Blyleven & Alomar get in the HOF

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed. I would only have voted for Alomar. Blyleven is one step down from a Hall of Famer, nice longevity stats but the mere two all star selections speaks volumes.

I think the volumes the all-star game snubs speak is that spots on the all-star team go to undeserving players from teams who otherwise would go unrepresented. In 1984, Blyleven finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting and didn't make the all-star team. In 1989, he finished 4th in the Cy Young balloting and didn't make the all-star team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

I think the volumes the all-star game snubs speak is that spots on the all-star team go to undeserving players from teams who otherwise would go unrepresented. In 1984, Blyleven finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting and didn't make the all-star team. In 1989, he finished 4th in the Cy Young balloting and didn't make the all-star team.

Since he played for mostly bad teams, you would think HE would have been that representative more times than two.

[martyogelvie]

The only thing that bothers me about the writers is how can a player garner only 15% his first year of eligibility (I think i read thats what Blyleven got his first year) to over 75% in 15 or so years??? I can see garnering a few more votes here or there but to go from 15 - 75 plus is asinine to me!

I think Alamor is a perfect example of how the system should work.. he came close but didn't make it his first year but was easly in his second.

I think that if your not in after 5 years, your off the ballot.. period. It certainly would help keep some of the marginal players that seem to get better over time out of the hall.

[Chris-Counts]

At least they got it right with Blyleven and Alomar. They blew it with Larkin, but I suspect he'll get in next year. As for Surhoff, Tino Martinez and Grissom getting votes, it's proof that just because somebody pays a guy to write about baseball for a living doesn't mean he knows anything about the game ...

[tothrk]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since he played for mostly bad teams, you would think HE would have been that representative more times than two.

I never looked at it that way. I was on the fence about Bert, but this is swaying me towards the notch below HOF camp. With players like Sutton, longevity bothers me. Just because your career lasted longer than a MEARS auction and you reached a magical number doesn't mean you should get in.

[doug.goodman]

Finally

[oldjudge]

Rob--The best he ever finished in a 22 year career was third in the Cy Young voting; he was in the top ten only four times and an All Star only twice. In eight of twenty-two seasons he was at or below .500 in W/L %. He won twenty games only once, but lost seventeen games four times. He was a very good pitcher, not a HOF pitcher.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Rob--The best he ever finished in a 22 year career was third in the Cy Young voting; he was in the top ten only four times and an All Star only twice. In eight of twenty-two seasons he was at or below .500 in W/L %. He won twenty games only once, but lost seventeen games four times. He was a very good pitcher, not a HOF pitcher.

He was a very, very good pitcher for a very, very long time. When you make your league's yearly top 10 list a collective 60+ times in the categories of wins, complete games, innings, strikeouts, shutouts and ERA, and win 287 games despite support of 2 or fewer runs in over 1/3 of your career starts, and finish your career 3rd in career strikeouts and 9th in shutouts, I think you go into the Hall.

Whenever the HOF becomes a place only for the greatest of the greats, then I'd be the first to vote Bert back out (along with 50-75 others).

Anyways, I'm very happy for Bert - I've had the pleasure of chatting with him, and followed his career from the very beginning, listening to his first start on the radio back in 1970. I aspired to be a pro baseball player at the time, and thought it was just too cool that a teenager just a few years older than me was pitching for my local team.

[Anthony S.]

In 1973 Blyleven finished 7th in the Cy Young voting.

There were 9 starting pitchers who finished in the top 10 of the voting that year (Hiller was the lone reliever). Of those 9:

-Blyleven had the 2nd lowest ERA, 2.52. Palmer was first at 2.40.
-Blyleven had the lowest Whip.
-Blyleven had the 2nd most strikeouts. That was the year Ryan had 383.
-Blyleven threw the most shutouts. Nine. Nine shutouts.
-Blyleven had the highest WAR (I'll admit I don't care about WAR, but it suits my argument here)

Wouldn't you assume that the guy with the 2nd lowest ERA, the lowest WHIP, the 2nd most strikeouts, the most shutouts, and the best WAR would finish higher than 7th?

But Blyleven went 20-17, so those 17 losses (I have no idea what his run support was like in the losses), must have knocked him down to 7th in the voting. Except Wilbur Wood, who had an ERA a full run higher than Blyleven, lost 20 games that year, and finished ahead of Blyleven in the Cy Young Voting.