believe he deserved entrance to the Hall of Fame, it would have been an equal tragedy had the first unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame been Rickey Henderson.

Great. But not that great.

sox1970
01-12-2009, 05:45 PM
Though it's pathetic that there were people who apparently didn't believe he deserved entrance to the Hall of Fame, it would have been an equal tragedy had the first unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame been Rickey Henderson.

Great. But not that great.

If Henderson got 100% I'd actually be proud of every voter for picking a guy that deserves to be in the Hall. The few voters that hold out to make a point are idiots.

TDog
01-12-2009, 06:00 PM
That explains Blyleven but, numbers or no numbers, why wouldn't you vote for Rickey?

I didn't write that I wouldn't vote for Henderson. In fact, I wrote that I probably would if I had a ballot. If I didn't vote for him, it would be with the assumption that he was still going to get well over the 75 percent needed for election. There are a couple of other people who have been on the ballot longer who I think deserve it more, but, of course, I could vote for up to 10 players, so that really isn't an issue.

There never have been any statistical requirements for the Hall of Fame. People who think baseball can be reduced to statistics like to think there is. I think I read somewhere that women's golf has statistical requirements of some sort. Once a player wins so many tournaments, she is a member of the sport's Hall of Fame.

If baseball had statistical requirements, Carlton Fisk probably wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. It's true that he played more games at catcher than anyone else, but he broke Bob Boone's record to reach that distinction. You could probably craft statistical qualifications that Fisk would have reached. And when people compare this player to that player saying if he's in the Hall, why isn't he, in essence, they are doing just that. I once had someone argue with me that Luis Aparicio (who retired long before this guy was born) didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He didn't seem to meet any criteria.

haganaga
01-12-2009, 06:10 PM
Jim Rice shouldn't be in there either, like has been mentioned already, they should change the name of it to the Hall of Above Average.
I prefer the "Hall of Very Good." Seriously, the guys we're debating were very good players. The debate begins with "were they great?" Tough to say. Friend of mine was saying Dawson should be in. Well then, if you look at Dawson's numbers, Harold Baines should be in as well since he has better numbers in all "important" categories except HR, Slugging and Steals. On avg, hits, SO, BB, OBP and OPS, Baines is better. Personally, I don't think either should be in, but they were both VERY GOOD players.

Sorry for the rant.

Fenway
01-12-2009, 06:18 PM
The Baseball Writers of America are an odd group and to be honest New England probably has more voters than they should. The Boston chapter is actually larger than Chicago because of the number of papers that cover the Red Sox. Not only the 2 Boston papers but also daily papers in Providence, Pawtucket, Worcester, Nashua, Manchester, Portland, Springfield and Hartford all have beat writers.

Then when internet writers were approved by the national group the Boston chapter added that small media outlet in the hamlet of Bristol, Connecticut.

New York is the largest chapter by far followed by Boston, San Francisco and Chicago.

I would like to see broadcasters with 10 or more years get a vote as they see more games than the writers. Most beat writers burn out after 3 or 4 years.

Hendu
01-12-2009, 06:41 PM
I prefer the "Hall of Very Good." Seriously, the guys we're debating were very good players. The debate begins with "were they great?" Tough to say. Friend of mine was saying Dawson should be in. Well then, if you look at Dawson's numbers, Harold Baines should be in as well since he has better numbers in all "important" categories except HR, Slugging and Steals. On avg, hits, SO, BB, OBP and OPS, Baines is better. Personally, I don't think either should be in, but they were both VERY GOOD players.

Sorry for the rant.

I think Dawson should be in, but I grew up in the mid-to-late 80s era, so maybe I'm biased. But there were few hitters in that time period that scared the crap out of the opposing team like Dawson did...power, speed, a great eye and a cannon of an arm. He also has an MVP award (though it was for a last place team), which bumps him up over Harold imo. If Dawson's knees had held up better, he'd be a lock and the argument would be moot.

Hendu
01-12-2009, 06:48 PM
Though it's pathetic that there were people who apparently didn't believe he deserved entrance to the Hall of Fame, it would have been an equal tragedy had the first unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame been Rickey Henderson.

Great. But not that great.

Maybe not that great, but pretty damn close. Best leadoff hitter in the history of the game.

SOXfnNlansing
01-12-2009, 08:17 PM
Interesting baseball stat: Q: What player was the only MLB baseball player ever, to hit at least 1 home run in every year of his 25 years in the game? A: Rickey Henderson.

Longest string of consecutive seasons ever. I thought I knew all the great stats he had, but just learned that one today.

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2009, 08:19 PM
You know, it amazes me that Dale Murphy got more votes than Harold. If you go on baseball-reference and compare Harold's stats to others: Tony Perez, Al Kaline, Dave Parker, Billy Williams and Andre Dawson are the first give guys compared. The first two are in the Hall, Billy Williams is in the Hall and there are a lot of people who think Dawson should be in the Hall. His numbers are about the same (better actually) than Jim Rice in every category but HRs (where he trails Rice by two and Rice also played in a hitter friendly park where as Baines played so many years in the cavernous Comiskey). Jesus, Baines had 2,800 hits!! Had he played in Boston or New York he would have about 50% of the vote by now.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Maybe not that great, but pretty damn close. Best leadoff hitter in the history of the game.

Oh, I agree, it's not that I think anyone could rationally explain why they voted Rickey Henderson off, but considering guys like Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Cal Ripken didn't get a unanimous nod, I don't know if Rickey Henderson deserves that distinction.

Of course, this is just pointless semantics, but the first unanimous player should be someone like Greg Maddux or Albert Pujols.

areilly
01-12-2009, 10:43 PM
Of course, this is just pointless semantics, but the first unanimous player should be someone like Greg Maddux or Albert Pujols.

The thing is, we both know some crank is going to leave Maddux off their ballot just to make a point.

California Sox
01-12-2009, 10:44 PM
Now that Jim Rice is in the Hall there's hope for Carlos Lee. Rice's career OPS is .854 El Caballo .849. He's exactly 101 HR behind Rice and he's hit 97 the last three years. Playing in Houston, there's a better than even chance Carlos retires with better numbers than Rice. And while Lee is a butcher in left, he's still better than Rice, plus he's stolen 110 bases.

Why shouldn't Mags make the hall or Chili Davis or Eric Davis? Why not Jay Buhner (career .853 OPS and a very good defensive outfielder).

How about Albert Belle? (.933 OPS and 381 HR to Rice's .854 and 382 HR in over 2000 fewer ABs) If the deciding factor is "one of the most feared hitters of his generation," Belle certainly qualifies. He was feared by opponents and teammates alike.

How about Darryl Strawberry? (.862 OPS 332 HR in almost 3000 fewer ABs than Rice)

Rice opens the door to half just about every corner outfielder who ever played more than 10 years. I shouldn't care, but I do. What a joke!

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Now that Jim Rice is in the Hall there's hope for Carlos Lee. Rice's career OPS is .854 El Caballo .849. He's exactly 101 HR behind Rice and he's hit 97 the last three years. Playing in Houston, there's a better than even chance Carlos retires with better numbers than Rice. And while Lee is a butcher in left, he's still better than Rice, plus he's stolen 110 bases.

Why shouldn't Mags make the hall or Chili Davis or Eric Davis? Why not Jay Buhner (career .853 OPS and a very good defensive outfielder).

How about Albert Belle? (.933 OPS and 381 HR to Rice's .854 and 382 HR in over 2000 fewer ABs) If the deciding factor is "one of the most feared hitters of his generation," Belle certainly qualifies. He was feared by opponents and teammates alike.

How about Darryl Strawberry? (.862 OPS 332 HR in almost 3000 fewer ABs than Rice)

Rice opens the door to half just about every corner outfielder who ever played more than 10 years. I shouldn't care, but I do. What a joke!
You've completely removed the context of these statistics, as El Caballo and Rice played in different eras. I don't really think Jim deserves it, but that's not a fair comparison.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:08 PM
If someone could give me a well-reasoned argument as to why Bert Blyleven doesn't belong in the HOF, I'd love to hear it. Fifth all time in strikeouts. Ninth all time in shutouts (one spot ahead of the enshrined Don Sutton, who Blyleven blows away in other categories). 287 wins.

Unbelievable that people say he doesn't belong.

California Sox
01-12-2009, 11:16 PM
You've completely removed the context of these statistics, as El Caballo and Rice played in different eras. I don't really think Jim deserves it, but that's not a fair comparison.

I was kidding.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:18 PM
I was kidding.
Haha, oh. Sorry.

Jim Rice really doesn't belong though. I agree with the sentiment. After reading a fantastic comparison between Rice and Frank Howard, I'm leaning more and more to the fact that Jim Rice getting elected is another embarrassment in a long line of them.

Tim Raines getting 22% of the vote amazes me.

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2009, 11:52 PM
If someone could give me a well-reasoned argument as to why Bert Blyleven doesn't belong in the HOF, I'd love to hear it. Fifth all time in strikeouts. Ninth all time in shutouts (one spot ahead of the enshrined Don Sutton, who Blyleven blows away in other categories). 287 wins.

Unbelievable that people say he doesn't belong.
Because he never played in New York or Boston, ergo he is not Hall worthy. Just ask Billy Pierce.

Nellie_Fox
01-13-2009, 12:36 AM
If someone could give me a well-reasoned argument as to why Bert Blyleven doesn't belong in the HOF, I'd love to hear it. Fifth all time in strikeouts. Ninth all time in shutouts (one spot ahead of the enshrined Don Sutton, who Blyleven blows away in other categories). 287 wins.

Unbelievable that people say he doesn't belong.I would have no problem with Blyleven getting in (and don't really have a problem with him NOT getting in) but I'll play devil's advocate:

Blyleven was just an above-average pitcher who happened to have longevity. He was rarely even the best pitcher on his own team. He only won twenty games once. He was only named to two all-star teams in twenty-two seasons, and once he was his team's "mandatory" pick. He may have won 287 games, but he lost 250. He never won a Cy Young award, with his highest finish in the voting was third (twice.)

Noneck
01-13-2009, 12:47 AM
I would have no problem with Blyleven getting in (and don't really have a problem with him NOT getting in) but I'll play devil's advocate:

Blyleven was just an above-average pitcher who happened to have longevity. He was rarely even the best pitcher on his own team. He only won twenty games once. He was only named to two all-star teams in twenty-two seasons, and once he was his team's "mandatory" pick. He may have won 287 games, but he lost 250. He never won a Cy Young award, with his highest finish in the voting was third (twice.)

And if someone like a Blyleven should get in, it should not be Blyleven, it should be Jack Morris.

ode to veeck
01-13-2009, 08:41 AM
kudos to Rice and Henderson for getting through the screwed up HOF BS voting process.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 08:57 AM
I would have no problem with Blyleven getting in (and don't really have a problem with him NOT getting in) but I'll play devil's advocate:

Blyleven was just an above-average pitcher who happened to have longevity. He was rarely even the best pitcher on his own team. He only won twenty games once. He was only named to two all-star teams in twenty-two seasons, and once he was his team's "mandatory" pick. He may have won 287 games, but he lost 250. He never won a Cy Young award, with his highest finish in the voting was third (twice.)
Four of Blyleven's six full years on the Twins, he had the lowest ERA. Both years on the Rangers, he yet again had the lowest ERA. One of his three years in Pittsburgh he had the lowest ERA. Two of his four years in Cleveland he yet again had the lowest ERA (also in his half season with the team in 1985, but I didn't want to count a fragmented year). In 1986, Blyleven was the best pitcher on the Twins. In 1989, he started four more games than Chuck Finley with an ERA about .4 points higher than Finley's. Counting that year, Blyleven lead his team in ERA 11/21 times. I don't think that qualifies as rarely. To me, being fifth all time in strikeouts, ninth all time in shutouts, and thirteen away from an arbitrary numbers that would make him automatic means a lot.
And if someone like a Blyleven should get in, it should not be Blyleven, it should be Jack Morris.

No. No, no, no, no, no. Awful. Morris was slightly above average.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 09:25 AM
No. No, no, no, no, no. Awful. Morris was slightly above average.
Agreed. Morris would be getting in on the strength of a single performance. His other postseason performances were average at best, awful at worst.

If Morris gets in, I say we let in Kirk Gibson too. Maybe Joe Carter?

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 09:27 AM
You know, it amazes me that Dale Murphy got more votes than Harold.
Murphy is a borderline candidate for sure, but he's definitely more qualified that Baines. You're not accounting for the fact that Murphy was a good defensive CF and Baines was a DH for half his career.

I love Harold as much as the next guy, but the former White Sox player we should be up-in-arms for is Tim Raines. He reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn!

ode to veeck
01-13-2009, 09:30 AM
:gulp:Murphy is a borderline candidate for sure, but he's definitely more qualified that Baines. You're not accounting for the fact that Murphy was a good defensive CF and Baines was a DH for half his career.

I love Harold as much as the next guy, but the former White Sox player we should be up-in-arms for is Tim Raines. He reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn!

the former White Sox player we should be most up in arms about not being in the hall is Minnie Minoso

TommyJohn
01-13-2009, 09:35 AM
Agreed. Morris would be getting in on the strength of a single performance. His other postseason performances were average at best, awful at worst.

If Morris gets in, I say we let in Kirk Gibson too. Maybe Joe Carter?

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! KIRK PSYCHO SHOULD BE IN!!!!!!!!! HE HIT THE MOST FAMOUS ****ING HOME ****ING RUN IN THE WHOLE ****ING HISTORY OF THE ****ING WORLD ****ING SERIES ****ING!!!!!!! IF THAT DOESN'T MERIT ****ING CONSIDERATION THEN WHAT THE **** MERITS ****ING CONSIDERATION YOU ****ING WORMS??? AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it should go without teal that I am being sarcastic. I never cared for Gibson but I imagine that's how he'd make his own case for the Hall.

khan
01-13-2009, 10:12 AM
I've given it a day to sink in, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that Jim Rice has no earthly reason to be in the Hall of Fame. Perhaps the Hall of Pretty Good. But his measly 382 HR means that the Hall of Fam had better open up for a LOT of other middling candidates.

The other thing that his selection has done for me is to hate and despise everything sports-related to the east coast, boston, and the Eastern Seaboard Programming Network. I don't like to wish ill on others, but I wouldn't mind if a whole lot of east coast teams were decimated by injuries, drug suspensions, drunk driving incidents [that hurt their players/media and nobody else], and plane crashes [that hurt their players/media and nobody else] for the rest of our lifetimes. I hate those mother-****ers and their media, too. [No offense, fenway.]

TommyJohn
01-13-2009, 10:28 AM
I've given it a day to sink in, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that Jim Rice has no earthly reason to be in the Hall of Fame. Perhaps the Hall of Pretty Good. But his measly 382 HR means that the Hall of Fam had better open up for a LOT of other middling candidates.

The other thing that his selection has done for me is to hate and despise everything sports-related to the east coast, boston, and the Eastern Seaboard Programming Network. I don't like to wish ill on others, but I wouldn't mind if a whole lot of east coast teams were decimated by injuries, drug suspensions, drunk driving incidents [that hurt their players/media and nobody else], and plane crashes [that hurt their players/media and nobody else] for the rest of our lifetimes. I hate those mother-****ers and their media, too. [No offense, fenway.]

OK, that's a little extreme. I don't think Rice deserves it either, but...

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 10:31 AM
:gulp:

the former White Sox player we should be most up in arms about not being in the hall is Minnie Minoso
Well, yeah, Minoso has definitely been slighted. Raines deserves it too, though, and he's still on the ballot.

spiffie
01-13-2009, 10:58 AM
I am thrilled to see a fine Boston institution like Jim Rice get his deserved entry, and to see the devoted fans of the Red Sox get one more reason to be proud of their historic franchise.

Tragg
01-13-2009, 11:03 AM
YOu can't underestimate the power of ESPN. The created the Big East basketball and continually hype the BE football (Cincinatti was ranked 12th? Yikes)..

They took U Conn athletics, which was Patriot League, and financed them, recruited for them and turned them into a national power. They are 75% creation of ESPN.

And they hyped Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 11:22 AM
YOu can't underestimate the power of ESPN. The created the Big East basketball and continually hype the BE football (Cincinatti was ranked 12th? Yikes)..
I'm not sure how they "created" Big East basketball. The Big East is pretty legit, as evidenced by Connecticut and Georgetown having quite a bit of tournament success recently. Don't forget West Virginia, Villanova, Marquette, and Syracuse, either.

As for football, there was nothing wrong with Cincinnati's pre-bowl ranking. They were 11-2 and had a very good defense with a respectable offense. I also don't recall much hype surrounding them.

Lip Man 1
01-13-2009, 11:30 AM
Bleleven gets in when guys like Pierce, John and Kaat get in.

Lip

TDog
01-13-2009, 11:32 AM
Four of Blyleven's six full years on the Twins, he had the lowest ERA. Both years on the Rangers, he yet again had the lowest ERA. ...

Blyleven had eight full seasons with the Twins. That doesn't include his rookie season, when at age 19 he one-hit the 1970 White Sox or his seasons when he was traded midseason to and from the Twins. The years he had ERAs over 5 weren't the years he gave up 50 home runs, or the year he made a run at eclipsing that record. In any case, I don't believe he ever led the league in ERA. Not a major league anyway. So I find your point elusive.

There are baseball writers who are passionate about Blyleven's claim to the Hall of Fame. There are statheads that believe it is a crime that he isn't in the Hall of Fame because he recorded 287 wins. Some of these same statheads will tell you that wins are meaningless in evaluating a pitcher. Maybe next year, the politics of the Hall of Fame election will fall his way, although I honestly believe Harold Baines is more deserving, both of votes and the politicking of baseball writers.

Blyleven pitched until he was 41, trying to get 300 wins, which some people see as an automatic qualifier for the Hall of Fame, as if such things exist. Early Wynn, won 300 games. He retired in 1963, and the writers didn't vote him in until 1972. His credentials included great seasons for the only teams to beat out the Yankees in the 1950s, and his election was far from automatic. Around 1970, one columnist in The Sporting News wrote that Wynn's 300 wins was "just a stat" and that Ralph Kiner was more deserving because he hit a home run every 14-point-something at bats -- to which the other columnist wrote that the Kiner stat was just a stat but Wynn won 300 games.

I think Nellie presented, as devil's advocate, presented a well-reasoned argument as to why Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I certainly can understand why many baseball writers leave him off their ballots.

Lip Man 1
01-13-2009, 11:32 AM
Eddo:

The Eastern Sports Programming Network acted as a representative and a middle man in the formation of the league. They also promised TV exposure if the schools would form a conference.

Lip

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 11:34 AM
Eddo:

The Eastern Sports Programming Network acted as a representative and a middle man in the formation of the league. They also promised TV exposure if the schools would form a conference.

Lip
Thanks.

Still, degrading the quality of a team or league just because ESPN hypes them is as bad as upgrading their quality because ESPN hypes them.

TommyJohn
01-13-2009, 11:56 AM
YOu can't underestimate the power of ESPN. The created the Big East basketball and continually hype the BE football (Cincinatti was ranked 12th? Yikes)..

They took U Conn athletics, which was Patriot League, and financed them, recruited for them and turned them into a national power. They are 75% creation of ESPN.

And they hyped Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame.

I await their reassessments of Fred Lynn, George Scott and Rico Petrocelli.

Tragg
01-13-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure how they "created" Big East basketball. The Big East is pretty legit, as evidenced by Connecticut and Georgetown having quite a bit of tournament success recently. Don't forget West Virginia, Villanova, Marquette, and Syracuse, either.
Georgetown was really good and Syracuse and Providence were okay. They put them on national TV at prime time, and within 5 years that league was nationall competitive.
They're great now, but weren't in 1979.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 01:20 PM
Bleleven gets in when guys like Pierce, John and Kaat get in.

Lip
Jim Kaat, he of the 3.45 ERA and career 107 ERA+ (his ERA over the course of his career was 7% better than the rest of his league, considering park factor as well)?

Tommy John has a better case: 3.34 ERA and 110 ERA+

Billy Pierce has a legitimate gripe: 3.27, 119.

Blyleven: 3.31, 118.

Blyleven threw more innings than every one of them, and also struck out a ton more batters than each of them. Pierce deserves it, but no more than Blyleven. Kaat and John, color me confused.

Blyleven had eight full seasons with the Twins. That doesn't include his rookie season, when at age 19 he one-hit the 1970 White Sox or his seasons when he was traded midseason to and from the Twins. The years he had ERAs over 5 weren't the years he gave up 50 home runs, or the year he made a run at eclipsing that record. In any case, I don't believe he ever led the league in ERA. Not a major league anyway. So I find your point elusive.

There are baseball writers who are passionate about Blyleven's claim to the Hall of Fame. There are statheads that believe it is a crime that he isn't in the Hall of Fame because he recorded 287 wins. Some of these same statheads will tell you that wins are meaningless in evaluating a pitcher. Maybe next year, the politics of the Hall of Fame election will fall his way, although I honestly believe Harold Baines is more deserving, both of votes and the politicking of baseball writers.

Blyleven pitched until he was 41, trying to get 300 wins, which some people see as an automatic qualifier for the Hall of Fame, as if such things exist. Early Wynn, won 300 games. He retired in 1963, and the writers didn't vote him in until 1972. His credentials included great seasons for the only teams to beat out the Yankees in the 1950s, and his election was far from automatic. Around 1970, one columnist in The Sporting News wrote that Wynn's 300 wins was "just a stat" and that Ralph Kiner was more deserving because he hit a home run every 14-point-something at bats -- to which the other columnist wrote that the Kiner stat was just a stat but Wynn won 300 games.

I think Nellie presented, as devil's advocate, presented a well-reasoned argument as to why Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I certainly can understand why many baseball writers leave him off their ballots.
I believe being fifth in strikeouts all time, and ninth in shutouts is a big deal.

Oblong
01-13-2009, 01:30 PM
Jack Morris does not deserve to be in the HOF. The whole "winningest pitcher of the 80s" argument is just a convenience of birth. I like Morris and he was obviously one of my favorites, but I like to treat the HOF as it deserves. He was outstanding in the playoffs in 84 and 91. (1 run in 7 IP and 2 CG in the WS). But in 87 and 92, he was as bad as he was good in the other 2. And in 1993 he didn't even make the post season roster. Morris never seriously challenged for a Cy Young award. Blyleven should go in before Morris.

Oblong
01-13-2009, 02:56 PM
If Magglio has 3 more years like he did in 2006 and 2008 then I think he equals Rice. Is he a HOFer? No.

The more I think about it the more I think it's a travesty. Before I was ambivalent but there's a plethora of comparable OFers.

TDog
01-13-2009, 03:28 PM
...
I believe being fifth in strikeouts all time, and ninth in shutouts is a big deal.

You asked for an explanation why people don't believe Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. Comparisons to other pitchers in and out of the Hall of Fame notwithstanding, because such arguments mean little anyway, arguments against Blyleven have been offered. Some of us actually saw him pitch, as a teenager and a 41-year-old veteran and the years in between.

People have legitimate reason to disagree with you.

spawn
01-13-2009, 03:33 PM
If Magglio has 3 more years like he did in 2006 and 2008 then I think he equals Rice. Is he a HOFer? No.

The more I think about it the more I think it's a travesty. Before I was ambivalent but there's a plethora of comparable OFers.
Well, he played in Boston, which should merit extra consideration.

areilly
01-13-2009, 03:59 PM
I am thrilled to see a fine Boston institution like Jim Rice get his deserved entry, and to see the devoted fans of the Red Sox get one more reason to be proud of their historic franchise.

And yet the tragedy of Mo Vaughn's exclusion has only just begun. Will the world never grasp the inherent beauty in playing for a Boston sports franchise?

Railsplitter
01-13-2009, 06:04 PM
Blyleven, Kaat and John all pitched 20+ years in the bigs but none won as many as 300 games. A Hall of Fame pitcher averaging 11 or 12 wins a season? Sorry, I don't accept that.

TDog
01-13-2009, 08:50 PM
Blyleven, Kaat and John all pitched 20+ years in the bigs but none won as many as 300 games. A Hall of Fame pitcher averaging 11 or 12 wins a season? Sorry, I don't accept that.

I could see Tommy John getting special consideration having suffered what at the time was regarded as a career-ending injury and coming back with a surgery that at the time was radical enough that it now bears his name.

Oblong
01-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Blyleven, Kaat and John all pitched 20+ years in the bigs but none won as many as 300 games. A Hall of Fame pitcher averaging 11 or 12 wins a season? Sorry, I don't accept that.

Yes, they should have gotten more hits.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 11:11 PM
You asked for an explanation why people don't believe Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. Comparisons to other pitchers in and out of the Hall of Fame notwithstanding, because such arguments mean little anyway, arguments against Blyleven have been offered. Some of us actually saw him pitch, as a teenager and a 41-year-old veteran and the years in between.

People have legitimate reason to disagree with you.
Their reasoning has amounted to him not being the best pitcher on his staff (which was wrong, half the time) and the fact that they saw him.

Since you saw him, what makes, in your opinion, Don Sutton better than Bert Blyleven?

Nellie_Fox
01-14-2009, 12:23 AM
Their reasoning has amounted to him not being the best pitcher on his staff (which was wrong, half the time) and the fact that they saw him.There was considerably more to it than that. You ignore only two all-star appearances in 22 seasons (and pitchers were selected by the managers, not by popularity vote, so obviously the AL managers for all those years didn't think he was one of the best pitchers in the league.) You ignore only one twenty-win season. You ignore no Cy Youngs. You ignore a career W/L that is barely above .500. So don't say that the reasoning was just the two things you list above. The only numbers Blyleven has that people point to are the result of longevity and huge numbers of innings (average of 245 innings a year for 22 years,) not brilliance.

I said I'd have no problem either way with Blyleven and the Hall. Just don't lie about what arguments other posters have or have not put forth.

Craig Grebeck
01-15-2009, 08:19 AM
There was considerably more to it than that. You ignore only two all-star appearances in 22 seasons (and pitchers were selected by the managers, not by popularity vote, so obviously the AL managers for all those years didn't think he was one of the best pitchers in the league.) You ignore only one twenty-win season. You ignore no Cy Youngs. You ignore a career W/L that is barely above .500. So don't say that the reasoning was just the two things you list above. The only numbers Blyleven has that people point to are the result of longevity and huge numbers of innings (average of 245 innings a year for 22 years,) not brilliance.

I said I'd have no problem either way with Blyleven and the Hall. Just don't lie about what arguments other posters have or have not put forth.
Sorry, didn't mean to do that. To me, his career W/L isn't near as important as his ERA/Ks/shutouts. I don't know why he doesn't have many wins, but I don't believe it is his fault necessarily. That's largely dependent upon his batting lineup.

It just perplexes me when I see guys like Don Sutton in there, and Blyleven was clearly better, yet the same writers who voted in Sutton won't do so for Blyleven.