Henderson & Jim Rice elected

[OleMissCub]

Rice? C'mon....

Henderson 94.8
Rice 76.4
Dawson 67.0

[J W]

No surprises. Rice is someone who joins the glut of so-so corner OFers with bats who are already in Cooperstown.

Andre Dawson just punched his ticket. I think Dave Parker could gain some momentum too, but his time is running out and he's got too far to go.

94.8 from The Rickey. I want that 5.2% of the voters to be kicked out!:nod:

[OleMissCub]

Tim Raines only got 22%!!

That's nuts.

.294/.385/.425, 2600+ hits, 800+ stolen bases, 1500+ runs, 131.1 WARP3

[NYMets523]

What percentage did Blyleven get?

[jjpm74]

Only 22% for Tim Raines :crazy

[jjpm74]

What percentage did Blyleven get?

Roughly 62%

[Cougar]

Player Total Votes Percentage
R. Henderson 511 94.8%
Jim Rice 412 76.4%
Andre Dawson 361 67.0%
Bert Blyleven 338 62.7%
Lee Smith 240 44.5%
Jack Morris 237 44.0%
Tommy John 171 31.7%
Tim Raines 122 22.6%
Mark McGwire 118 21.9%
Alan Trammell 94 17.4%
Dave Parker 81 15.0%
Don Mattingly 64 11.9%
Dale Murphy 62 11.5%
Harold Baines 32 5.9%
Mark Grace 22 4.1%
David Cone 21 3.9%
Matt Williams 7 1.3%
Mo Vaughn 6 1.1%
Jay Bell 2 0.4%
Jesse Orosco 1 0.2%
Ron Gant 0 0%
Dan Plesac 0 0%
Greg Vaughn 0 0%

[KCGHOST]

Looks like neither Blyleven nor Raines made and gains this year.

[Ubiquitous]

Dawson is going in within the next three years and Bert is eventually going in. Jury is still out on SMith and Morris but it isn't looking good.

[OleMissCub]

Looks like neither Blyleven nor Raines made and gains this year.

Dawson looked to have gained a few. He went from 65.9 to 67.

[ipitch]

McGwire's percentage dropped. But, I'm not here to talk about the past.

[dgarza]

Congrats to Henderson and Rice and Gordon!

It's all AL this year.

[Paulypal]

Raines should be in. He wasnt as good as Rickey but he brought very similar skills, and he like Rickey can dominate a game in a few different ways.

Rice is a tough one. He was dominant but I dont think for long enough. He is on the wrong side of the bubble for me.

If Blyleven gets in...Its a complete joke. The guy averaged 12.5 wins for 23 years. I am tired of hearing about these compiled numbers. He won 20 games one time, was 37 games over 500 in 23 years. Thats about 1.5 wins over 500 per year. I didnt think Sutton should be in despite 324 wins Blyleven shouldnt be in without paying for a ticket.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

The Inductees are to be announced tommorrow, Jan 13, at 3 PM. Where did everyone get the results from?

[Louder]

The Inductees are to be announced tommorrow, Jan 13, at 3 PM. Where did everyone get the results from?

MLB Network. The envelope thingy was kind of phony, just a straight announcement is fine. Henderson belongs, but not too sure about Rice.

[SDL]

The Inductees are to be announced tommorrow, Jan 13, at 3 PM. Where did everyone get the results from?


MLB Network had the announcements live

[MadHatter]

I couldn't be happier for Rice! Now if only Dale Murphy could get in!

[Cougar]

Dawson is going in within the next three years and Bert is eventually going in. Jury is still out on SMith and Morris but it isn't looking good.

Dawson's going to make it...he's going to pick up a lot of Rice's support.

Blyleven...I'm pretty worried about him. I thought he'd continue to gain in percentage, but he seems to have stalled in the low 60's.

This was his twelfth year on the ballot...can Bert pick up thirteen percentage points in three years??

[Cougar]

MLB Network. The envelope thingy was kind of phony, just a straight announcement is fine.

I agree that the envelope thing was dopey.

[curveball]

Raines should be in. He wasnt as good as Rickey but he brought very similar skills, and he like Rickey can dominate a game in a few different ways.

Rice is a tough one. He was dominant but I dont think for long enough. He is on the wrong side of the bubble for me.

If Blyleven gets in...Its a complete joke. The guy averaged 12.5 wins for 23 years. I am tired of hearing about these compiled numbers. He won 20 games one time, was 37 games over 500 in 23 years. Thats about 1.5 wins over 500 per year. I didnt think Sutton should be in despite 324 wins Blyleven shouldnt be in without paying for a ticket.


Don't you know by know that wins are perhaps the worst way to judge a pitcher? Wins are a team effort, a poor pitching performance can be overcome by a team scoring a boatload of runs.

Of course it is better to win a game 9-6, then to lose a game 2-1, but if you think that the pitcher who got the win in the 9-6 game by pitching 5 innings and allowing 5 earned runs was better than the pitcher who lost 2-1, but pitched a complete game, then there is no hope for you. Focus more on something like era+, and you will understand things better.

Here is a question for you. Which pitcher would you rather have?

Pitcher A 13-16, 2.87 ERA, 125 ERA+
Pitcher B 21-6, 4.04 ERA, 102 ERA+

Why do you think pitcher B had a much better w/l record despite clearly being the inferior pitcher?

It is because pitcher B received an average of 5.56 runs per start, and pitcher A received 2.66 runs per start.

[dgarza]

Dawson's going to make it...he's going to pick up a lot of Rice's support.

Blyleven...I'm pretty worried about him. I thought he'd continue to gain in percentage, but he seems to have stalled in the low 60's.

This was his twelfth year on the ballot...can Bert pick up thirteen percentage points in three years??
Looking at how fast Blyleven has caught up to Rice in terms of percentages at year-eligible, Blyleven is not in too bad a shape. I think Bly picked up some solid momentum. I just hope he does not have to wait until his 15th year.

Rice --- Blyleven
29.8% - 17.5%
35.3% - 14.1%
37.6% - 17.4%
42.9% - 23.5%
29.4% - 26.3%
51.5% - 29.2%
57.9% - 35.4%
55.1% - 40.9%
52.2% - 53.3%
54.5% - 47.7%
59.5% - 61.9%
64.8% - 62.7%
63.5% -
72.2% -
76.4% -

[curveball]

At least that Schwartz guy on the mlb feed ripped into the voters for not seeing the light on Blyleven. Raines fell in support, and although I'd like to say that I can't believe it, I actually can, because many of those voters are beyond clueless.

[Dogdaze]

I couldn't be happier for Rice! Now if only Dale Murphy could get in!

I agree. I believe both Rice and Murphy are HOF worthy.

I congratulate Henderson, Rice and Gordon for getting elected all are worthy Hall of Famers.

[Mattingly]

McGwire's percentage dropped. But, I'm not here to talk about the past.
I just noticed that too. Mr 23.5% has been renamed Mr 21.9%, so sins of the past shall be rewarded with slights of the future. :D

Which cap will Rickey wear? I'm thinking Oakland.

[Ubiquitous]

Raines fell because of Rickey, I bet the drop will be a blip in his progression. Though I don't know if he will have enough support to get in through normal voting.
The voting kind of makes all the hoopla over Corky seem rather silly and pointless.

[NewYork NewYork]

Congrats to both of these guys. I think Henderson is an easy choice, he's in the discussion of best player since Mays. I personally think Jim Rice is a very weak choice but I'm happy for him. I would've felt really bad for him if he didn't make it since he's been so close for years.

[AstrosFan]

FName LName Votes Needed Possible Percent
Rickey Henderson 511 405 539 94.81%
Jim Rice 412 405 539 76.44%
Andre Dawson 361 405 539 66.98%
Bert Blyleven 338 405 539 62.71%
Lee Smith 240 405 539 44.53%
Jack Morris 237 405 539 43.97%
Tommy John 171 405 539 31.73%
Tim Raines 122 405 539 22.63%
Mark McGwire 118 405 539 21.89%
Alan Trammell 94 405 539 17.44%
Dave Parker 81 405 539 15.03%
Don Mattingly 64 405 539 11.87%
Dale Murphy 62 405 539 11.50%
Harold Baines 32 405 539 5.94%
Mark Grace 22 405 539 4.08%
David Cone 21 405 539 3.90%
Matt Williams 7 405 539 1.30%
Mo Vaughn 6 405 539 1.11%
Jay Bell 2 405 539 0.37%
Jesse Orosco 1 405 539 0.19%
Ron Gant 0 405 539 0.00%
Dan Plesac 0 405 539 0.00%
Greg Vaughn 0 405 539 0.00%

Just reposting the voting results given by Cougar, plus some additional info.

[OleMissCub]

Just did some research and Jim Rice has the second lowest WARP3 of anyone ever elected by the BBWAA behind Bill Terry. Some other HOFers technically have lower WARP3 numbers but most all of them have exceptions for why they are so low such as wars, injuries, or the color barrier eating up a chunk of their careers.

In order of most recent election:

Rice 80.2
Henderson: 189.8
Ripken: 173.1
Gwynn: 122.1
Sandberg: 108.7
Boggs: 139.2
Molitor: 131.7
Murray: 134.4
Carter: 115.9
Smith: 132.5
Puckett: 87.1
Winfield: 125.2
Perez: 106.4
Yount: 132.0
Fisk: 115.7
Brett: 137.7
Schmidt: 157.0
Jackson: 131.0
Carew: 122.9
Morgan: 165.3
Yaz: 131.7
Bench: 120.5
Stargell: 105.6
Williams: 113.1
McCovey: 112.7
Brock: 89.9
Killebrew: 94.5
Aparicio: 91.2
B. Robinson: 119.3
Aaron: 217.6
F. Robinson: 167.6
Kaline: 122.9
Mays: 220.1
Mathews: 146.6
Banks: 119.9
Lindstrom: 56.6 (2,600 less AB's than Rice)
Kiner: 71.3 (3,000 less AB's than Rice)
Mantle: 155.3
Clemente: 127.8
Berra: 108.8
Boudreau: 110.1
Musial: 191.5
Medwick: 95.4
Campy: 67.8 (Negro League discount)
Williams: 156.8
Appling: 127.9
J. Robinson: 91.5
Greenberg: 77.0 (WWII discount)
Cronin: 112.6
Hartnett: 107.5
DiMaggio: 121.9
Terry: 75.3 (1800 less AB's than Rice)
Maranville: 92.9
Dickey: 102.9
Simmons: 99.8
Gehringer: 122.4
Ott: 178.0
Heilmann: 95.6
Foxx: 119.9
Waner: 124.6
Traynor: 87.7
Frisch: 118.8
Hornsby: 162.8
Keeler: 105.7
Collins: 180.6
Speaker: 174.6
Lajoie: 163.8
Wagner: 203.0
Ruth: 227.8
Cobb: 194.3

[Ubiquitous]

There is a good chance that this years induction weekend will be the last one for several years. Though in all probability if they don't elect anyone next year (something they might very well do) I'm betting the message will come out pretty fast and hard that somebody has to get elected for the next one. Induction week is a huge money maker for the hall and the town they simply cannot afford to not have one.

2010's best shot is Larkin
2011's is Bagwell
2012 is Bernie Williams

I have no idea how the writers view Larkin but I can see him falling well short. It is a toss up for me on how the writers are going to view Bagwell. I don't think Bernie is a first ballot kind of guy.

So that leaves Andre and Bert. Bert is probably going to need to have to go to the end of his balloting time to get in and it will probably take Andre more then 1 year to get in. So the 2012 vote is probably the most likely moment those two will get in. Out of that I think Andre will get in and probably Bagwell in the same year as well.

So worst case scenario is that nobody gets elected (normally or VC) for the next three years and the more likely scenario is that 2 players over the next 3 years go in. Either one is not going to be pretty for Cooperstown.

[OneTeam OneDream]

Now if only Dale Murphy could get in!


Damn right!!

[hudsonharden]

I dunno how I feel about Rice getting voted in. On one hand, baseball is a game of statistics, and I lump Hall of Fame voting statistics in with playing statistics. When comparing Tom Candiotti and Rick Honeycutt, I not only compare their ERA, wins, and strikeouts, I also note that they both got exactly 2 HOF votes. Even though those votes were pretty much inconsequential (neither of them got in or even had a chance), they are a part of their baseball career. On the other hand, you can divide baseball players into two distinct catergories: those who are in the HOF and those who are not. Jim Rice is just as much of a HOFer as Joe DiMaggio. And the casual baseball fan probably cares very little about whether you got in by a huge percentage of the votes on your first ballot (Tom Seaver) or if you squeaked by on your last ballot (Rice).

That being said, I am against any kind of tiered Hall of Fame system. You're in the club or you're not, and the line has to be drawn somewhere, even if that line seems very jagged at times.

[SDL]

There is a good chance that this years induction weekend will be the last one for several years. Though in all probability if they don't elect anyone next year (something they might very well do) I'm betting the message will come out pretty fast and hard that somebody has to get elected for the next one. Induction week is a huge money maker for the hall and the town they simply cannot afford to not have one.

2010's best shot is Larkin
2011's is Bagwell
2012 is Bernie Williams

I have no idea how the writers view Larkin but I can see him falling well short. It is a toss up for me on how the writers are going to view Bagwell. I don't think Bernie is a first ballot kind of guy.

So that leaves Andre and Bert. Bert is probably going to need to have to go to the end of his balloting time to get in and it will probably take Andre more then 1 year to get in. So the 2012 vote is probably the most likely moment those two will get in. Out of that I think Andre will get in and probably Bagwell in the same year as well.

So worst case scenario is that nobody gets elected (normally or VC) for the next three years and the more likely scenario is that 2 players over the next 3 years go in. Either one is not going to be pretty for Cooperstown.

You may remember that NOBODY got elected for the class of '71. Yogi Berra had the most votes but fell short. The Vet Committee then had a special meeting and selected Satchel Paige.

I can't help but wonder what they would've done that year if they didn't have the special election to get Paige in...

[Senor Octobre]

2010's best shot is Larkin

Alomar?

Anyways, while I agree that Rice was borderline at best, it still does my heart good to know that a guy who my uncles told me stories about when I was a kid finally got a hall pass.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Though I can't say that I would ever support his candidacy, I was disappointed to see that Mark Grace didn't even get enough support to remain on the ballot. I'm a guy who believes that players are either HOFers or they aren't. I don't buy the "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer" argument that some writers use to justify their voting. Even so, I like to see guys who aren't HOFers, but are very good players, get enough support to stay on the ballot for a while because it preserves their memory a little better. Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy won't be forgotten too easily because they have been on the ballot for a long time and their candidacies are still debated. I hope that Mark Grace doesn't become anonymous to the next generation of fans.

[brett]

Dawson looked to have gained a few. He went from 65.9 to 67.


I have actually come to be more accepting of Dawson. Matt's defensive ratings have him at a near Mays level in center for his first 6-7 years before the legs went. Dale Murphy also looks real good defensively in that system. Murphy was a MUCH more valuable player than Rice, but I wouldn't put him in. The voters are ridiculously ignorant though.

It's kind of funny guessing and second guessing what the voters will do because even when they do the right thing, it is for the wrong reason.

[STLCards2]

I have actually come to be more accepting of Dawson. Matt's defensive ratings have him at a near Mays level in center for his first 6-7 years before the legs went. Dale Murphy also looks real good defensively in that system. Murphy was a MUCH more valuable player than Rice, but I wouldn't put him in. The voters are ridiculously ignorant though.

It's kind of funny guessing and second guessing what the voters will do because even when they do the right thing, it is for the wrong reason.

I keep going back and forth on Dawson too. A+ CF for a long time, 300+ SB, lots of power. Id the low OB% enough to leave him out?

When a guy is truly borderline, I don't have a problem giving them the "fame bounce". If he is that close, and the fans want to see him in - put him in! It is a tourist attraction for the fans after all. People may be suprised to hear me say that, knowing my typical stat-focused stances.

[mtortolero]

Ten best season of Rice in OPS+ and hrs against ten best of big Frank Howard:
____/......Rice........../........Howard......../
1.- 157 OPS+ 46 Hrs 1.-178 OPS+ 48 Hrs
2.- 154 OPS+ 39 Hrs 2.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
3.- 147 OPS+ 39 Hrs 3.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
4.- 136 OPS+ 20 Hrs 4.-153 OPS+ 36 Hrs
5.- 130 OPS+ 24 Hrs 5.-149 OPS+ 28 Hrs
6.- 127 OPS+ 22 Hrs 6.-147 OPS+ 31 Hrs
7.- 123 OPS+ 27 Hrs 7.-144 OPS+ 26 Hrs
8.- 122 OPS+ 24 Hrs 8.-138 OPS+ 21 Hrs
9.- 120 OPS+ 25 Hrs 9.-127 OPS+ 18 Hrs
10.-116 OPS+ 17 Hrs 10.-119 OPS+ 15 Hrs

Maybe I am missing something but if Rice was the most feared hitter of his time what adjetive BBWAA can use for Howard?

[philipthegreat]

This was a foregone conclusion. One thing that bothered me about this election was McGwire not being able tp crack 25%.

[mwiggins]

Ten best season of Rice in OPS+ and hrs against ten best of big Frank Howard:
____/......Rice........../........Howard......../
1.- 157 OPS+ 46 Hrs 1.-178 OPS+ 48 Hrs
2.- 154 OPS+ 39 Hrs 2.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
3.- 147 OPS+ 39 Hrs 3.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
4.- 136 OPS+ 20 Hrs 4.-153 OPS+ 36 Hrs
5.- 130 OPS+ 24 Hrs 5.-149 OPS+ 28 Hrs
6.- 127 OPS+ 22 Hrs 6.-147 OPS+ 31 Hrs
7.- 123 OPS+ 27 Hrs 7.-144 OPS+ 26 Hrs
8.- 122 OPS+ 24 Hrs 8.-138 OPS+ 21 Hrs
9.- 120 OPS+ 25 Hrs 9.-127 OPS+ 18 Hrs
10.-116 OPS+ 17 Hrs 10.-119 OPS+ 15 Hrs

Maybe I am missing something but if Rice was the most feared hitter of his time what adjetive BBWAA can use for Howard?

Great post. Rice is just Frank Howard with less power, and more hype.

The really stunning comparison is their raw road splits. Even with Howard playing through the 60's and early 70's, vs. Rice in the late 70's and 80's, Howard still outhit him in the road. Without adjusting at all for the era's they played in.

Howard (road split) - .491 SLG, .835 OPS
Rice (road split) - .459 SLG, .789 OPS

And really, as much as the Rice's "feared" reputation was hyped, I've got to think that pitchers were a bit more worried when they saw a beast like Howard in the batting box.

[ol' aches and pains]

I don't buy the "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer" argument that some writers use to justify their voting.

I disagree, it's supposed to be hard to get into the Hall. Somebody didn't vote for Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, for God's sake.

Mark Grace was a very good player, not a hall-of-famer to me. If he was in, and Ron Santo was still out, there would have to be a full investigation.

[brett]

This was a foregone conclusion. One thing that bothered me about this election was McGwire not being able tp crack 25%.

When McGwire appeared before congress, after the hearings I read a statement from a lawyer of his that he had a "story to tell" but wasn't ready yet, and hopefully he's be able to tell it soon.

I'm waiting.

[brett]

Great post. Rice is just Frank Howard with less power, and more hype.

The really stunning comparison is their raw road splits. Even with Howard playing through the 60's and early 70's, vs. Rice in the late 70's and 80's, Howard still outhit him in the road. Without adjusting at all for the era's they played in.

Howard (road split) - .491 SLG, .835 OPS
Rice (road split) - .459 SLG, .789 OPS

And really, as much as the Rice's "feared" reputation was hyped, I've got to think that pitchers were a bit more worried when they saw a beast like Howard in the batting box.


When I heard managers or pitchers say they were afraid of Rice, my honest sense was that it was a hustle. They might have been afraid of failing because he was a guy they should not let beat them.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I disagree, it's supposed to be hard to get into the Hall. Somebody didn't vote for Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, for God's sake.

Mark Grace was a very good player, not a hall-of-famer to me. If he was in, and Ron Santo was still out, there would have to be a full investigation.

Read my entire post. Mark Grace shouldn't be a HOFer. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Ron Santo is much better qualified for the HOF than Grace. I simply would have liked for Grace to have stayed on the ballot for longer than one election. If a player stays on the ballot for a few years, it preserves his memory more than it does if he's a one-and-done guy. As for the "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer" thing, I don't buy it. Either you think a guy deserves to be in the HOF or you don't. Writers can certainly change their minds about players, but they shouldn't abstain from voting for someone who they plan on voting for in a later election.

[NYMets523]

Anyone who submits a blank ballot 2 times or more in 3 years should lose their voting for life. Anyone who no longer covers baseball should also lose their voting power. The writers need to learn that the HoF election isn't their soapbox and it isn't about them.

[four tool]

Anyone who submits a blank ballot 2 times or more in 3 years should lose their voting for life. Anyone who no longer covers baseball should also lose their voting power. The writers need to learn that the HoF election isn't their soapbox and it isn't about them.

:clapping:clapping:clapping:clapping:clapping:clap ping: applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud::appla ud:

[mtortolero]

As sugestion Rice´s plaque can say: " 6-4,4-3"

[Paul Wendt]

You may remember that NOBODY got elected for the class of '71. Yogi Berra had the most votes but fell short. The Vet Committee then had a special meeting and selected Satchel Paige.

I can't help but wonder what they would've done that year if they didn't have the special election to get Paige in...
There was no special meeting of the veterans committee. Baseball and Cooperstown had been under pressure for years to induct some Negro Leagues players. They established a special committee to consider Negro Leagues candidates only.

Meanwhile the famous veterans committee elected seven people, its biggest haul
: Beckley, Kelley, Marquard, Hooper, Bancroft, Hafey, and Weiss (George)

[CTaka]

Obviously Rickey was a no-brainer. As for Jim Rice, well, at least he's a better selection than Sam Rice. I'm confident saying that Jim Rice will be the greatest Rice in the Baseball Hall of Fame (emphasis on the word baseball!).

While I'm OK with Jim Rice being elected, I still wish Blyleven would get more love from the writers.

[SDL]

There was no special meeting of the veterans committee. Baseball and Cooperstown had been under pressure for years to induct some Negro Leagues players. They established a special committee to consider Negro Leagues candidates only.

Meanwhile the famous veterans committee elected seven people, its biggest haul
: Beckley, Kelley, Marquard, Hooper, Bancroft, Hafey, and Weiss (George)

I stand corrected :)

[SDL]

Obviously Rickey was a no-brainer. As for Jim Rice, well, at least he's a better selection than Sam Rice. I'm confident saying that Jim Rice will be the greatest Rice in the Baseball Hall of Fame (emphasis on the word baseball!).

While I'm OK with Jim Rice being elected, I still wish Blyleven would get more love from the writers.

Certainly better than Del Rice ;)

Call me biased, since I'm Dutch-American but Rikaalbert Blijleven DESERVES to be in Cooperstown!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with those who say Dawson will get in someday.

Blyleven didn't make as much progress as I hoped he would. Had he jumped forward to around 70 percent, I think he'd have gotten in next year. He's still got a long jump next year, and I'm not sure he's going to get the kind of final push Rice got.

Rice's final year push amounted to only 4 percent of the voters. He was almost there last year (at a little over 72 percent), and he got enough. He's in now, so the issue of "will he?" is put to rest. The issue of "Should he have?" will probably go on as long as baseball.

[Paul Wendt]

Read my entire post. Mark Grace shouldn't be a HOFer. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Ron Santo is much better qualified for the HOF than Grace. I simply would have liked for Grace to have stayed on the ballot for longer than one election.
Sure. Meanwhile, some other people care about the distinction between prompt election and delayed election.
If a player stays on the ballot for a few years, it preserves his memory more than it does if he's a one-and-done guy. As for the "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer" thing, I don't buy it. Either you think a guy deserves to be in the HOF or you don't. Writers can certainly change their minds about players, but they shouldn't abstain from voting for someone who they plan on voting for in a later election.
Sure. Meanwhile, some other people care about the distinction between prompt dismissal and the automatic renomination that comes with 5% support, preferably for a full term of 15 years.

A few people care about the distinction between one vote and none, and plenty of references cover every player who tallied a vote for the Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame and its complex election processes provide a variety of honors, maybe a dozen. "Membership" is by far the one the greatest concern of the greatest number but many people care about some of the finer distinctions.

[henrich]

Player Total Votes Percentage
R. Henderson 511 94.8%
Jim Rice 412 76.4%
Andre Dawson 361 67.0%
Bert Blyleven 338 62.7%
Lee Smith 240 44.5%
Jack Morris 237 44.0%
Tommy John 171 31.7%
Tim Raines 122 22.6%
Mark McGwire 118 21.9%
Alan Trammell 94 17.4%
Dave Parker 81 15.0%
Don Mattingly 64 11.9%
Dale Murphy 62 11.5%
Harold Baines 32 5.9%
Mark Grace 22 4.1%
David Cone 21 3.9%
Matt Williams 7 1.3%
Mo Vaughn 6 1.1%
Jay Bell 2 0.4%
Jesse Orosco 1 0.2%
Ron Gant 0 0%
Dan Plesac 0 0%
Greg Vaughn 0 0%

Just for reference sake, I quoted this on the third page. It appears that there will be only 11 holdovers for next election, as Grace, cone, Williams, Vaughn, bell, Orosco, Gant, Plesac and G. vaughn fall off the ballot, so does T John as it was his 15th year and of course Rice and Henderson are already in. This leaves Dawson, blyleven, Smith L, Morris, Raines, McGwire, Trammell, Parker, Mattingly, Murphy and Baines.

This should givve dawson and Blyleven their chance to get in. Even if they include 15 people on the ballot for next year that's still a relatively small number (26). I think Dawson makes it next year and Blyleven gets 71%.

I'm ecstatic that Rice made it in, as he's such a borderline case that he serves as a lightning rod for discussion, but I'm glad he got his day. Rickey says that "Rickey is ecstatic by the selection."

Note quotation is my silliness, not for real.

[Paulypal]

Don't you know by know that wins are perhaps the worst way to judge a pitcher? Wins are a team effort, a poor pitching performance can be overcome by a team scoring a boatload of runs.

Of course it is better to win a game 9-6, then to lose a game 2-1, but if you think that the pitcher who got the win in the 9-6 game by pitching 5 innings and allowing 5 earned runs was better than the pitcher who lost 2-1, but pitched a complete game, then there is no hope for you. Focus more on something like era+, and you will understand things better.

Here is a question for you. Which pitcher would you rather have?

Pitcher A 13-16, 2.87 ERA, 125 ERA+
Pitcher B 21-6, 4.04 ERA, 102 ERA+

Why do you think pitcher B had a much better w/l record despite clearly being the inferior pitcher?

It is because pitcher B received an average of 5.56 runs per start, and pitcher A received 2.66 runs per start.

So lets see...I dont agree with you that Bly should be in the HOF so therefore there is no hope for me. I agree wins are not the tell all of getting in...if you look at certain seasons, but the argument that he didnt get run support for many of his years will not fly with me. Sorry. I saw Seaver pitch with some horrendous Met teams that couldnt score at all so please lets not discuss run support.

Comparing Jack Morris of 1992 and Bly of 1976 is a good argument...I dont think Morris should be in either nor would I say Morris is better than Bly. He isnt.

I carry wins more heavily than you do. When you step on the mound your goal is to win, not worry about your 125 ERA+. WIN. If you team gives scores 3 runs..you give up two. Period. Dont pitch just good enough to lose.

For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in.

I guess your right there is no hope.

[NYMets523]

I carry wins more heavily than you do. When you step on the mound your goal is to win, not worry about your 125 ERA+. WIN. If you team gives scores 3 runs..you give up two. Period. Dont pitch just good enough to lose.

For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in.

Let's look at Blyleven from 1970 to 1978

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7798/blylevenkq3.jpg

Look at his W-L record and ERA, lgERA, and ERA+.

His worst ERA+ is 118 in 1972. And outside of 1970 and 1972, his ERA+ is never below 123.

Now look at his W-L. He has more than 10 losses in all but 1970. Look at his 1973. He started 40 GAMES and went 20-17. He had a decision in all but 3 games. Please explain how this isn't due to poor run support. Blyleven is the unluckiest pitcher of his era and he shouldn't be penalized by a bunch of dumb writers because of it.

[Paulypal]

Let's look at Blyleven from 1970 to 1978

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7798/blylevenkq3.jpg

Look at his W-L record and ERA, lgERA, and ERA+.

His worst ERA+ is 118 in 1972. And outside of 1970 and 1972, his ERA+ is never below 123.

Now look at his W-L. He has more than 10 losses in all but 1970. Look at his 1973. He started 40 GAMES and went 20-17. He had a decision in all but 3 games. Please explain how this isn't due to poor run support. Blyleven is the unluckiest pitcher of his era and he shouldn't be penalized by a bunch of dumb writers because of it.

I didnt say he didnt get poor run support. In my opinion I wouldnt put him in. Its really simple. You would I wouldnt. The earth will keep spinning.

[NYMets523]

You basically said you wouldn't elect him because he got bad run support and are blaming him for it.

[curveball]

So lets see...I dont agree with you that Bly should be in the HOF so therefore there is no hope for me. I agree wins are not the tell all of getting in...if you look at certain seasons, but the argument that he didnt get run support for many of his years will not fly with me. Sorry. I saw Seaver pitch with some horrendous Met teams that couldnt score at all so please lets not discuss run support.

Comparing Jack Morris of 1992 and Bly of 1976 is a good argument...I dont think Morris should be in either nor would I say Morris is better than Bly. He isnt.

I carry wins more heavily than you do. When you step on the mound your goal is to win, not worry about your 125 ERA+. WIN. If you team gives scores 3 runs..you give up two. Period. Dont pitch just good enough to lose.

For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in.

I guess your right there is no hope.


So if a pitcher gives up 2 runs, and his team only scores 1 run, he sucks because he simply did not pitch good enough to win?

Why don't we play a baseball simulation? We will have the exact same hitting lineup, but the only variable will be different starting pitchers. My starting pitcher will have an era of 2.80, and I'll even put his record as 0-16. You can input your pitcher as 21-0, with an era of 3.75. I'd be willing to bet that my pitcher will win more games than yours. What do you think will happen? Do you really think that your 21-0 will beat my 0-16 pitcher more often than not? After all, he is infinitely superior, as he is undefeated, and my pitcher has never won.

<< For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in. >>

This last statement pretty much sums up how close minded you are when you say that you don't care what the reasons are. Have you ever gone to baseball-reference.com, and checked out neutralized stats? Check out Bob Welsh in 1990 when he went 27-6, and won the Cy Young. His era+ was only 126. Although his era+ is respectable, that is far too good a winning percentage. His team averaged 5.21 runs for him, but neutralized his record would have only been 16-10. That same year Roger Clemens went 21-6, but his era+ was an astonishing 213. His neutralized record holds up at 20-5 because he actually pitched incredibly well that year. He only got an average of 4.34 runs per game.

There is a definite co-relation between winning % and run support. A pitchers greatest asset is controlling how many earned runs they give up. They cannot control how many runs their team can score for them.

[curveball]

Let's look at Blyleven from 1970 to 1978

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7798/blylevenkq3.jpg

Look at his W-L record and ERA, lgERA, and ERA+.

His worst ERA+ is 118 in 1972. And outside of 1970 and 1972, his ERA+ is never below 123.

Now look at his W-L. He has more than 10 losses in all but 1970. Look at his 1973. He started 40 GAMES and went 20-17. He had a decision in all but 3 games. Please explain how this isn't due to poor run support. Blyleven is the unluckiest pitcher of his era and he shouldn't be penalized by a bunch of dumb writers because of it.

Check out the neutralized stats at baseball-reference. It attempts to level the playing field by giving all pitchers the same run support. Blyleven would have gone 26-10 in 1973. For his career, he would have gone 325-227. I would think that you would see his stellar career era+ of 118 over 4970 innings and wonder how he only went 287-250. There is an explanation. You just don't care to know.

[mwiggins]

If Blyleven gets in...Its a complete joke. The guy averaged 12.5 wins for 23 years. I am tired of hearing about these compiled numbers. He won 20 games one time, was 37 games over 500 in 23 years. Thats about 1.5 wins over 500 per year. I didnt think Sutton should be in despite 324 wins Blyleven shouldnt be in without paying for a ticket.

What about Nolan Ryan? Would you have put him in? He averaged 12.0 wins for 27 years? He was 32 games over .500 in 27 years. That's 1.2 wins over .500 per year. Worst than Blyleven all around.

Sutton's got both of them beat. 14.1 wins a year over 23 years. 68 games over .500, or 2.9 games over .500 per year.

What about Steve Carlton? 13.7 wins a year over 24 years. 85 games over .500, or 3.5 games over .500 per year. Sutton's got him beat as well, it looks like.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The poor run support that Blyleven got rminds me of a Matt Cain. Here is a list of 32 starts made over the '07-'08 seasons.


2008

DATE OPP IP H ER BB K
04/01 @LA 5.2 3 0 4 5
04/18 STL 6.2 3 3 3 4
04/23 @SD 7.0 5 1 3 7
05/03 @PHI 7.0 2 2 1 8
05/25 @FLA 6.0 5 2 2 6
05/30 SD 7.0 7 3 1 6
06/14 OAK 7.0 6 3 1 11
07/11 @CHI 7.0 3 0 3 9
07/29 @LAD 7.0 8 1 0 8
08/20 FLA 7.2 5 2 4 4
08/25 COL 6.0 6 3 4 4
09/16 @ARI 7.0 7 2 0 7
09/21 @LA 6.0 5 0 4 4
09/27 LA 7.0 8 2 4 6

94 IP, 2.30 ERA, 85 K, 34 BB, 8.14 K/9, 3.25 BB/9, 1.12 WHIP
__________________________________________________ ________

2007

DATE OPP IP H ER BB K
04/04 SD 6.0 5 3 1 6
04/09 @SD 7.0 1 1 1 6
04/17 @COL 7.0 2 0 3 7
04/28 @ARI 6.0 1 1 4 2
05/19 @OAK 6.1 6 3 4 9
05/25 COL 6.2 4 3 4 5
06/05 @ARI 5.1 8 3 5 4
06/10 @OAK 8.0 5 1 3 8
06/16 @BOS 7.0 3 1 1 3
06/27 SD 7.2 7 2 2 7
07/13 LAD 5.0 7 2 2 2
07/28 FLA 7.0 6 3 2 7
08/03 @SD 7.1 5 2 1 11
08/13 @PIT 7.0 6 2 2 7
09/09 LA 7.0 6 2 1 4
09/15 @SD 6.0 1 1 0 6
09/20 CIN 6.0 7 2 4 7
09/25 SD 7.0 5 2 1 8

119.1 IP, 2.56 ERA, 109 K, 41 BB, 8.22 K/9, 3.16 BB/9, 1.06 WHIP

Combined you get:

213.2 IP, 2.45 ERA, 194 K, 75 BB, 158 H, 8.18 K/8, 3.16 BB/9, 1.09 WHIP.

Would anyone care to guess Cain's won-loss record over these 32 games?

[SavoyBG]

Let's look at Blyleven from 1970 to 1978

Now look at his W-L. He has more than 10 losses in all but 1970. Look at his 1973. He started 40 GAMES and went 20-17. He had a decision in all but 3 games. Please explain how this isn't due to poor run support. Blyleven is the unluckiest pitcher of his era and he shouldn't be penalized by a bunch of dumb writers because of it.

The real problem is that individual pitchers should not be credited with wins and losses. Those are team stats.

If pitchers had never been credited with wins and losses in baseball then they would be judged only on their PITCHING, which is how it should be.

Position players from bad teams (Kiner, Banks) are given a pass on not playing for winners, but pitchers are really not, mainly because of that dumb practice of crediting wins and losses to individual pitchers.

[Mike90]

So lets see...I dont agree with you that Bly should be in the HOF so therefore there is no hope for me. I agree wins are not the tell all of getting in...if you look at certain seasons, but the argument that he didnt get run support for many of his years will not fly with me. Sorry. I saw Seaver pitch with some horrendous Met teams that couldnt score at all so please lets not discuss run support.

Comparing Jack Morris of 1992 and Bly of 1976 is a good argument...I dont think Morris should be in either nor would I say Morris is better than Bly. He isnt.

I carry wins more heavily than you do. When you step on the mound your goal is to win, not worry about your 125 ERA+. WIN. If you team gives scores 3 runs..you give up two. Period. Dont pitch just good enough to lose.

For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in.

I guess your right there is no hope.

I agree Paulypal, we should not base Blyleven's candidacy on what HE did but on how good his offenses were. If you keep Bert out because he only won 37 more games than he lost, you're going to have to jump through a few logical hurdles to consider Nolan Ryan (32 games above .500) worthy.

[Mongoose]

Ten best season of Rice in OPS+ and hrs against ten best of big Frank Howard:
____/......Rice........../........Howard......../
1.- 157 OPS+ 46 Hrs 1.-178 OPS+ 48 Hrs
2.- 154 OPS+ 39 Hrs 2.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
3.- 147 OPS+ 39 Hrs 3.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
4.- 136 OPS+ 20 Hrs 4.-153 OPS+ 36 Hrs
5.- 130 OPS+ 24 Hrs 5.-149 OPS+ 28 Hrs
6.- 127 OPS+ 22 Hrs 6.-147 OPS+ 31 Hrs
7.- 123 OPS+ 27 Hrs 7.-144 OPS+ 26 Hrs
8.- 122 OPS+ 24 Hrs 8.-138 OPS+ 21 Hrs
9.- 120 OPS+ 25 Hrs 9.-127 OPS+ 18 Hrs
10.-116 OPS+ 17 Hrs 10.-119 OPS+ 15 Hrs

Maybe I am missing something but if Rice was the most feared hitter of his time what adjetive BBWAA can use for Howard?

Well... Red Sox fans were always afraid he'd hit into another double play and kill another rally. That would make him a feared hitter, I guess.

By the way, no way he deserved MVP in 78 over Guidry.

[Los Bravos]

Dawson is going in within the next three years and Bert is eventually going in.I hope so. I was a bit disappointed that their totals didn't increase by at least a few more votes over last year's tallies.

[spark240]

Mark Grace shouldn't be a HOFer.
...
I simply would have liked for Grace to have stayed on the ballot for longer than one election.
...
As for the "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer" thing, I don't buy it. Either you think a guy deserves to be in the HOF or you don't.

Your last two quoted sentences seem to conflict with the first two.

I agree that it's nonsense to not-vote for a player one year with the expectation of voting him in later, because he's "not a first-ballot guy."

So then isn't it equally nonsense to vote for someone without the sincere intent and desire that he be elected?

[mac195]

Congrats to Jim Rice, a man who was able to crush baseballs back when that was a rare skill.

[OleMissCub]

oh dear god, Stuart Scott just said that Rice was the scariest hitter of all time...

HA!

[Paulypal]

I agree Paulypal, we should not base Blyleven's candidacy on what HE did but on how good his offenses were. If you keep Bert out because he only won 37 more games than he lost, you're going to have to jump through a few logical hurdles to consider Nolan Ryan (32 games above .500) worthy.


I am going to cause a stir but I am not sure Ryan should be in either. In fact I can make a better argument for Blyleven than Ryan. Ryan was spectacular to watch, but if my team needed a win there are a ton of other pitchers I rather have. For all of his K's he is just about 1000 walks more than anyone else also.

I know what the numbers are for Blyleven, I just weigh the pitchers record more than most on here.

Personally I think way too many players get in the HOF. Its still a special group, but it seems like everything else the bar has been dropped.

[efin98]

oh dear god, Stuart Scott just said that Rice was the scariest hitter of all time...

HA!

He is entitled to his opinions even if they are idiotic :rolleyes:

[Paulypal]

So if a pitcher gives up 2 runs, and his team only scores 1 run, he sucks because he simply did not pitch good enough to win?

Why don't we play a baseball simulation? We will have the exact same hitting lineup, but the only variable will be different starting pitchers. My starting pitcher will have an era of 2.80, and I'll even put his record as 0-16. You can input your pitcher as 21-0, with an era of 3.75. I'd be willing to bet that my pitcher will win more games than yours. What do you think will happen? Do you really think that your 21-0 will beat my 0-16 pitcher more often than not? After all, he is infinitely superior, as he is undefeated, and my pitcher has never won.

<< For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in. >>

This last statement pretty much sums up how close minded you are when you say that you don't care what the reasons are. Have you ever gone to baseball-reference.com, and checked out neutralized stats? Check out Bob Welsh in 1990 when he went 27-6, and won the Cy Young. His era+ was only 126. Although his era+ is respectable, that is far too good a winning percentage. His team averaged 5.21 runs for him, but neutralized his record would have only been 16-10. That same year Roger Clemens went 21-6, but his era+ was an astonishing 213. His neutralized record holds up at 20-5 because he actually pitched incredibly well that year. He only got an average of 4.34 runs per game.

There is a definite co-relation between winning % and run support. A pitchers greatest asset is controlling how many earned runs they give up. They cannot control how many runs their team can score for them.

You can keep on insulting me its ok. It wont change my mind. I think Blyleven is a very good pitcher, but like I said I just weigh the record more than you do. Someone mentioned Steve Carlton, he is 85 games over .500, and really damaged his career to earn a paycheck the last 4-5 years.

I respect the numbers that Bly put up I just wouldnt put him in.

[curveball]

I am going to cause a stir but I am not sure Ryan should be in either. In fact I can make a better argument for Blyleven than Ryan. Ryan was spectacular to watch, but if my team needed a win there are a ton of other pitchers I rather have. For all of his K's he is just about 1000 walks more than anyone else also.

I know what the numbers are for Blyleven, I just weigh the pitchers record more than most on here.

Personally I think way too many players get in the HOF. Its still a special group, but it seems like everything else the bar has been dropped.


I apologize for my insulting nature. I am honest though when I say that although I disagree with you, that I respect you because you hold true to your opinion. You don't like Blyleven's mediocre w/l record, and you don't do a complete 360 like some people would when Ryan's even more mediocre career win % is brought up. You seem to be applying the same standard, which I at least respect.

Maybe some day, you'll be more in the camp of teams win games, and pitchers just try to hold the opponent to scoring as few runs possible in order to give his team the best chance possible.

[Mike90]

I am going to cause a stir but I am not sure Ryan should be in either. In fact I can make a better argument for Blyleven than Ryan. Ryan was spectacular to watch, but if my team needed a win there are a ton of other pitchers I rather have. For all of his K's he is just about 1000 walks more than anyone else also.

I know what the numbers are for Blyleven, I just weigh the pitchers record more than most on here.

Personally I think way too many players get in the HOF. Its still a special group, but it seems like everything else the bar has been dropped.

At least you apply the win standard consistently, even when it's inconveniant

[curveball]

The poor run support that Blyleven got rminds me of a Matt Cain. Here is a list of 32 starts made over the '07-'08 seasons.


2008

DATE OPP IP H ER BB K
04/01 @LA 5.2 3 0 4 5
04/18 STL 6.2 3 3 3 4
04/23 @SD 7.0 5 1 3 7
05/03 @PHI 7.0 2 2 1 8
05/25 @FLA 6.0 5 2 2 6
05/30 SD 7.0 7 3 1 6
06/14 OAK 7.0 6 3 1 11
07/11 @CHI 7.0 3 0 3 9
07/29 @LAD 7.0 8 1 0 8
08/20 FLA 7.2 5 2 4 4
08/25 COL 6.0 6 3 4 4
09/16 @ARI 7.0 7 2 0 7
09/21 @LA 6.0 5 0 4 4
09/27 LA 7.0 8 2 4 6

94 IP, 2.30 ERA, 85 K, 34 BB, 8.14 K/9, 3.25 BB/9, 1.12 WHIP
__________________________________________________ ________

2007

DATE OPP IP H ER BB K
04/04 SD 6.0 5 3 1 6
04/09 @SD 7.0 1 1 1 6
04/17 @COL 7.0 2 0 3 7
04/28 @ARI 6.0 1 1 4 2
05/19 @OAK 6.1 6 3 4 9
05/25 COL 6.2 4 3 4 5
06/05 @ARI 5.1 8 3 5 4
06/10 @OAK 8.0 5 1 3 8
06/16 @BOS 7.0 3 1 1 3
06/27 SD 7.2 7 2 2 7
07/13 LAD 5.0 7 2 2 2
07/28 FLA 7.0 6 3 2 7
08/03 @SD 7.1 5 2 1 11
08/13 @PIT 7.0 6 2 2 7
09/09 LA 7.0 6 2 1 4
09/15 @SD 6.0 1 1 0 6
09/20 CIN 6.0 7 2 4 7
09/25 SD 7.0 5 2 1 8

119.1 IP, 2.56 ERA, 109 K, 41 BB, 8.22 K/9, 3.16 BB/9, 1.06 WHIP

Combined you get:

213.2 IP, 2.45 ERA, 194 K, 75 BB, 158 H, 8.18 K/8, 3.16 BB/9, 1.09 WHIP.

Would anyone care to guess Cain's won-loss record over these 32 games?


I was being very conservative with my estimates because the nature of your question already implies that Cain got shafted as far as run support goes.

I just estimated .75 * 10 for the best starts he had in 2008, which were fantastic, so that is 7.5 wins. For the other 4 starts, I gave him .25 a start, so that is another win, so my conservative estimate would be 8.5 wins. So, let me even round down to 8 wins, and take away another win. My guess for 2008 would be 7-3, with 4 no decisions.

Using pretty much the same system for 2007, I conservatively estimated 10 wins. So lets drop that to 8. Automatically assuming loses for any games that he gave up at least 3 earned runs, that would be 5 losses, so I predict 8-5 and 5 no decisions.

[NYMets523]

You can keep on insulting me its ok. It wont change my mind. I think Blyleven is a very good pitcher, but like I said I just weigh the record more than you do. Someone mentioned Steve Carlton, he is 85 games over .500, and really damaged his career to earn a paycheck the last 4-5 years.

I respect the numbers that Bly put up I just wouldnt put him in.

You're not just weighing the record more, you're using that as the sole reason he doesn't belong in the HoF. If you want to use wins, Blyleven has more wins than Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, and Whitey Ford.

If Blyleven won 13 games, he'd have 300 wins and be in the HoF. He put up too good of a career to punish him for being 13 wins short.

[mwiggins]

I am going to cause a stir but I am not sure Ryan should be in either. In fact I can make a better argument for Blyleven than Ryan. Ryan was spectacular to watch, but if my team needed a win there are a ton of other pitchers I rather have. For all of his K's he is just about 1000 walks more than anyone else also.

I know what the numbers are for Blyleven, I just weigh the pitchers record more than most on here.

Personally I think way too many players get in the HOF. Its still a special group, but it seems like everything else the bar has been dropped.

I personally would rather see a HoF where guys like Bert and Sutton and Ryan don't make the cut. BUT, it seems a little unfair to just radically change the standards after multiple lesser pitchers have already been inducted.

[jjpm74]

I was cringing when the announcers on the MLB Network said that Bert Blyleven was nothing more than a compiler, that he had no impact on the game, that he had only 2 All Star apperances and that he never came close to a Cy Young award and used this as justification for why they are not voting for him. One of them went as far as to say that the only reason he has support was that it was coming from the on line community who only look at stats and are too young to have seen him pitch. :laugh

[OleMissCub]

I believe someone else posted this once on this site, but it deserves repeating (sorry for the length of it):

Shutouts
t1) Nolan Ryan: 61
t1) Tom Seaver: 61
3) Bert Blyleven: 60
4) Don Sutton: 58
5) Steve Carlton: 55
t6) Jim Palmer: 53
t6) Gaylord Perry: 53
8) Fergie Jenkins: 49
9) Phil Niekro: 45
10) Catfish Hunter: 42

Complete Games
1) Gaylord Perry: 303
2) Fergie Jenkins: 267
3) Steve Carlton: 254
4) Phil Niekro: 245
5) Bert Blyleven: 242
6) Tom Seaver: 231
7) Nolan Ryan: 222
8) Jim Palmer: 211
9) Catfish Hunter: 181
10) Don Sutton: 178

Career Ks
1) Nolan Ryan: 5714
2) Steve Carlton: 4136
3) Bert Blyleven: 3701
4) Tom Seaver: 3640
5) Don Sutton: 3574
6) Gaylord Perry: 3534
7) Phil Niekro: 3342
8) Fergie Jenkins: 3192
9) Jim Palmer: 2212
10) Catfish Hunter: 2012

No. of Top 5 WHIP Finishes
1) Don Sutton: 10
2) Tom Seaver: 9
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
t4) Jim Palmer: 6
t4) Gaylord Perry: 6
t4) Nolan Ryan: 6
7) Steve Carlton: 5
t8) Catfish Hunter: 4
t8) Fergie Jenkins: 4
t8) Phil Niekro: 4

No. of 130 and Higher ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Cartlon: 5
t5) Phil Niekro: 4
t5) Gaylord Perry: 4
t5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t8) Catfish Hunter: 3
t8) Don Sutton: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 2

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Carlton: 5
5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t6) Catfish Hunter: 3
t6) Phil Niekro: 3
t6) Don Sutton: 3
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 2
t9) Gaylord Perry: 2

5 Year Peak ERA+ Average
1) Tom Seaver: 165.6
2) Steve Carlton: 162.2
3) Jim Palmer: 154.4
4) Phil Niekro: 149.4
5)Bert Blyleven: 149
6) Nolan Ryan: 148.8
7) Don Sutton: 143.6
8) Gaylord Perry: 142.8
9) Fergie Jenkins: 130.4
10) Catfish Hunter: 129.2

No. of Top 5 Raw ERA Finishes
1) Jim Palmer: 10
t2) Bert Blyleven: 7
t2) Tom Seaver: 7
t4) Steve Carlton: 5
t4) Nolan Ryan: 5
6) Don Sutton: 4
t7) Catfish Hunter: 3
t7) Phil Niekro: 3
t7) Gaylord Perry: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 0

Career WARP3
Bert Blyleven: 147.7
Tom Seaver: 146.6
Steve Carlton: 138.7
Nolan Ryan: 135.5
Phil Niekro: 132.9
Gaylord Perry: 130.9
Ferguson Jenkins: 128.5
Don Sutton: 106.9
Jim Palmer: 99.6
Catfish Hunter: 67.8

[anselmo1]

I agree with Henderson's induction but not Jim Rice's. Still cannot believe that Gil Hodges and Lefty O'Doul are not in the Hall of Fame!

[curveball]

I believe someone else posted this once on this site, but it deserves repeating (sorry for the length of it):

Shutouts
t1) Nolan Ryan: 61
t1) Tom Seaver: 61
3) Bert Blyleven: 60
4) Don Sutton: 58
5) Steve Carlton: 55
t6) Jim Palmer: 53
t6) Gaylord Perry: 53
8) Fergie Jenkins: 49
9) Phil Niekro: 45
10) Catfish Hunter: 42

Complete Games
1) Gaylord Perry: 303
2) Fergie Jenkins: 267
3) Steve Carlton: 254
4) Phil Niekro: 245
5) Bert Blyleven: 242
6) Tom Seaver: 231
7) Nolan Ryan: 222
8) Jim Palmer: 211
9) Catfish Hunter: 181
10) Don Sutton: 178

Career Ks
1) Nolan Ryan: 5714
2) Steve Carlton: 4136
3) Bert Blyleven: 3701
4) Tom Seaver: 3640
5) Don Sutton: 3574
6) Gaylord Perry: 3534
7) Phil Niekro: 3342
8) Fergie Jenkins: 3192
9) Jim Palmer: 2212
10) Catfish Hunter: 2012

No. of Top 5 WHIP Finishes
1) Don Sutton: 10
2) Tom Seaver: 9
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
t4) Jim Palmer: 6
t4) Gaylord Perry: 6
t4) Nolan Ryan: 6
7) Steve Carlton: 5
t8) Catfish Hunter: 4
t8) Fergie Jenkins: 4
t8) Phil Niekro: 4

No. of 130 and Higher ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Cartlon: 5
t5) Phil Niekro: 4
t5) Gaylord Perry: 4
t5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t8) Catfish Hunter: 3
t8) Don Sutton: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 2

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Carlton: 5
5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t6) Catfish Hunter: 3
t6) Phil Niekro: 3
t6) Don Sutton: 3
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 2
t9) Gaylord Perry: 2

5 Year Peak ERA+ Average
1) Tom Seaver: 165.6
2) Steve Carlton: 162.2
3) Jim Palmer: 154.4
4) Phil Niekro: 149.4
5)Bert Blyleven: 149
6) Nolan Ryan: 148.8
7) Don Sutton: 143.6
8) Gaylord Perry: 142.8
9) Fergie Jenkins: 130.4
10) Catfish Hunter: 129.2

No. of Top 5 Raw ERA Finishes
1) Jim Palmer: 10
t2) Bert Blyleven: 7
t2) Tom Seaver: 7
t4) Steve Carlton: 5
t4) Nolan Ryan: 5
6) Don Sutton: 4
t7) Catfish Hunter: 3
t7) Phil Niekro: 3
t7) Gaylord Perry: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 0

Career WARP3
Bert Blyleven: 147.7
Tom Seaver: 146.6
Steve Carlton: 138.7
Nolan Ryan: 135.5
Phil Niekro: 132.9
Gaylord Perry: 130.9
Ferguson Jenkins: 128.5
Don Sutton: 106.9
Jim Palmer: 99.6
Catfish Hunter: 67.8


Who cares? He didn't look like a HoFer, he wasn't dominant, only made 2 all-star appearances, never won a Cy Young, only won 20 games once, blah blah blah.

All those things are out of his control. Perceptions are often wrong, which is why some people hate stats so much, because the stats prove their perceptions were wrong. Blyleven had no control over how awards voting went either, and of course he did poorly because voters still fawn over wins even though pitchers only have control over how well they pitch and not how many runs their team scores for them.

That is why I get so infuriated over someone like Blyleven, who clearly has the stats like era, era+, strikeouts, innings pitched, shutouts, etc.... which he could control, and by any stat or measure, he is well, well, within the HoF standards. He isn't the only one, I have read the cases of Allen, Santo, Trammell, and others, and it amazes me that people form unwavering opinions on them even though they have barely done an iota of research.

[mwiggins]

I was cringing when the announcers on the MLB Network said that Bert Blyleven was nothing more than a compiler, that he had no impact on the game, that he had only 2 All Star apperances and that he never came close to a Cy Young award and used this as justification for why they are not voting for him. One of them went as far as to say that the only reason he has support was that it was coming from the on line community who only look at stats and are too young to have seen him pitch. :laugh

How is 3 top 5 finishes, two of them 3rd place finishes, "never came close to a Cy Young award"? I'm guessing the guy supports Jack Morris and his two 3rd place finishes and his 5 All-Star games.

I did hear a talking head last night mention that Morris had a great peak because he was the most dominant pitcher of 1980's, and that's why he'd vote for him over Bert. And yet he only won 20 games twice, never won a Cy Young, led the league in Wins and K's and shutouts only once, and only finished in the top 5 in ERA once during his decade of dominance.

And yes, I was old enough to watch Morris throughout the 80's, and no, I didn't have to use advanced stats to know he probably wasn't a great pitcher, and certainly not the best of the decade.

[Brooklyn]

Anyone who submits a blank ballot 2 times or more in 3 years should lose their voting for life. Anyone who no longer covers baseball should also lose their voting power. The writers need to learn that the HoF election isn't their soapbox and it isn't about them.

I don't agree with the blank ballot part. Look who is coming up in the next three years. I think it is likely that someone will submit a blank ballot in two of those three years. Look at Ubi's post earlier in this thread:


2010's best shot is Larkin
2011's is Bagwell
2012 is Bernie Williams


I'd like to think Bagwell will get in easily and I think Larkin should get in too, but I can easily see a voter disagreeing. Bernie to me is not a HOF, so someone can very easily submit a blank ballot 2 years without being grossly unreasonable.

I do agree with the covering the sport part. Maybe give them a few years after they stop, but it shouldn't be a lifelong priveledge

[NYMets523]

Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines are still on the ballot.

[Brooklyn]

The real problem is that individual pitchers should not be credited with wins and losses. Those are team stats.

If pitchers had never been credited with wins and losses in baseball then they would be judged only on their PITCHING, which is how it should be.

Position players from bad teams (Kiner, Banks) are given a pass on not playing for winners, but pitchers are really not, mainly because of that dumb practice of crediting wins and losses to individual pitchers.

I know it is an unpopular position, but I do think pitchers should be credited and judged on wins and losses, particularly before the age of relief specialization. I do agree that in the current environment, pitchers will benefit or be hurt much more greatly by their bullpens. But there is a skill to keeping a team in the game.

Pitchers pitch differently in close games then in blow outs. The mantra was always to absolutely not walk a guy when your team has a big lead. I've heard old time pitchers interviewed who said they would tend to groove more pitches with a big lead then in a close game, saving themselves (probably physically, but assuredly mentally too) for more important situations. I don't believe that happens much now, with the 6 inning pitcher and contracts hanging on stats such as ERA.

I know there are a lot of people who believe clutch doesn't exist, but don't you think it is harder to get a batter out when your team is winning 1-0 then when your team is winning 8-0? There is a certain type of player that will raise his game in the close ones, and I do believe that is reflected in W/L

Take these two players, each pitching two complete games.

Player A's team scores 8 and 2 runs, and he gives up 7 and 1 for a 4.00 ERA
Player B's team scores 8 and 2 runs, and he gives up 1 and 3, for a 2.00 ERA

While both got the same run support and player B has a far superior ERA, player A is 2-0 while B is 1-1. Some will say that is unlucky and will even out over a larger sample size. That is likely mostly true. But I also think the pitchers pitch differently in close games, and should be rewarded with the W.

Of course, nothing shoudl be looked at in a vacuum. But W/L does tell you something about the pitcher. Someone mentioned Nolan Ryan. He was agreat example of being great when he had his stuff, and far below average when he had no control. While his career ERA was above league average, I think his W-L record tells a good story of a Jekyll and Hyde pitcher

[Brooklyn]

Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines are still on the ballot.

Neither are slam dunks. With only 23% of the vote, many people voted against Raines (I personally don't see the argument against him, but a voter would be in the majority if he left Raines off his ballot).

As for Blyleven, I'm not a supporter of his. I don't think he'd weaken the Hall, but don't think he'd strenghten it eiter. My opinion is that if you have to debate it, then the guy is probably not a HOFer - I start with a "no", and need to see evidence to change it. I haven't gotten there with Blyleven.

[Paulypal]

I personally would rather see a HoF where guys like Bert and Sutton and Ryan don't make the cut. BUT, it seems a little unfair to just radically change the standards after multiple lesser pitchers have already been inducted.

Thats just it. You hit it right on the head. Although my opinion means nothing except to me...They dont make the cut in my opinion no matter what is said or done.

I dont believe in "magic numbers" like 300 wins or 500 homers. Believe me if I had my way the HOF would be a lot emptier. I think the fact that someone has to get elected every year is ridiculous. They dont say that but its the case for sure.

I look for two things, and again its my opinion so it means nothing I know, I look for dominance, and dominance over a long period of time. Then your a special player. For my money Blyleven had the longevity but I just dont consider him dominant. Sorry. He is on the bubble after looking at his record more closely because of the disagreement on here, but still not in.

For instance in my opinion (and I know he will never get in for a few reasons), Albert Belle is as dominant as Jim Rice, and despite what Stuart Scott says atleast as feared.

One instance is Nolan Ryan...you mention his name and people say two things, no hitters, and 5 million strikeouts. People talk about him like his a pitching God. Ryan gave us some great games, great moments, but I have seen countless pitchers that I rather have than Ryan if I needed to win a game. As a paying fan sure it was great to go see him pitch because you may see something great on that particular day. Like 15 k's or 9 walks. I would take both Sutton and Blyleven over Ryan. I want someone I can count on day in day out. That doesnt mean dominant but someone you can count on.

[SavoyBG]

I know it is an unpopular position, but I do think pitchers should be credited and judged on wins and losses, particularly before the age of relief specialization. I do agree that in the current environment, pitchers will benefit or be hurt much more greatly by their bullpens. But there is a skill to keeping a team in the game.

Pitchers pitch differently in close games then in blow outs. The mantra was always to absolutely not walk a guy when your team has a big lead. I've heard old time pitchers interviewed who said they would tend to groove more pitches with a big lead then in a close game, saving themselves (probably physically, but assuredly mentally too) for more important situations. I don't believe that happens much now, with the 6 inning pitcher and contracts hanging on stats such as ERA.

I know there are a lot of people who believe clutch doesn't exist, but don't you think it is harder to get a batter out when your team is winning 1-0 then when your team is winning 8-0? There is a certain type of player that will raise his game in the close ones, and I do believe that is reflected in W/L




There's no evidence to support your contention that pitchers pitch diiferently in close games than in blowouts. Even if they did, why would we want to reward bad strategy.

I don't thinik it's harder to get a guy out in a 1-0 game than in an 8-0 game anymore than i think that it's harder for a batter to get a hit in a 1-0 game than it is for him to get a hit in an 8-0 game.

Games are won and lost by teams, not just by pitchers.

[curveball]

I know it is an unpopular position, but I do think pitchers should be credited and judged on wins and losses, particularly before the age of relief specialization. I do agree that in the current environment, pitchers will benefit or be hurt much more greatly by their bullpens. But there is a skill to keeping a team in the game.

Pitchers pitch differently in close games then in blow outs. The mantra was always to absolutely not walk a guy when your team has a big lead. I've heard old time pitchers interviewed who said they would tend to groove more pitches with a big lead then in a close game, saving themselves (probably physically, but assuredly mentally too) for more important situations. I don't believe that happens much now, with the 6 inning pitcher and contracts hanging on stats such as ERA.

I know there are a lot of people who believe clutch doesn't exist, but don't you think it is harder to get a batter out when your team is winning 1-0 then when your team is winning 8-0? There is a certain type of player that will raise his game in the close ones, and I do believe that is reflected in W/L

Take these two players, each pitching two complete games.

Player A's team scores 8 and 2 runs, and he gives up 7 and 1 for a 4.00 ERA
Player B's team scores 8 and 2 runs, and he gives up 1 and 3, for a 2.00 ERA

While both got the same run support and player B has a far superior ERA, player A is 2-0 while B is 1-1. Some will say that is unlucky and will even out over a larger sample size. That is likely mostly true. But I also think the pitchers pitch differently in close games, and should be rewarded with the W.

Of course, nothing shoudl be looked at in a vacuum. But W/L does tell you something about the pitcher. Someone mentioned Nolan Ryan. He was agreat example of being great when he had his stuff, and far below average when he had no control. While his career ERA was above league average, I think his W-L record tells a good story of a Jekyll and Hyde pitcher

Look at clutch stats for pitchers at baseball-reference, and you will notice very little variance in the different pitching situations.

The single most influential factor in a pitcher getting a win is run support. A pitcher can pitch a 8 scoreless innings, and still not get a win. If you put Roger Clemens on a team that had your average major league quality defense, but couldn't hit a lick, his era should remain relatively stable, but his win/loss percentage would take a beating. He may not even win a game, because although his era will still remain pretty constant, his team will score him very few runs. This wouldn't make Clemens a bad pitcher. He would just need a more competitive hitting lineup to reward him for his good pitching performances.

[brett]

There's no evidence to support your contention that pitchers pitch diiferently in close games than in blowouts. Even if they did, why would we want to reward bad strategy.

I don't thinik it's harder to get a guy out in a 1-0 game than in an 8-0 game anymore than i think that it's harder for a batter to get a hit in a 1-0 game than it is for him to get a hit in an 8-0 game.

Games are won and lost by teams, not just by pitchers.

Well, some pitchers definitely do worse with runners on base, relative to the league. Look at Nolan Ryan's splits versus Tom Seaver's. Ryan allowed about a career 70 OPS+, and Seaver around 80.

I always said that Ryan could have been the best pitcher in history, if he could have just kept the other team from getting anyone on base:laugh.

That means that Ryan strung hits/walks allowed together in a more concentrated fashion.

Do pitchers have better stuff on some days than on others. The stat guys around here think it is a continuum, but it is "slightly" bimodal.

[brett]

by the way, Blylevin's career W-L total estimated with average run support would have been about 305-239 plus or minus about 3 wins and loses.

He still would have only had 1 year, '73, where he would have been a real cy young threat. I think he projects to 23-13 (I guess he could have won in '84).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I was being very conservative with my estimates because the nature of your question already implies that Cain got shafted as far as run support goes.

I just estimated .75 * 10 for the best starts he had in 2008, which were fantastic, so that is 7.5 wins. For the other 4 starts, I gave him .25 a start, so that is another win, so my conservative estimate would be 8.5 wins. So, let me even round down to 8 wins, and take away another win. My guess for 2008 would be 7-3, with 4 no decisions.

Using pretty much the same system for 2007, I conservatively estimated 10 wins. So lets drop that to 8. Automatically assuming loses for any games that he gave up at least 3 earned runs, that would be 5 losses, so I predict 8-5 and 5 no decisions.

Great analysis. You are correct of course. Cain got lousy run support in these 32 starts. I consider these 32 starts, basically a full seasons worth, to be Cy Young Caliber pitching, It compares favorably to Lincecum's great '08 season.


. GS IP ERA H ER Ks BBs K/9 BB/9 WHIP
Lincecum 33 227.0 2.62 182 66 265 84 10.33 3.33 1.17
Cain 32 213.2 2.45 158 58 194 75 8.18 3.16 1.09


Cain actually got ZERO wins, 14 losses, and 18 no decisions in his 32 starts. :sorry:

[curveball]

Great analysis. You are correct of course. Cain got lousy run support in these 32 starts. I consider these 32 starts, basically a full seasons worth, to be Cy Young Caliber pitching, It compares favorably to Lincecum's great '08 season.


. GS IP ERA H ER Ks BBs K/9 BB/9 WHIP
Lincecum 33 227.0 2.62 182 66 265 84 10.33 3.33 1.17
Cain 32 213.2 2.45 158 58 194 75 8.18 3.16 1.09


Cain actually got ZERO wins, 14 losses, and 18 no decisions in his 32 starts. :sorry:


I knew I was going to be way off, even with a conservative approach. :laugh

You don't need to convince me that good run support can overcome average to mediocre pitching, and poor run support can ruin great pitching. To me it is so obvious, that I cannot really fathom why others can't see it.

Maybe Cain is Ned Garvin re-incarnated? :crazy

[Senor Octobre]

So looks like these guys will have to wait...

No-brainers...

Dick Allen
Bert Blyleven
Bill Dahlen
Sherry Magee
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Ron Santo
Alan Trammell
Deacon White

Deserving IMHO...

Andre Dawson
Wes Ferrell
Carl Mays
Dale Murphy
Lee Smith
Vern Stephens
Joe Torre

[Captain Cold Nose]

So looks like these guys will have to wait...

No-brainers...

Dick Allen
Bert Blyleven
Bill Dahlen
Sherry Magee
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Ron Santo
Alan Trammell
Deacon White

Deserving IMHO...

Andre Dawson
Wes Ferrell
Carl Mays
Dale Murphy
Lee Smith
Vern Stephens
Joe Torre

Doesn't the election of Joe Gordon leave you hopeful? :crazy

[Senor Octobre]

Doesn't the election of Joe Gordon leave you hopeful? :crazy

Haha yeah. I still can't grasp the whole Tim Raines thing though. I mean, even accounting for the usual cluelessness of the BBWAA, its impossible for me to fathom how 417 people could have left him off their ballots. And that there is 28 people who write about baseball as a living that don't think Rickey Henderson is deserving of the Hall of Fame boggles my mind. Simply put, these dolts need their voting privileges revoked.

[Paulypal]

I believe someone else posted this once on this site, but it deserves repeating (sorry for the length of it):

Shutouts
t1) Nolan Ryan: 61
t1) Tom Seaver: 61
3) Bert Blyleven: 60
4) Don Sutton: 58
5) Steve Carlton: 55
t6) Jim Palmer: 53
t6) Gaylord Perry: 53
8) Fergie Jenkins: 49
9) Phil Niekro: 45
10) Catfish Hunter: 42

Complete Games
1) Gaylord Perry: 303
2) Fergie Jenkins: 267
3) Steve Carlton: 254
4) Phil Niekro: 245
5) Bert Blyleven: 242
6) Tom Seaver: 231
7) Nolan Ryan: 222
8) Jim Palmer: 211
9) Catfish Hunter: 181
10) Don Sutton: 178

Career Ks
1) Nolan Ryan: 5714
2) Steve Carlton: 4136
3) Bert Blyleven: 3701
4) Tom Seaver: 3640
5) Don Sutton: 3574
6) Gaylord Perry: 3534
7) Phil Niekro: 3342
8) Fergie Jenkins: 3192
9) Jim Palmer: 2212
10) Catfish Hunter: 2012

No. of Top 5 WHIP Finishes
1) Don Sutton: 10
2) Tom Seaver: 9
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
t4) Jim Palmer: 6
t4) Gaylord Perry: 6
t4) Nolan Ryan: 6
7) Steve Carlton: 5
t8) Catfish Hunter: 4
t8) Fergie Jenkins: 4
t8) Phil Niekro: 4

No. of 130 and Higher ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Cartlon: 5
t5) Phil Niekro: 4
t5) Gaylord Perry: 4
t5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t8) Catfish Hunter: 3
t8) Don Sutton: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 2

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Carlton: 5
5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t6) Catfish Hunter: 3
t6) Phil Niekro: 3
t6) Don Sutton: 3
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 2
t9) Gaylord Perry: 2

5 Year Peak ERA+ Average
1) Tom Seaver: 165.6
2) Steve Carlton: 162.2
3) Jim Palmer: 154.4
4) Phil Niekro: 149.4
5)Bert Blyleven: 149
6) Nolan Ryan: 148.8
7) Don Sutton: 143.6
8) Gaylord Perry: 142.8
9) Fergie Jenkins: 130.4
10) Catfish Hunter: 129.2

No. of Top 5 Raw ERA Finishes
1) Jim Palmer: 10
t2) Bert Blyleven: 7
t2) Tom Seaver: 7
t4) Steve Carlton: 5
t4) Nolan Ryan: 5
6) Don Sutton: 4
t7) Catfish Hunter: 3
t7) Phil Niekro: 3
t7) Gaylord Perry: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 0

Career WARP3
Bert Blyleven: 147.7
Tom Seaver: 146.6
Steve Carlton: 138.7
Nolan Ryan: 135.5
Phil Niekro: 132.9
Gaylord Perry: 130.9
Ferguson Jenkins: 128.5
Don Sutton: 106.9
Jim Palmer: 99.6
Catfish Hunter: 67.8

That is very impressive on the Blyleven argument to get in. Not that fact that he is on the lists but that he is in the upper half of the lists. Their are worse choices in the HOF. As I conceded to before, he became a bubble player for me after having a chance to look at it, and he is a much better choice than Ryan if I had to win one game.

[highpockets]

I carry wins more heavily than you do. When you step on the mound your goal is to win, not worry about your 125 ERA+. WIN. If you team gives scores 3 runs..you give up two. Period. Dont pitch just good enough to lose.

For a season or a certain situation I can understand lack of run support. For a whole career I dont buy it. 37 games over .500 for a 23 year career ...I dont care what the reasons are your not getting in.

I guess your right there is no hope.
(edit) Never mind. NYMets523 beat me to it.

[Mike90]

(edit) Never mind. NYMetsFan beat me to it.

I think it's the 250 losses he doesn't like.

Probably the best argument for Blyleven are those 60 shutouts. You can't compile shutouts; you have to dominate the other team to shut them out, and only three post-1920 (start of lively era) pitchers have more shutouts than Bert: Warren Spahn (three more), Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan (both one more each). Pretty exclusive company. Every pitcher with at least 50 shutouts has been inducted.

[curveball]

I did a quick manual compilation of Blyleven's run support. I haven't done any other pitchers for comparison, but his support does seem to be pretty poor.

Blyleven started 685 games,

0 run support - 42 (6.13%)
1 run support - 85 (12.41%)
2 run support - 104 (15.18%)
3 run support - 97 (14.16%)
4 run support - 82 (11.97%)


got 1 or less run support - 127 (18.54%)
got 2 or less run support - 231 (33.72%)
got 3 or less run support - 328 (47.88%)
got 4 or less run support - 410 (59.85%)


For almost half his starts, his teams scored 3 or less runs for him. Again, I don't have any comparisons, but it sure seems like he got poor run support.

[Seattle1]

Rice? C'mon....

Henderson 94.8
Rice 76.4
Dawson 67.0

I would not have voted for Rice myself. Just...couldn't...quite...do...it...

[curveball]

I can't believe that some voters actually put Morris on their ballot, and not Blyleven, and I keep hearing about Morris' nice winning %, and Blyleven's mediocre win %.


Blyleven started 685 games,

0 run support - 42 (6.13%)
1 run support - 85 (12.41%)
2 run support - 104 (15.18%)
3 run support - 97 (14.16%)
4 run support - 82 (11.97%)


got 1 or less run support - 127 (18.54%)
got 2 or less run support - 231 (33.72%)
got 3 or less run support - 328 (47.88%)
got 4 or less run support - 410 (59.85%)


Morris started 527 games,

0 run support - 26 (4.93%)
1 run support - 57 (10.82%)
2 run support - 57 (10.82%)
3 run support - 72 (13.66%)
4 run support - 66 (12.52%)

got 1 or less run support - 83 (15.56%)
got 2 or less run support - 140 (26.57%)
got 3 or less run support - 212 (40.23%)
got 4 or less run support - 278 (52.75%)


I think that is a pretty decent argument as to why Morris has a better winning % despite having a much poorer career era+.

[mwiggins]

I can't believe that some voters actually put Morris on their ballot, and not Blyleven, and I keep hearing about Morris' nice winning %, and Blyleven's mediocre win %.




I heard Dan Patrick this morning wondering how so many people could leave Morris off their ballots. I think his exact line of reasoning was "You can't tell me he wasn't a big game pitcher". I guess that settles it.

Then he went on to argue that he would probably take Pete Rose as a leadoff hitter over Rickey.

[curveball]

I heard Dan Patrick this morning wondering how so many people could leave Morris off their ballots. I think his exact line of reasoning was "You can't tell me he wasn't a big game pitcher". I guess that settles it.

Then he went on to argue that he would probably take Pete Rose as a leadoff hitter over Rickey.


That is because if they actually did some research on Morris, they really wouldn't have any quantitative bullets to fire regarding his merits. So we'll keep hearing about that magical World Series game in 1984, but not about his 0-3 postseason in 1992 when he almost single-handedly lost the WS for the Jays.

In all honesty he is very similar to Catfish Hunter, as both have mediocre career era+, so if Hunter is in, then I don't see why they can't make another horrible selection.

[mwiggins]

That is because if they actually did some research on Morris, they really wouldn't have any quantitative bullets to fire regarding his merits. So we'll keep hearing about that magical World Series game in 1984, but not about his 0-3 postseason in 1992 when he almost single-handedly lost the WS for the Jays.

In all honesty he is very similar to Catfish Hunter, as both have mediocre career era+, so if Hunter is in, then I don't see why they can't make another horrible selection.

I live in Minnesota, and you'd think from the way most Twins fans talk that his 1991 game 7 performance should be enough to punch his ticket to the Hall. And if you don't agree, then you don't know baseball.

[Paulypal]

That is because if they actually did some research on Morris, they really wouldn't have any quantitative bullets to fire regarding his merits. So we'll keep hearing about that magical World Series game in 1984, but not about his 0-3 postseason in 1992 when he almost single-handedly lost the WS for the Jays.

In all honesty he is very similar to Catfish Hunter, as both have mediocre career era+, so if Hunter is in, then I don't see why they can't make another horrible selection.

Here is the thing.....the HOF as most other things is a popularity contest or agenda driven. Thats why things that get voted on I immediatley dismiss as legit. That goes for anything...Olympics, MVP,s, All Stars, Gold Gloves, and of course the HOF.

Its all perception that is driven by the media. One year Palmeiro won a gold glove and played exactly 29 games at first base. The 1988 NL MVP is still bizarro world to me. Writers and the media have their own agenda. It where a lot of the writers that were the non athletes get to control the actual athletes. It does their ego wonders I am sure.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Here is the thing.....the HOF as most other things is a popularity contest or agenda driven. Thats why things that get voted on I immediatley dismiss as legit. That goes for anything...Olympics, MVP,s, All Stars, Gold Gloves, and of course the HOF.

Its all perception that is driven by the media. One year Palmeiro won a gold glove and played exactly 29 games at first base. The 1988 NL MVP is still bizarro world to me. Writers and the media have their own agenda. It where a lot of the writers that were the non athletes get to control the actual athletes. It does their ego wonders I am sure.

Nice agenda of your own, there, eh?

[SavoyBG]

Its all perception that is driven by the media. One year Palmeiro won a gold glove and played exactly 29 games at first base.


Psssttt.....Pauly, The media has nothing to do with gold gloves. Gold gloves are given out based on a vote by managers and coaches in that league.

[cavalier1968]

ALbert Bell just threw a ball at me that said

"My OPS+ is 15+ higher than Rice's....and it took him 4+ seasons to hit 1 more HR.....In SLG%, IM 16th...RIce is..89th...and I knocked in 100 runs more than you.......and..."


Cav

[Paul Wendt]

I live in Minnesota, and you'd think from the way most Twins fans talk that his 1991 game 7 performance should be enough to punch his ticket to the Hall. And if you don't agree, then you don't know baseball.

What do they think of Jim Kaat, that loser from the Sixties?

Do they respect Emory Joe Niekro for his one-game playoff and official postseason work?
If not, is it because the '87 Twins didn't ask him for much?
(Frankly, that looks like good management to me.)

Beside his 20 shutout innings in ds, cs, and ws Niekro beat the Dodgers in the old-fashioned playoff of 1980.
: 29 innings, one run (unearned)

--
Unfortunately Bert Blyleven did not impress baseball fans --and did not carry a heavy workload, we see in the record-- when he played for very good teams in the late 1970s. He did not suffer with poor teams during that decade: the Twins were average after winning with a strong team in 1970.
94-68 Texas '77 (-8 games)
88-73 Pittsburgh '78 (-1.5 games)
98-64 Pittsburgh '79 (+2 games)
83-78 Pittsburgh '80 (-8 games) - a miserable year for Bly
If he picked his teams, he did a good job at that part of it.

Then Cleveland was an average team early in the 1980s! The problem was Blyleven in a middle-age slump. Some observers probably thought his productive career was over.

In all he played for bad teams only 1984-86, and '92 which barely counts.

The Transactions Database as reflected in player pages at bb-ref shows that he was traded five times covering 1970-1990, signed as a free agent only for his major league comeback in 1992. I wonder whether this means that he signed contract extensions throughout the free agent era. On the other hand that database may pass over free agent signings with the home team, or bb-ref player pages may pass over those transactions in the database.

--
I don't see any good reason why BBWAA members should lose the franchise when they stop covering baseball. If anything those who graduate from baseball to columnist, and those who retire, are more likely to pursue 10- to 35-year old baseball than are those who remain on the beat. It's only those who dedicate themselves to other pursuits, such as the football specialist and columnist Wil McDonough (deceased), whom we may reasonably wish to exclude as a class. I don't see any practical way to do that.

[Mike90]

I can't believe that some voters actually put Morris on their ballot, and not Blyleven, and I keep hearing about Morris' nice winning %, and Blyleven's mediocre win %.


Blyleven started 685 games,

0 run support - 42 (6.13%)
1 run support - 85 (12.41%)
2 run support - 104 (15.18%)
3 run support - 97 (14.16%)
4 run support - 82 (11.97%)


got 1 or less run support - 127 (18.54%)
got 2 or less run support - 231 (33.72%)
got 3 or less run support - 328 (47.88%)
got 4 or less run support - 410 (59.85%)


Morris started 527 games,

0 run support - 26 (4.93%)
1 run support - 57 (10.82%)
2 run support - 57 (10.82%)
3 run support - 72 (13.66%)
4 run support - 66 (12.52%)

got 1 or less run support - 83 (15.56%)
got 2 or less run support - 140 (26.57%)
got 3 or less run support - 212 (40.23%)
got 4 or less run support - 278 (52.75%)


I think that is a pretty decent argument as to why Morris has a better winning % despite having a much poorer career era+.

The park-adjusted league ERA for Blyleven's time was 3.90 while Morris' was 4.08, so the above numbers are a little misleading.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here is the thing.....the HOF as most other things is a popularity contest or agenda driven. Thats why things that get voted on I immediatley dismiss as legit. That goes for anything...Olympics, MVP,s, All Stars, Gold Gloves, and of course the HOF.

Its all perception that is driven by the media. One year Palmeiro won a gold glove and played exactly 29 games at first base. The 1988 NL MVP is still bizarro world to me. Writers and the media have their own agenda. It where a lot of the writers that were the non athletes get to control the actual athletes. It does their ego wonders I am sure.
Olympic champions get voted on? That's news to me.

[Mike90]

Olympic champions get voted on? That's news to me.

No, but there are a lot of Olympic sports that get judged -- diving, gymnastics, etc.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No, but there are a lot of Olympic sports that get judged -- diving, gymnastics, etc.

There's still a base score, though. And automatic deductions. At least in gymnastics. It's not as subjective as some think nor is the judging as heinous as Hollywood would lead you to believe.

I don't see how one can decry something simply because it's unquantifiable, though. Where is it written than quantification is a requisite? Or how does one get around that if it can't legitimately be done?

I digress, though. The world isn't that cold where activity must be reduced to figures and numbers alone to justify it. Everyone and everything has an angle.

[curveball]

The park-adjusted league ERA for Blyleven's time was 3.90 while Morris' was 4.08, so the above numbers are a little misleading.

A .18 difference in league era should not give Morris that big an advantage. I am compiling some data for other pitchers so that there is more room for comparison, and so far I notice that Ryan and Blyleven were very unlucky as far as run support is concerned.

[STLCards2]

Run support index's fix the era differential problem. I don't know off the top of my head their exact run support numbers, but I know Morris is around 110 and Blyleven is around 90. Huge difference!

[Ubiquitous]

Morris got 4.82 runs in a 4.08 environment

Bert got 4.19 runs in a 3.9 environment.

[yanks0714]

When Jim Rice gets in the HOF while more deserving players such as Alan Trammell and Tim Raines are still on the outside looking in is a travestry.

Rice was a Fenway Park creature. I used to laugh when annoucers would exclaim that he was 'the most feared hitter in baseball'...then watch him hit into a DP.

It's no secret, I didn't want Rice in the HOF, but after last year I figured he'd make it because of a clamor for him (primarily in New England) and it was his last year of eligibility.

At least we'll have a sure fire HOF'er going in with him in Rickey Henderson.

[brett]

I saw the press conference, and you know I felt sorry for Rice thinking he was a great player and all, I almost could put him in out of pity. The only way for me to accept it is that he was a iconic player of his times. Even then, a lot of writers had the sense that somehow he just wasn't as valuable as his triple crown stats, but most saw no offensive difference between what he did in '79, and what F.Rob and Yaz did in '66 and '67.

In '86 he was 4th in baseball digest's major league player of the year award behind Clemens, Mattingly and Boggs.

Then again, they chose Dawson in '87 and had Nolan Ryan and Jim Abbott #2 and #3 behind Kevin Mitchell in '89.

[Ubiquitous]

When did the voting take place? Before or after the playoffs?

In the ALCS Rice got 8 runs and 6 RBI, granted they were mostly in blowouts. Then in the World Series Rice crossed home plate 6 times.

I can see the Digest giving him some extra points because of the playoffs. Rice was one of the better hitters in the AL that year so it probably wasn't too much of a stretch for them to put him there.

[Ubiquitous]

One thing I noticed about is Rickey is just how unloved he was once the 90's rolled around, and in terms of on field performance for no apparent reason. It was like once they gave him the MVP in 1990 they could forget about him.

1991 is the last time he is an AS, 1990 is the last time he gets an MVP vote or any kind of award.

Yet Rickey kept being Rickey for most of the decade.

In 1993 he doesn't make the AS game yet while he is playing with Oakland he is tearing it up. He is third in the league in BA, second in OBP, and has a .553 SLG.

[brett]

When did the voting take place? Before or after the playoffs?

In the ALCS Rice got 8 runs and 6 RBI, granted they were mostly in blowouts. Then in the World Series Rice crossed home plate 6 times.

I can see the Digest giving him some extra points because of the playoffs. Rice was one of the better hitters in the AL that year so it probably wasn't too much of a stretch for them to put him there.

I know that they voted after the WS because when Ivan Rodriguez won (for the second time) with Florida they cited his world series leadership.

By the way Ubi, the stats you posted on Blylevin, do they show that he got above average run support (4.18 in a 3.90 envoronment?)

I know I saw raw estimates that his teams offenses were about 3% below the adjusted average over his career.

[Ubiquitous]

I would imagine it is slightly below average. The 3.90 is park adjusted league average so it includes the relievers that are going to suppress the league average. Starters average ERA was probably around 4.25 or so. Morris was probably around 4.45 or so.

[curveball]

The park-adjusted league ERA for Blyleven's time was 3.90 while Morris' was 4.08, so the above numbers are a little misleading.

Pitcher, ERA, lgERA, Career ERA+, Innings Pitched

1 Catfish Hunter 3.26 3.40 104 3449.3
2 Don Sutton 3.26 3.52 5282.3
3 Nolan Ryan 3.19 3.56 111 5386
4 Jim Palmer 2.86 3.59 126 3948
5 Steve Carlton 3.22 3.7 115 5217.3
6 Fergie Jenkins 3.34 3.84 115 4500.7
7 Bert Blyleven 3.31 3.9 118 4970
8 Jack Morris 3.90 4.08 105 3824
9 John Smoltz 3.26 4.14 127 3395
10 Tom Glavine 3.54 4.16 118 4413.3
11 Dave Stieb 3.44 4.21 122 2895.3
12 Curt Schilling 3.46 4.41 127 3261
13 Mike Mussina 3.68 4.51 123 3562.7

They are ranked according to which pitcher pitched in the lowest scoring environment. I added Dave Stieb because many people believe him to be better than Jack Morris in the 80s.


BAD RUN SUPPORT

0-1 Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Nolan Ryan 170 21.99%
2 Don Sutton 151 19.97%
3 Bert Blyleven 127 18.54%
4 Fergie Jenkins 107 18.01%
5 Steve Carlton 127 17.91%
6 Catfish Hunter 83 17.44%
7 Jim Palmer 87 16.7%
8 Jack Morris 80 15.18%
t9 Tom Glavine 96 14.08%
t9 Dave Stieb 96 14.08%
11 John Smoltz 61 13.09%
12 Curt Schilling 56 12.84%
13 Mike Mussina 65 12.13%


0-2 Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Nolan Ryan 287 37.13%
2 Bert Blyleven 231 33.72%
3 Don Sutton 244 32.28%
4 Steve Carlton 228 32.16%
5 Jim Palmer 163 31.29%
6 Fergie Jenkins 181 30.47%
7 Catfish Hunter 140 29.41%
8 Dave Stieb 116 28.16%
9 Curt Schilling 119 27.29%
10 Jack Morris 138 26.19%
11 Tom Glavine 176 25.81%
12 Mike Mussina 136 25.37%
13 John Smoltz 117 25.11%


0-3 Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Nolan Ryan 403 52.13%
2 Bert Blyleven 328 47.88%
3 Jim Palmer 249 47.79%
4 Don Sutton 360 47.62%
5 Steve Carlton 322 45.42%
6 Fergie Jenkins 256 43.1%
7 Catfish Hunter 211 44.33%
8 Dave Stieb 178 43.2%
9 Tom Glavine 286 41.94%
10 Curt Schilling 180 41.28%
11 John Smoltz 189 40.56%
12 Jack Morris 209 39.66%
13 Mike Mussina 205 38.25%

__________________________________________________ _______________

GOOD RUN SUPPORT

4 or More Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Mike Mussina 331 61.75%
2 Jack Morris 318 60.34%
3 John Smoltz 277 59.44%
4 Curt Schilling 256 58.72%
5 Tom Glavine 396 58.06%
6 Fergie Jenkins 338 56.9%
7 Dave Stieb 234 56.8%
8 Catfish Hunter 265 55.67%
9 Steve Carlton 387 54.58%
10 Don Sutton 396 52.38%
11 Jim Palmer 272 52.21%
12 Bert Blyleven 357 52.12%
13 Nolan Ryan 370 47.87%


5 or More Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Mike Mussina 265 49.44
2 Jack Morris 252 47.82%
3 Curt Schilling 200 45.87
4 Tom Glavine 307 45.01%
5 Dave Stieb 183 44.42%
6 Steve Carlton 298 42.03%
7 John Smoltz 195 41.85%
8 Fergie Jenkins 248 41.75%
9 Jim Palmer 217 41.66%
10 Catfish Hunter 197 41.39%
11 Bert Blyleven 275 40.15%
12 Don Sutton 296 39.15%
13 Nolan Ryan 270 34.93%


6 or More Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Mike Mussina 224 41.79%
2 Jack Morris 186 35.29%
3 Curt Schilling 146 33.49%
4 Tom Glavine 226 33.14%
5 Dave Stieb 136 33.01%
6 Steve Carlton 221 31.17%
7 Fergie Jenkins 182 30.64%
8 Jim Palmer 158 30.33%
9 Catfish Hunter 141 29.62%
10 John Smoltz 138 29.61%
11 Don Sutton 219 28.97%
12 Bert Blyleven 185 27.01%
13 Nolan Ryan 181 23.42%


7 or More Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Mike Mussina 165 30.78%
2 Jack Morris 134 25.43%
3 Tom Glavine 166 24.34%
4 Curt Schilling 105 24.08%
5 Fergie Jenkins 141 23.74%
6 Steve Carlton 156 22.00%
7 Dave Stieb 90 21.84%
8 Jim Palmer 111 21.31%
9 Bert Blyleven 139 20.29%
10 John Smoltz 94 20.17%
11 Catfish Hunter 94 19.75
12 Don Sutton 146 19.31
13 Nolan Ryan 110 14.23%


10 or More Runs of Support (number of starts, % of starts)

1 Mike Mussina 56 10.45%
2 Jack Morris 50 9.49%
3 Curt Schilling 37 8.49%
4 Tom Glavine 57 8.36%
5 Jim Palmer 37 7.1%
6 John Smoltz 32 6.87%
7 Fergie Jenkins 40 6.73%
8 Catfish Hunter 32 6.72%
9 Steve Carlton 47 6.63%
10 Bert Blyleven 41 5.99%
11 Dave Stieb 22 5.34%
12 Don Sutton 39 5.16%
13 Nolan Ryan 30 3.88%


It is pretty obvious which pitchers benefitted from good run support, and which didn't. Here are the actual and neutralized records for each pitcher.

ACTUAL W/L % -------------------NEUTRALIZED W/L%

t1 Jim Palmer 268-152 .638******1 Jim Palmer 265-166 .615
t1 Mike Mussina 270-153 .638****2 Curt Schilling 224-141 .614
3 Tom Glavine 305-203 .600*****t3 Dave Stieb 200-127 .612
4 Curt Schilling 216-146 .597****t3 John Smoltz 233-148 .612
5 John Smoltz 210-147 .588*****5 Mike Mussina 247-161 .605
6 Jack Morris 254-186 .577******6 Bert Blyleven 325-227 .589
t7 Catfish Hunter 224-166 .574***7 Steve Carlton 336-237 .586
t7 Steve Carlton 329-244 .574***8 Tom Glavine 285-208 .578
9 Dave Stieb 176-137 .562******9 Fergie Jenkins 286-211 .575
10 Don Sutton 324-256 .559****10 Nolan Ryan 320-259 .553
11 Fergie Jenkins 284-226 .557**11 Don Sutton 309-260 .543
12 Bert Blyleven 287-250 .534***12 Jack Morris 229-204 .529
13 Nolan Ryan 324-292 .526*****13 Catfish Hunter 194-174 .527


ACTUAL WINS****************NEUTRALIZED WINS

1 Steve Carlton 329**********1 Steve Carlton 336
t2 Nolan Ryan 324***********2 Bert Blyleven 325
t2 Don Sutton 324***********3 Nolan Ryan 320
4 Tom Glavine 305***********4 Don Sutton 309
5 Bert Blyleven 287**********5 Fergie Jenkins 286
6 Fergie Jenkins 284**********6 Tom Glavine 285
7 Mike Mussina 270***********7 Jim Palmer 265
8 Jim Palmer 268*************8 Mike Mussina 247
9 Jack Morris 254************9 John Smoltz 233
10 Catfish Hunter 224*********10 Jack Morris 229
11 Curt Schilling 216**********11 Curt Schilling 224
12 John Smoltz 210***********12 Dave Stieb 200
13 Dave Stieb 176************13 Catfish Hunter 194


Good pitchers should always hold up to any quantitative analysis. Hunter is already a mistake, hopefully the voters won't make the same mistake with Jack Morris. If the voters only knew how woeful Blyleven's run support was. Ryan didn't get much support either. Mussina's support looks pretty high despite the fact that he played in the highest scoring environment. Dave Stieb was a better pitcher then Jack Morris. Smoltz doesn't really get great run support.

[Paul Wendt]

Is there a source that explains how these statistics are calculated: run-support, support-neutral winning percentage and, evidently, support-neutral number of decisions?

With or without source explanation,
Consider a pitcher who worked only as a starting pitcher, eg Glavine. The support-neutral W-L record gives him 15 fewer decisions, 20 fewer wins and 5 more defeats. Is that balanced by relief pitcher teammates who get 15 more decisions?

[curveball]

Is there a source that explains how these statistics are calculated: run-support, support-neutral winning percentage and, evidently, support-neutral number of decisions?

With or without source explanation,
Consider a pitcher who worked only as a starting pitcher, eg Glavine. The support-neutral W-L record gives him 15 fewer decisions, 20 fewer wins and 5 more defeats. Is that balanced by relief pitcher teammates who get 15 more decisions?

I just went to baseball-reference, and you can go into a pitcher's yearly gamelog, and get his run support (from 1956 on). It shows how many times a pitcher got 0 run support, 1 run support, etc..., all the way to 10 or more runs.

The site also explain how they get their neutralized stats, but it seems fairly complicated to me.

[SDL]

When Jim Rice gets in the HOF while more deserving players such as Alan Trammell and Tim Raines are still on the outside looking in is a travestry.

Rice was a Fenway Park creature. I used to laugh when annoucers would exclaim that he was 'the most feared hitter in baseball'...then watch him hit into a DP.

It's no secret, I didn't want Rice in the HOF, but after last year I figured he'd make it because of a clamor for him (primarily in New England) and it was his last year of eligibility.

At least we'll have a sure fire HOF'er going in with him in Rickey Henderson.

You do remember who Henderson played for in 2002, right? ;)

[four tool]

I saw the press conference, and you know I felt sorry for Rice thinking he was a great player and all, I almost could put him in out of pity. The only way for me to accept it is that he was a iconic player of his times. Even then, a lot of writers had the sense that somehow he just wasn't as valuable as his triple crown stats, but most saw no offensive difference between what he did in '79, and what F.Rob and Yaz did in '66 and '67.

In '86 he was 4th in baseball digest's major league player of the year award behind Clemens, Mattingly and Boggs.

Then again, they chose Dawson in '87 and had Nolan Ryan and Jim Abbott #2 and #3 behind Kevin Mitchell in '89.

Rice isn't the only player who thinks he deserves to be in the hall because of his percieved ability.

[Paul Wendt]

I just went to baseball-reference, and you can go into a pitcher's yearly gamelog, and get his run support (from 1956 on). It shows how many times a pitcher got 0 run support, 1 run support, etc..., all the way to 10 or more runs.
Thanks. At the season level that version of Run Support is published by Retrosheet for everyone back to 1871. (The 'RS' column follows 'ERA' on player and team pages.) That is a raw average, team runs scored per game, regardless of innings played, and it is a starting pitcher's statistic.

The neutralized W-L must be tricky.

[Paul Wendt]

Of course it's a big deal that Jim Rice crossed the 75% threshold but note the tiny magnitudes that distinguish last year's and this year's election results. Perhaps the burgeoning, neverending Hall of Fame conversation has solidified many judgments. (Veteran participants in this forum, compare your own experiences. Some of you know whom you will support on every hall of fame thread with that structure, including new shadow halls of fame.)

BBWAA elections 2008 and 2009 (percent support)
'08 '09
__ 94 Henderson
85 __ Gossage
72 76 Rice
65 67 Dawson
61 62 Blyleven
42 44 Morris
43 44 Smith
29 31 John
24 22 Raines
23 21 McGwire
18 17 Trammell
16 __ Concepcion
15 15 Parker
13 11 Murphy
15 11 Mattingly
05 05 Baines

2008
"over 575 ballots were distributed"
543 ballots cast (3 blank) with 5.35 votes per ballot

2009
539 ballots cast (2 blank) with 5.38 votes per ballot

The carryover of thirteen candidates to 2009 was the smallest, yet there will be two fewer in 2010, only eleven.

Sources: wikipedia annual articles "Baseball Hall of Fame balloting"