I'd like to see Bert in, and I was kind of on the fence on whether Dawson should get in, and certainly felt that Bert belonged in before Andre.
And then I saw Dawson's presser, and damnit, I really like the guy. Maybe he doesn't belong in, but I can't get all that outraged, especially since Alomar and Blyleven will be in next year.
I'm not in the group that feels Bert is a hall of famer. At no point in his career was he the best at his position. My friend tries convincing me that All-Star votes and Cy Young votes are subjective, but if the people who vote for those do not deem you worthy at that time then why should you be worthy of the Hall of Fame later on which encompasses the greatest of the game? People point out how mediocre his teams were but when they won he wasn't the ace of the staffs either. Everyone also talks about numbers but if you just look at numbers then in basketball Stephon Marbury would be a hall of famer and nobody would ever consider him one but his numbers are phenomenal. I feel Blyelevan was a good to very good pitcher but was ultimately a compiler over his 22 years.
rich lederer also wrote the terrific article on Raines a few years ago. i'm still terribly displeased with Raines' showing on the HoF ballots. really pissing me off. there have been a few good articles since, but i love this one...
[3] The litany of bad All Star and CY Young selections is long, so I am not sure why you would rely on them in assessing the career value of a player. Also, if one had to be the best player at his position during his career, the Hall of Fame would be very select.
[5} The Hall of Fame should be select. It should be the absolute best players at their position during their era. I feel that if Blyelevan gets in then in 4 years we should be celebrating Mike Mussina's induction and I love Moose but I do not think he was a Hall of Famer. Blyelevan pitched 4 years more than Mussina and if Mussina would have pitched 22 years he would have had eerily similar numbers except complete games. Is Mike Mussina a Hall of Famer? I don't think he is but if Blyelevan is then so is Moose.
[6] Right, but how select? Using your criteria, there would alot fewer enshrinements. For example, any 3B not named Schmidt playing in the same era wouldn't be enshrined. That would mean no George Brett.
[7] Maybe I was a little strict with my initial criteria, however a pitcher with 5 years under .500 in his career does not inspire greatness. An ace is what you should theoretically be to qualify as a Hall of Famer. 5 years under .500 at various stages in your career does no show greatness throughout a career.
[3] i think at hear i am a small hall person, so i understand where you are coming from, but i also think that ship has sailed, so given the current standards of the hall is what comes into play rather than an ideal.
as a huge basketball person, i often find myself veering to the nba as context to mlb. but i think mlb is a sport where the numbers tell a much larger part of the story than the do in the nba - so i don't necessarily agree with he steph comp in terms of how you look at numbers for bert.
What was Bert's record vs. his team's record when he wasn't pitching?
Plus he was #3 on career strikeouts when he retired. I think that should count. And while dominance is a better case for HoF, I think holding a starting job at the ML level for twenty+ years is a significant accomplishment in its own right. There are always going to be hungry younger (& cheaper) players ready to take your job if you falter.
The Hall values longevity highly. Excellence without longevity doesn't get you in, unless you're Sandy Koufax. 3700 Ks will get him in. It's a big number. Doesn't matter that he was never as good as dozens of pitchers who have no shot. If I had to pick a player to pitch one game, I'd certainly take J. R. Richard, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden or many others before I took the Flying Dutchman and the curve that K'd 3000 men.
[11] Actually, if you set the cutoff at 30 starts, Blyleven only had 3 years under .500. The other two of the five were years he only made 24 and 23 starts.
Just saw on Buster Olney's blog that Yogi Berra was not voted into the HOF his first year...Yogi Berra!!! Guess the baseball writers have always been (and probably always will be) complete wieners...
Maybe he needs to take a little walk with Harry Carson. Who Bert piss off to be shut out like this?
I'd like to see Bert in, and I was kind of on the fence on whether Dawson should get in, and certainly felt that Bert belonged in before Andre.
And then I saw Dawson's presser, and damnit, I really like the guy. Maybe he doesn't belong in, but I can't get all that outraged, especially since Alomar and Blyleven will be in next year.
I'm not in the group that feels Bert is a hall of famer. At no point in his career was he the best at his position. My friend tries convincing me that All-Star votes and Cy Young votes are subjective, but if the people who vote for those do not deem you worthy at that time then why should you be worthy of the Hall of Fame later on which encompasses the greatest of the game? People point out how mediocre his teams were but when they won he wasn't the ace of the staffs either. Everyone also talks about numbers but if you just look at numbers then in basketball Stephon Marbury would be a hall of famer and nobody would ever consider him one but his numbers are phenomenal. I feel Blyelevan was a good to very good pitcher but was ultimately a compiler over his 22 years.
rich lederer also wrote the terrific article on Raines a few years ago. i'm still terribly displeased with Raines' showing on the HoF ballots. really pissing me off. there have been a few good articles since, but i love this one...
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/12/30_rock.php
[3] The litany of bad All Star and CY Young selections is long, so I am not sure why you would rely on them in assessing the career value of a player. Also, if one had to be the best player at his position during his career, the Hall of Fame would be very select.
[5} The Hall of Fame should be select. It should be the absolute best players at their position during their era. I feel that if Blyelevan gets in then in 4 years we should be celebrating Mike Mussina's induction and I love Moose but I do not think he was a Hall of Famer. Blyelevan pitched 4 years more than Mussina and if Mussina would have pitched 22 years he would have had eerily similar numbers except complete games. Is Mike Mussina a Hall of Famer? I don't think he is but if Blyelevan is then so is Moose.
[6] Right, but how select? Using your criteria, there would alot fewer enshrinements. For example, any 3B not named Schmidt playing in the same era wouldn't be enshrined. That would mean no George Brett.
[7] Maybe I was a little strict with my initial criteria, however a pitcher with 5 years under .500 in his career does not inspire greatness. An ace is what you should theoretically be to qualify as a Hall of Famer. 5 years under .500 at various stages in your career does no show greatness throughout a career.
[3] i think at hear i am a small hall person, so i understand where you are coming from, but i also think that ship has sailed, so given the current standards of the hall is what comes into play rather than an ideal.
as a huge basketball person, i often find myself veering to the nba as context to mlb. but i think mlb is a sport where the numbers tell a much larger part of the story than the do in the nba - so i don't necessarily agree with he steph comp in terms of how you look at numbers for bert.
What was Bert's record vs. his team's record when he wasn't pitching?
Plus he was #3 on career strikeouts when he retired. I think that should count. And while dominance is a better case for HoF, I think holding a starting job at the ML level for twenty+ years is a significant accomplishment in its own right. There are always going to be hungry younger (& cheaper) players ready to take your job if you falter.
[8]
Don Sutton had 6 such years ....
Niekro and Perry each had 5 ....
(just sayin')
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/keZ6A
The Hall values longevity highly. Excellence without longevity doesn't get you in, unless you're Sandy Koufax. 3700 Ks will get him in. It's a big number. Doesn't matter that he was never as good as dozens of pitchers who have no shot. If I had to pick a player to pitch one game, I'd certainly take J. R. Richard, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden or many others before I took the Flying Dutchman and the curve that K'd 3000 men.
[11] Actually, if you set the cutoff at 30 starts, Blyleven only had 3 years under .500. The other two of the five were years he only made 24 and 23 starts.
Just saw on Buster Olney's blog that Yogi Berra was not voted into the HOF his first year...Yogi Berra!!! Guess the baseball writers have always been (and probably always will be) complete wieners...