new hof'ers

[mr2686]

Blyleven and Alomar both in for 2011. Congrats to both

[Scott Garner]

Boy, it's about time that Blyleven got voted in! I think that Robbie Alomar is a worthy HOF inductee in spite of the Hirshbeck spitting incident that really didn't define his career. Congrats to both!!

[ubiqty]

Alomar - Blyleven (add Rice from last year) = watered down.

They are all very good, but not great IMO. Not worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Scott.

[keithsky]

That HOF voting is such a joke. Seems like they do whatever it takes to put someone in every year so they can have a induction ceromony. These guys that go in after 10-14 years on the ballot and now all of a sudden they are HOF material. I agree Blylevven should be in there but what makes him go in now and not 14 years ago when first eligible. Same with Rice last year, on the ballot 14 years and last year HOF material. To me if you don't make it in after say 3 years your not HOF worthy. Your stats don't change. They are already set in stone the day you retire. Nothing about you changes. So 6 guys go in the HOF one year what's the problem with that as long as they are HOFers. It just ticks me off when I see guys go in after at least 10 years on the ballot. Get rid of the writers and do it a different way. The only good thing they did this year was to keep McGuire and Palmerio out.

[pgellis]

That's cool, now I have another HOF autograph in my collection. I got Robbie Alomar's autograph back in the early 90s down in Florida during Spring Training.

[bcbgcbrcb]

My two picks exactly

[novakjr]

Both are deserving.. It's about time for Bert, it was disgrace that he waited this long...

Anyways, someone earlier mentioned something about the voters making sure that at least on person gets in each year...Perfect evidence is that if you look at the old voting history, you'll notice that if no one was elected on the main BWAA ballot that they would do a "runoff vote" of the top 20 players from the initial ballot, with the highest vote-getter being elected. The last instance of this was in '67 when both Red Ruffing and Joe Medwick fell short with 72.6%, and then in the "runoff", Ruffing had 86.9% and Medwick 81%...But again, only the top vote-getter got elected in Ruffing.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by keithsky

That HOF voting is such a joke. Seems like they do whatever it takes to put someone in every year so they can have a induction ceromony. These guys that go in after 10-14 years on the ballot and now all of a sudden they are HOF material. I agree Blylevven should be in there but what makes him go in now and not 14 years ago when first eligible. Same with Rice last year, on the ballot 14 years and last year HOF material. To me if you don't make it in after say 3 years your not HOF worthy. Your stats don't change. They are already set in stone the day you retire. Nothing about you changes. So 6 guys go in the HOF one year what's the problem with that as long as they are HOFers. It just ticks me off when I see guys go in after at least 10 years on the ballot. Get rid of the writers and do it a different way. The only good thing they did this year was to keep McGuire and Palmerio out.

Keith,
I may be wrong, but I believe in the case of Blyleven it was simply a matter of the HOF classes being strong in many of the years that he was eligible. He almost made it last year and he didn't face much tough competition in 2011.

IMHO 287 wins, 60 or 61 shutouts, 3701 K's (which placed him at 3rd overall in the major leagues for a career when he retired) and his postseason play get him there. The times that he did play in the postseason he was a winner and prevailed. In the last 40 years not many pitchers ever possessed the devastating "yellow hammer" that Blyleven had in his arsenal. Although his win-loss record was not terrific (slightly better than .500), I wonder if it wasn't really more a function of the teams that he played on not scoring a lot of runs for him (ala Nolan Ryan)? The dude could pitch!

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Keith,
I may be wrong, but I believe in the case of Blyleven it was simply a matter of the HOF classes being strong in many of the years that he was eligible. He almost made it last year and he didn't face much tough competition in 2011.

IMHO 287 wins, 60 or 61 shutouts, 3701 K's (which placed him at 3rd overall in the major leagues for a career when he retired) and his postseason play get him there. The times that he did play in the postseason he was a winner and prevailed. In the last 40 years not many pitchers ever possessed the devastating "yellow hammer" that Blyleven had in his arsenal. Although his win-loss record was not terrific (slightly better than .500), I wonder if it wasn't really more a function of the teams that he played on not scoring a lot of runs for him (ala Nolan Ryan)? The dude could pitch!

I believe I read an article a while back, that evaluated every start in both Blyleven and Jack Morris' careers. Using season by season league average run support for comparison, they figured that Blyleven would've won something like 40 more games, while Morris would've won 25 less games in their careers.. Basically they deemed that Blyleven was hurt by playing on bad teams, and Morris was helped by playing on good ones.

Basically last years MLB season help improve Bert's case alot, as far as forcing people to look at that inevitable truth....Who was the better starting pitcher last season.

Phil Hughes: 18-8, 4.19 ERA.
Felix Hernandez: 13-12, 2.27 ERA.

or in '05 for the Indians...
Was if fair that Kevin Millwood led the league in ERA with 2.86 and had a record of 9-11, while Cliff Lee was 18-5 with a 3.79 for the same team?

Hell, Rodrigo Lopez had 15 wins for the O's that year with a 4.90 ERA.

[keithsky]

Scott your right I agree Bert should be in the Hall. Even if the Voting was strong some years more than others to me should make no difference on getting in. It's based on YOUR stats not how great the others are your going in with. Say for example the year Ryan, Yount, Brett went in if Blyleven was on the ballot then, not sure if he was, his stats are the same then as today what makes him any better today than then. Not sure if I'm making any sense. Just my opinion. I think they just like to keep the guys going in to 2-4 whether your worthy or not. I just think it's a flawed system or a popularity contest.

[murphusa]

the vote is left to a bunch of wannabee's. All you need to know about a sportswriter is to watch them all now on TV. They are not the gods they think they are.

Cy Young did not get elected on the first try, DiMaggio, sorry Joe we thing you may have to wait a couple of years.

Give me a break. The HOF has about 100 players now who do not belong. Add in the other so called HOF catogories and it is a joke

[murphusa]

the vote is left to a bunch of wannabee's. All you need to know about a sportswriter is to watch them all now on TV. They are not the gods they think they are.

Cy Young did not get elected on the first try, DiMaggio, sorry Joe we thing you may have to wait a couple of years.

Give me a break. The HOF has about 100 players now who do not belong. Add in the other so called HOF catogories and it is a joke

[Heritage Sports]

Blyleven, in my opinion, was a no-brainer. Career strike out totals truly are a solid indicator of a pitcher's greatness, and you only need to look at the all-time list to see this is the case. Blyleven had 3,701--you need to go down to Mickey Lolich at 2,832 before you hit a pitcher who isn't in the Hall of Fame (who has been retired long enough to be eligible). Blyleven is number five on the list, of all time!

Somebody commented on the proper exclusion of McGwire and Palmeiro though, and a few years back I would have agreed, but I have considered it often over time. The fact is, "cheating" has been a part of baseball since the beginning. There's a famous Rogers Hornsby quote:

"I've cheated, or someone on my team has cheated, in almost every single game I've been in."

There have been spitballers. Players have tripped baserunners. The 1951 Giants stole signs with a telescope. The old Orioles buried a cinder block (or did something similar) in front of the plate for the famous "Baltimore Chop." And, of course, there were the famous "greenies" not too long ago.

My point is that you can't call the old times players nobler because they didn't do something that didn't exist. They cheated how they could too. I think steroids are terrible for the game and I'm glad there is a more concerted effort to stop their use. I think a single, a stolen base and a close play at the plate on another single to drive in the runner is a far more exciting way to score a run than a homer and a slow jog around the bases. But if Rafael Palmeiro had played ball in the 1950's he would be in the Hall of Fame, am I right? Not quite as confident on McGwire, though he was still crushing the ball back in his rookie days when he was lanky.

Or, let's put it another way--who here thinks that, if steroids/HGH were available to ballplayers in the 1950's and 1960's, Mickey Mantle would not have taken them? With all those injuries to rehab? Anybody?

[HOF Yankees]

don't forget the George Brett Pine Tar incident

[HRBAKER]

I still think that they knew it was cheating and more importantly cheating the game or they would cop to it. What are they so ashamed of if there has always been cheating? If we already have cheaters in the HOF, is more cheaters a better thing? I'm on the fence.

[novakjr]

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

[packs]

I don't think its fair to compare taking steroids and altering your body to stealing signs from the outfield or tipping off baserunners.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

I'd say I'd love to have him, that in and of itself, doesn't necessarily make him a HOFer though does it?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I'd say I'd love to have him, that in and of itself, doesn't necessarily make him a HOFer though does it?

How 'bout:
3.54 era, 290 CG, 49 Shutouts and 1756 Ks over 23 seasons?
3.16, 109, 35 and 3371 Ks over 23 seasons?
3.54, 56, 25 and 2607 Ks over 22 seasons?
3.29, 100, 37 and I'm not gonna give this one away with K's in 22 seasons?

[MacDice]

A steroid using pitcher is throwing the ball to a steroid using hitter...does that not neglect the use of the substance.

Originally Posted by MacDice

A steroid using pitcher is throwing the ball to a steroid using hitter...does that not neglect the use of the substance.

I dunno - does it? Everything I've read suggests that steroids may help pitchers endurance-wise but not as much performance-wise. The big names entangled in the steroids scandal have been predominantly hitters - some of the big hitters of the last 20 years - but most of the pitchers named have had pretty ordinary careers.

When Bonds, et al were (allegedly) doing steroids, it's my understanding/belief that they were "enhanced" virtually every at bat, for entire seasons or stretches of several consecutive seasons. Do you think virtually every pitcher they faced was using steroids? Do you think, of the pitchers that were, that they were on the same kind of sophisticated, intense regimen that Bonds was (apparently) on?

Or is it more likely that Bonds was souped-up 100% of the time, while he faced 'roids-using pitchers just 1/5 to 1/3 of the time, and with some or maybe most of those pitchers just dabbling, experimenting or part-timing?

My guess is that if batters and pitchers were both using steroids 100% of the time, the advantage would still go greatly to the hitter. And I don't believe for a minute that 100% of pitchers were users, so if Sosa or A-Rod used all season long, I think they had huge advantages. A level field was improbable if not impossible.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't find steroids in any way comparable to the kinds of cheating baseball has seen throughout history. Finding a cheat that enables you to hit 10-20 more home runs a season, and produce 15-45 more runs for your team, is just huge.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

I dunno - does it? Everything I've read suggests that steroids may help pitchers endurance-wise but not as much performance-wise. The big names entangled in the steroids scandal have been predominantly hitters - some of the big hitters of the last 20 years - but most of the pitchers named have had pretty ordinary careers.

When Bonds, et al were (allegedly) doing steroids, it's my understanding/belief that they were "enhanced" virtually every at bat, for entire seasons or stretches of several consecutive seasons. Do you think virtually every pitcher they faced was using steroids? Do you think, of the pitchers that were, that they were on the same kind of sophisticated, intense regimen that Bonds was (apparently) on?

Or is it more likely that Bonds was souped-up 100% of the time, while he faced 'roids-using pitchers just 1/5 to 1/3 of the time, and with some or maybe most of those pitchers just dabbling, experimenting or part-timing?

My guess is that if batters and pitchers were both using steroids 100% of the time, the advantage would still go greatly to the hitter. And I don't believe for a minute that 100% of pitchers were users, so if Sosa or A-Rod used all season long, I think they had huge advantages. A level field was improbable if not impossible.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't find steroids in any way comparable to the kinds of cheating baseball has seen throughout history. Finding a cheat that enables you to hit 10-20 more home runs a season, and produce 15-45 more runs for your team, is just huge.

A very solid post Karl!

[MacDice]

If you can build up endurance and build your low body it will help a pitcher performance without a doubt.

If I was a player during that era, I would have used steriods as well. Everybody around you is doing it to get a competitive edge and this is how you make your living to support your family.

I also have a problem punishing these athletes for steriod when MLB and the Players Union basically encouraged it. Why was it NOT banned by baseball? Because both sides were making too much money. Yes, they knew about it and they turned their backs on the problem. Only when the media got a hold of the story did they do something.

[murphusa]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

how about a prospect that would lose 250 games in the next 22 years

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by murphusa

how about a prospect that would lose 250 games in the next 22 years

I might be the only one that thinks this way...But, wins and losses are a somewhat insignificant stat when it comes to a pitcher's true merit and value. The last I knew they don't just hand out Cy Young awards to pitchers with 13-12 records. Oh, wait! Nevermind, it appears that people are finally starting to look past wins and losses when it comes to pitchers. Why's that? Because a pitcher isn't fully responsible for whether a game is won or lost. There's more than just one aspect to baseball, offense and defense. Sometime, even the best defense can lose without any offense and vice versa. A team loses a game as a whole, more often than a pitcher alone does. I've just never seen Bert as the type of guy who lost games for his teams.

Walter Johnson-279 losses in 21 seasons
Cy Young-316 losses in 22 seasons
Phil Neikro- 274 losses in 24 season
Warren Spahn-245 losses in 21 seasons
Nolan Ryan-297 losses in 27 seasons
Steve Carlton-244 losses in 24 seasons.

Based on your logic, are you trying to tell me you wouldn't want any of those guys?

[HRBAKER]

Those are two different questions, sure I would want Blyleven on my team if I knew beforehand what his stats would be. Does the fact that I would want him based on those terrific stats MAKE him a HOFer? No. I am not saying he is or isn't IMO.

edit to add: Let's don't give these guys too much credit, the lion's share who did sterioids didn't do it bc everyone else was, they did it bc of the money being thrown around. Same reason the owners/commissioner didn't stop it. That doesn't make any of them non-cheaters IMO.