Dawson only inductee..........

[chaddurbin]

last year jim rice, this year dawson...2 wrongs don't make a right!

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

last year jim rice, this year dawson...2 wrongs don't make a right!

Agreed, but at the least Rice had 8 100+ RBI seasons, a 352 OBP, 298 AVG (which is pretty good for a power hitter of his time) and had some real dominating HOF type years.

Dawson had only 4 100+ RBI seasons, and only 3 seasons of 30+ HR, 323 OBP and a 279 AVG. Seems like Dawson was more of a compiler, but again I can't argue too much, again just a little surprised about Alomar because his stats and accomplishments speak for themself.

[paul]

It's starting to look like Jack Morris will eventually make it. To me, that 3.90 era should keep him out. It would be the worst era in the hall. At least the current record holder (Red Ruffing) played in an extremely heavy hitting era.

[Anthony S.]

Dawson was a heck of alot more than an accumulator. He won one MVP and came in 2nd twice. That's a couple heartbeats away from 3 MVP's. He also had the most spectacular arm I've ever seen. I still remember a throw he made against the Giants at Candlestick back in the mid-80's. It was a rocket that never rose above 6 feet off the ground. And he played the first 11 years of his career in a gigantic mausoleum (Olympic Stadium), pre-juiced ball, pre-juiced players.

[Anthony S.]

And might I add, the only outfielders with more Gold Gloves lifetime than Dawson:

Clemente 12
Mays 12
Griffey 10
Jones 10
Kaline 10
T. Hunter 9
Ichiro 9

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

And might I add, the only outfielders with more Gold Gloves lifetime than Dawson:

Clemente 12
Mays 12
Griffey 10
Jones 10
Kaline 10
T. Hunter 9
Ichiro 9

I don't think Hunter or Andruw Jones are HOFers either. I believe there are fewer "automatic" milestones these days. Years back 500HR would make you a lock, but not anymore.

I think Dave Parker's career is very similar to Dawson's.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Dawson was a heck of alot more than an accumulator. He won one MVP and came in 2nd twice. That's a couple heartbeats away from 3 MVP's.

In that same respect Dale Murphy and Roger Maris won back to back MVPS and they most likely aren't getting in. No doubt Dawson was a tremendous player, but I just don't feel he belongs in the HOF.

[howard38]

Cy Young voting differs from MVP voting. For most of Blyleven's career Cy Young voters only chose their top three while MVP voters chose their top ten. This made a top five finish in Cy Young balloting significantly more difficult than a top five MVP finish.

[howard38]

Another reason he only made two all-star teams was that he was a better second half pitcher for most of his career.

First half: .555 W-L %, 3.44 ERA

Second Half: .517, 3.10

[Bobsbats]

I have read most of the replies to this thread and I can't understand where some people are coming from. The whole Alomar thing I don't get....very good player, yes....Hall of Famer..NO. How many people on this board have complained every year about who doesnt belong? It is the called the Hall of Fame, not the hall of pretty good. Players that hang on for 20 plus years and build up their stats don't belong either. A player who plays 20 years and has a .250 average has the ability to have 3000 hits. Does that make him a Hall of Famer? I dont think so... Like alot of things now, I think mediocre is looked upon as great and I dont believe it is....its mediocre.

[kmac32]

Awesome that Dawson made it in. He is truly an all star and deserves to be in.

Kmac

[Irwin Fletcher]

I'm a big Jim Kaat fan, but he doesn't compare to Blyleven.

Kaat: 283-237, 3.45 ERA, 2461 K, 1.259 WHIP, 107 ERA+

Blyleven: 287-250, 3.31 ERA, 3701 K, 1.198 WHIP, 118 ERA+

The adjusted ERA+ number is the key. Over his career, Kaat was 7 percent better than league average in term of ERA. Blyleven was 18 percent better. That's the difference between good and really good. And, in my opinion, the difference bettween HOF and not HOF.

Ditto for Tommy John (110 ERA+)

[KNH]

Glad to see Dawson got in. It's about time. One of the reasons I would keep Blyleven out of the hall of fame is that in 22 years he was an all star only 2 times. How can you be a HOFer if you're not even somewhat regularly an all star? I believe that some of the problem is that those 3,701 strikeouts look really impressive. Before Carlton and Ryan passed Walter Johnson back in the 80's, 3,508 k's was the record. I also don't understand how guys can get so many more votes than they had the previous year. Whether somebody gets votes or not shouldn't have anything to do with who else is up for election. If there were a couple of superstars players up for election this year, Dawson would probably have fell short again and Blyleven and Alomar would have missed by a lot more. Either a guy deserves it or he doesn't. How can voters vote "no" one year and "yes" the next? Did the player do something in that year to deserve the vote they didn't get the previous year?

[barrysloate]

There are clearly politics involved in the voting process, and I would think that even in a very weak year there is pressure to elect at least one of the candidates. What would happen to the Hall of Fame Induction Weekend if one year nobody got in? Would it be canceled?

[autograf]

Anthony.....nice tongue-in-cheek 'expectorated' comment in post #4.....

[Irwin Fletcher]

I agree about there being a first ballot bias and I think it's ridiculous. There's no reason why Alomar shouldn't have been a first ballot inductee. Same goes for Barry Larkin.

There are similar strange voting issues in that there has never been a unanimous HOF electee. How could any voter justify not voting for Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, etc.? There should have been many unanimous selections. I guess this will be tested in the next decade with Pedro, Jeter, and Randy Johnson coming up. All three should be unanimous.

I also don't think that Rice or Dawson should have gotten in, but Rice was probably the superior player.

Heartbreaker for Blyleven - at least he should finally get in next year.

[Irwin Fletcher]

I agree about Morris - it would really be a joke if he got in. A lot of voters want to put him in just because of his amazing 10-inning game 7 World Series performance. Under that logic, why not elect Don Larsen?

[mcap100176]

Just rename it Hall of Very Good

[Jim VB]

Would someone please tell me again why Bert Blyleven should be in and Tommy John and Jim Kaat shouldn't be?

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Would someone please tell me again why Bert Blyleven should be in and Tommy John and Jim Kaat shouldn't be?

I'll give it a stab. In the modern era: 5th lifetime in strikeouts. 9th lifetime in shutouts. The only pitchers with more shutouts: Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Mathewson, Young, Plank, Spahn, Ryan, Seaver. Ie, 5 deadball pitchers, and Spahn, Ryan and Seaver. That's it. And Ryan and Seaver only had 1 more shutout apiece. He was a dominating pitcher.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

He was a dominating pitcher.

I've got nothing against Bert. He was a nice pitcher, but dominant? Not really. There's always been the assumption hanging around that he spent his entire career pitching for lousy teams. His career record is 287-250 .534. The combined teams he pitched for were 1991-1901 (I counted both team records during the years he changed mid-season) for a winning percentage of .512. If he had merely won at the same percentage as his team, he would have had 275 wins. So his domination translated to 12 extra wins in 22 years.


In 22 seasons, the teams he finished the season with, ended up in first place 3 times, second place 3 times, and third place 5 times. Not great, but not awful. He was in a race about half of the time.

To me, he's another borderline case, and sometimes, those guys don't get in.

[calvindog]

Actually, the 6.7 Ks per 9 innings ranks him 115th all-time. This is a somewhat misleading rank because there are plenty of modern relief pitchers with better ratios which has knocked a lot of great pitchers down the list. That being said, Blyleven led the league in strikeouts one time. Feller lost four years of his prime to the war and still managed to lead the league in Ks for five years. Is there any question who the better strikeout pitcher was?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Irwin Fletcher

Heartbreaker for Blyleven - at least he should finally get in next year.

Regardless of what one says about Rice, he dominated for a decent period of time (6 years in which he was in the top 5 for league MVP). Dawson -- to a lesser extent in my opinion (3 top 2 MVP seasons -- including finishing first once). Blyleven? 22 seasons pitched, 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes, never finishing higher than third. Hardly a dominant force in the era he pitched. He compiled a lot of great numbers but was never a superstar.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Regardless of what one says about Rice, he dominated for a decent period of time (6 years in which he was in the top 5 for league MVP). Dawson -- to a lesser extent in my opinion (3 top 5 MVP seasons -- including finishing first once). Blyleven? 22 seasons pitched, 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes, never finishing higher than third. Hardly a dominant force in the era he pitched. He compiled a lot of great numbers but was never a superstar.

I love how career long consistency is dimissed as "compiling" or just "sticking around" for a long time. I guess 287 wins and 3700+ K's and a 3.30 ERA over 22 seasons just doesn't mean that much anymore. I guess one has to heave the ball at 100 MPH to be considered "dominant" now. I guess nebulous media awards like the Cy Young are a better barometer than sterling statistics. Granted, the Hall of Fame is also a media award but C'mon Jeff, you're better than that.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I love how career long consistency is dimissed as "compiling" or just "sticking around" a long time. I guess 287 wins and 3700+ K's and a 3.30 ERA over 22 seasons just doesn't mean that much anymore. I guess one has to heave the ball at 100 MPH to be considered dominant now. C'Mon Jeff, you're better than that.

I didn't say he wasn't consistent. He was! He was consistently really good. But in 22 years, only 3 top 5 finishes? And even in those 3 great years he never finished better than third in the Cy Young race? He was really good...just not great. The guy who is mostly compared to Blyleven is Don Sutton. Beyond the fact that Sutton had significantly more wins (which can be debated due to the teams Sutton played for), Sutton finished in the top 5 in the Cy Young race for 5 straight years!

[Irwin Fletcher]

Sutton may have had more top 5 Cy Young finishes, but Blyleven was the better pitcher.

Also, the voters get Cy Young and MVP voting wrong so often (though not this year), it's kind of hard to use that as a criteria. If it was wrong when the award was given, why is it right to use it as a HOF criteria?

For example, Jeter never won an MVP and most likely never will. He probably should have won in 1999 and 2006. Should Jeter not get elected because he never won an MVP, even though he should have?

EDIT: My mistake - I misremembered - Pedro should have gotten the MVP in 1999. Jeter was robbed in 2006, though.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I didn't say he wasn't consistent. He was! He was consistently really good. But in 22 years, only 3 top 5 finishes? And even in those 3 great years he never finished better than third in the Cy Young race? He was really good...just not great. The guy who is mostly compared to Blyleven is Don Sutton. Beyond the fact that Sutton had significantly more wins (which can be debated due to the teams Sutton played for), Sutton finished in the top 5 in the Cy Young race for 5 straight years!

Jeff,

Both Blyleven and Sutton pitched pre-ESPN, pre-MLB Network and pre-regional network where every game was on television. Sutton pitched in the media metropolis of Los Angeles and would definitely get more media attention and post-season consideration. Blyleven toiled in obscurity with Minnesota, Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and California (before anyone in Los Angeles noticed). If Blyleven would have pitched in larger media markets, we would absolutely have contended for multiple Cy Young Awards. Blyleven should not be penalized for not getting the media access. With the age we're in now, we can move past that and focus on the pure, hard facts. Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer whatever era he pitched in.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I didn't say he wasn't consistent. He was! He was consistently really good. But in 22 years, only 3 top 5 finishes? And even in those 3 great years he never finished better than third in the Cy Young race? He was really good...just not great. The guy who is mostly compared to Blyleven is Don Sutton. Beyond the fact that Sutton had significantly more wins (which can be debated due to the teams Sutton played for), Sutton finished in the top 5 in the Cy Young race for 5 straight years!

In 1973 Blyleven came in 7th in the AL Cy Young. So he wasn't in the Top 5. This is what he accomplished that season, as compared to the other AL starting pitchers who finished in the top 10 (there was one closer, Hiller):

1st in shutouts 9
1st in WHiP 1.117
2nd in ERA 2.54
2nd in strikeouts 258 (that's the year Ryan set the record)
20 wins

But he came in 7th. 17 loses certainly didn't help matters, but he threw 25 complete games for a .500 team. The only real reason he wasn't a top 5 (or top 2 for that matter) pitcher that year was be played for a mediocre team, whereas Palmer, Hunter, and Blue were with A's and Orioles who dominated the AL in the early 70's and Wilbur Wood was pitching in a huge media market in Chicago.