Who's Getting In in 2010?

[BigandUgly]

It looks like one of the weaker HOF classes is coming up. I don't see anyone that I think is "automatic." Of the eligible players who do you think will be enshrined?

*Alomar, Roberto: 12 All-star games, 10 Gold gloves (most ever by a second baseman), 2724 hits, over 1500 runds scored. Every modern major leaguer that has earned 12 All-Star appearences or scored 1500 runs (except for Pete Rose) is either in the Hall or under consideration this year.

Appier, Kevin

Ashby, Andy

Baines, Harold: 11 20 HR seasons

*Blyleven, Bert: 287 Wins, 10 15 win seasons. Received 62.7% of votes in 2009 (75% needed).

Burba, Dave

Burkes, Ellis: 352 HR

*Dawson, Andre: 438 HR. 8 gold gloves. 13 20 HR seasons. One of three players with 400 HR/300 SB (Barry Bonds & Willie Mays).

*Galarraga, Andres: 10 20 HR seasons, 398 HR. Fought cancer twice during his career. Where would his numbers be if he was healthy?

Hentgen, Pat: Cy Young in 1996. 5 consecutive complete games.

Jackson, Mike: One of 12 pitchers with over 1000 appearences.

Karros, Eric

Lankford, Ray

*Larkin, Barry: 12 All-Star appearences. See note under Alomar.

Martinez, Edgar: Great hitter. Didn't have big career numbers due to late start.

*Mattingly, Don: Consistent hitter that looked like a sure thing early. Chronic back ailments caused short career. 9 Gold gloves.

*McGriff, Fred: 493 HR. Hit 20 or more HR 15 times, 30 or more 10 times. 8 100+ RBI seasons.

*McGwire, Mark: Does he really need to be discussed?

McLemore, Mark

*Morris, Jack: 254 Wins, 4 World Series titles. 12 15 win seasons. 3 20 win seasons. I can't think of any modern 250 winners that are not in the Hall. Anyone? (Edit - Tommy John).

*Murphy, Dale: MVP in 1982 and 1983. 398 career HR. 12 20 HR seasons. 6 30 HR seasons. 7 time AS, 5 time Gold Glove. Always known as a clean, no-drug, no-alcohol player. Might get extra votes due to PED in media.

*Parker, Dave: 1978 MVP, 7 All Star appearences, 3 Gold Gloves. Admission of drug use may hurt chances.

*Raines, Tim: 808 stolen Bases, 50 or more steals 8 times. 1571 runs (see note under Alomar). Biggest downfall is that he played many years in small market and was over shadowed by Ricky Henderson.

Reynolds, Shane

Segui, David

*Smith, Lee: All time saves leader until 2006. 7 time All Star, 30 or more saves 10 times, 40 or more 3 times. Most games finished with 802.

Trammell, Alan: 6 time All-Star, 4 Gold Glove.

Ventura, Robin: 9 20 HR seasons, 2 30 HR seasons. 6 Gold Gloves. 18 Grand Slams is 4th all-time.

Vina, Fernando

Zeile, Todd: Played for 11 teams in 15 seasons.

The players marked with a "*" are the ones that I think have a chance to someday get into the Hall of Fame.

I think this is the year for Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson. Both have been close in the past. The lack of competition may help them. My gut says that Fred McGriff will get in this year too. 493 isn't 500, but it sure is close.

My heart says Dale Murphy should get in, but I don't think it will happen. His numbers dropped off too quickly when he aged. I think he'll get in when the players can vote on him. I don't see anyone that played with him denying his ability.

What do you think?

[bambambaseball]

They probably wont elect anyone. These guys I hope get in some day:

Roberto Alomar
Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Ellis Burks
Andre Dawson
Andres Galarraga
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Robin Ventura

[bambambaseball]

Nevermind. I see his name there.

[mwiggins]

It looks like one of the weaker HOF classes is coming up.

It's actually quite a strong class. Alomar, Larkin, and Raines are all upper-half of the Hall, first-ballot guys; and Blyleven and Trammell are solid middle-of-the-road Hall of Famers. And Dawson is borderline, but still worthy.

I would say it's a stronger ballot than '08 or '09, and at least as good as '06.

But I would bet that nobody makes it.

[BigandUgly]

They probably wont elect anyone.

I don't see that happening. The will elect somebody. Cooperstown needs the induction weekend. The baseball writers will give them someone to honor.

When was the last time nobody was elected?

[Jsquared83]

Alomar def deserves it but the writers will probably make him wait a year or so. Larkin is right on the fence for me, def not a first ballot guy. McGriff will be interesting, if he debuts with 50%+, he should probably build enough support over the years a la Jim Rice. This is probably Dawson's best chance with no slam dunk big names on the ballot and I think he makes it. Blyleven may also see a well deserved spike in voting.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think Andre Dawson will make up the 8% or so to make it. I am hoping Larkin and Alomar, both well-deserving, get treated better than Tim Raines has been the last two years (that's how long he's been on the ballot). Larkin has the MVP and Alomar was world series MVP and both did not end up as journeymen like Raines did, so they should fare better in the voting. No milestones and not being glitzy will prevent them from making it on their first year, I believe.

Bert Blyleven, everyone's favorite, will clear 65%. Maybe 70%. He should get in within the next couple years.

No slam dunks until Bagwell gets on the ballot.

1996 saw the writers elect no one.

[mwiggins]

I don't see that happening. The will elect somebody. Cooperstown needs the induction weekend. The baseball writers will give them someone to honor.

When was the last time nobody was elected?

1996 was the last time the BBWAA failed to elect anyone.

[BigandUgly]

It's actually quite a strong class. Alomar, Larkin, and Raines are all upper-half of the Hall, first-ballot guys; and Blyleven and Trammell are solid middle-of-the-road Hall of Famers. And Dawson is borderline, but still worthy.

I would say it's a stronger ballot than '08 or '09, and at least as good as '06.

But I would bet that nobody makes it.

Raines on got 24% of the vote his first year of eligibility and 22% last year. I think Alomar and Larkin with both eventually get in, but I think "upper-half of the Hall, first-ballot guys" is a little bit strong.

Blyleven and Dawson are both borderline but deserving in my opinion. I don't think Trammell has a shot. I think we'll see Jack Morris or Lee Smith get in before him.

[Jsquared83]

There's no upper tier, 90%+ guys for '10. A bunch of borderline guys who will eventually make it. Bagwell coming on the ballot in '11 will hurt McGriff's chances.

[jjpm74]

When was the last time nobody was elected?

No one was inducteded in 1940, 1941, 1943, 1950, 1958, 1960. It has been almost 50 years since the last time that has happened. There are also several years where the BBWAA elected no one. The most recent time that happened is in 1996.

In the past, because of the loose setup of the VC, players have been inducted in years where no one received 75%. If no one gets to 75% this election, I wonder if they will do a runoff like they have done several times in the past?

Personally, I'd be surprised if anyone is elected this year, though it'd be nice to be worng and see Blyleven finally get in.

[mwiggins]

Raines on got 24% of the vote his first year of eligibility and 22% last year. I think Alomar and Larkin with both eventually get in, but I think "upper-half of the Hall, first-ballot guys" is a little bit strong.



There aren't 100 players in the Hall right now who are more deserving than those three. That would be "upper-half of the Hall" in my book.

[jjpm74]

The Collaboration v 2.0 project (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1548784) ranks Raines at #97, Alomar at #109 and Larkin at #112 which which is close to where I rank them and why mwiggins assessment of their placement is a good estimate by BBF standards.

[OleMissCub]

Larkin, Alomar, Raines, and Dawson.

[Ace Venom]

I honestly don't think Blyleven is going to get in because he's called out the BBWAA on their crap. They don't like that very much. Andre Dawson might have a jump in support.

[BigandUgly]

I honestly don't think Blyleven is going to get in because he's called out the BBWAA on their crap.

Very good point. It's not a good idea to piss off voters before they vote for you. It would be interesting to see if Blyleven gets fewer votes than last year. Maybe they'll go Jim Rice on him and wait the full 15 years.

[mwiggins]

I don't know if I'd count Bagwell as a slam dunk to make it his first time. His counting stats aren't that impressive, and we all know there's a sizable section of the voters who aren't going to care what his OBP, OPS+, or Win Shares stats are. His traditional counting stats don't really look any better than guys like McGriff, Delgado, Dawson, and Juan Gonzalez. Will Clark had a great OPS+, too, and he didn't even get close to being elected.

Bagwell's got the one MVP, but I can see that being dismissed because it was in a strike year. And he was mostly overlooked playing in Houston (i.e. only 4 All-Star game apperances).

Plus, of course, there's the fact that he was a slugger who played during a certain era, which may raise some concerns/doubts in some voters.

[Seattle1]

I honestly don't think Blyleven is going to get in because he's called out the BBWAA on their crap. They don't like that very much.

What did he say anyway?

[Ace Venom]

He pretty much said that it's a bunch of crap that he didn't get elected and he citied the fact that he had Hall of Fame numbers. He also criticized the BBWAA for taking 15 years to elect Jim Rice.

[Brad Harris]

My ballot:
Alomar
Blyleven
Larkin
Martinez
McGriff
McGwire
Murphy
Raines
Trammell

In order, those most likely to be elected are: Alomar, Dawson, Larkin, Blyelven. My prediction is that Alomar and Dawson are the only winners this year.

[Seattle1]

He pretty much said that it's a bunch of crap that he didn't get elected and he citied the fact that he had Hall of Fame numbers. He also criticized the BBWAA for taking 15 years to elect Jim Rice.

Sounds like he has gotten his feathers ruffled a little bit.

[BigandUgly]

The thing is, I'm not convinced that Blyleven's numbers are Hall of Fame worthy, even though I think he'll get in.

Part of me says 287 wins, 3700 stikeouts (5th all-time) should be enough to get in.

The other part of me says that a Hall of Famer should consistently be one of the best in the league. In 22 major league seasons Blyleven was only an All-Star twice, had only one 20 win season and never won a Cy Young. He was good, but clearly not really one of the best.

Yes, he won 287 games, but he also started 685 and lost 250. His win/loss is very mediocore. He lost 15 or more games 7 times.

[Ace Venom]

Nolan Ryan was 324-292, which is not exactly the best winning percentage out there if you want to talk about that particular metric. Some might just look at the 300, but the guy nearly lost 300 games too. Bert Blyleven managed to have a higher winning percentage than Nolan Ryan (.534 vs. .526), but not by much. If you want to focus on wins, just remember that little fact.

[BigandUgly]

Nolan Ryan had a lot more going for him than his 300 wins. I think the only thing going for Blyleven is the 287 wins and 3700 strikeouts.

I also think you could compare him to Tommie John who had 288 wins and 231 losses, twice as many All-star appearences and did not get in.

[mwiggins]

The other part of me says that a Hall of Famer should consistently be one of the best in the league.

I agree with you there. But he was actually consistently one of the best pitchers in the league. He finished in the top 10 in ERA+ 12 times in his career, including 7 out of 8 years from 1970-1977. 7 times he finished in the top 5, including 5 times during that 1970-1977 stretch.

13 times he finished in the top-5 in K/BB ratio, including 7 out of 8 years from 1970-1978. 11 times he finished in the the top-10 in WHIP, 7 times in the top 5. 5 times he finished in the top-5 in WHIP between 1970-1977.

He also finished in the top-10 in shutouts 10 times, complete games 12 times, IP 11 times, and strikouts 15 times.

Even when he wasn't sporting a nice looking W-L record, he was consistently among the best pitchers in the AL from 1970-1977. And he had a handful of years after that where he was also among the best in his league.

[BigandUgly]

I can't argue that he didn't have nice numbers. There's just nothing there that grabs you and says "You have to put this guy in the Hall." I don't really think a handful of top tens is good enough. I'd like to see more top threes or even top fives.

He had a great career. I'm just not ready to say he was one of the best. To me the Hall of Fame should only be the best.

[Cougar]

I can't argue that he didn't have nice numbers. There's just nothing there that grabs you and says "You have to put this guy in the Hall." I don't really think a handful of top tens is good enough. I'd like to see more top threes or even top fives.

He had a great career. I'm just not ready to say he was one of the best. To me the Hall of Fame should only be the best.

60 career shutouts. #9 all time.

Among pitchers from the live ball era, behind only Spahn (63), Ryan (61), and Seaver (61).

#5 all time in K's, behind only Ryan, Randy Johnson, (tainted) Clemens, and Carlton.

Considered by many to have thrown the best curveball ever.

Anything grab you there?

[mwiggins]

I can't argue that he didn't have nice numbers. There's just nothing there that grabs you and says "You have to put this guy in the Hall." I don't really think a handful of top tens is good enough. I'd like to see more top threes or even top fives.

He had a great career. I'm just not ready to say he was one of the best. To me the Hall of Fame should only be the best.

But that's not what the current Hall is, though. Guys like Sutton, Hunter, Bunning, Drysdale, Lemon, and Wynn weren't who I'd consider "the best", yet they're all HoFer's from the post-war era.

Looking at Top-3 and Top-5 ERA+ finishes, since you mentioned those over Top-10's.

Blyleven: 7 Top-5, 4 Top-3
Sutton: 3 Top-5, 3 Top-3
Hunter: 3 Top-5, 1 Top-3
Bunning: 5 Top-5, 3 Top-3
Drysdale: 3 Top-5, 3 Top-3
Lemon: 4 Top-5, 1 Top-3
Wynn: 4 Top-5, 2 Top-3
Palmer: 8 Top-5, 5 Top-3
Carlton: 5 Top-5, 5 Top-3
Gibson: 7 Top-5, 4 Top-3
Marichal: 4 Top-5, 3 Top-3

Blyleven both has a large number of seasons where he was among the very best in his league, and he's got excellent career counting stats.

[Ace Venom]

It depends on how you define best. Is best putting up great offensive numbers and great defensive numbers every year or keeping up with the best over the course of your career? People obviously forget that Nolan Ryan walked more batters than anyone and he holds the record for wild pitches. Pete Rose has the record for most outs recorded. Reggie Jackson struck out more than any other batter. Cy Young also lost more games than anyone.

Just going by counting numbers, Blyleven may not have stuck out as many batters as Nolan Ryan did, but he sure walked far less batters than he did. I could easily argue that Ryan was not one of the best because he lost 292 games and walked 2,795 batters. I wouldn't be correct, but there's obviously more to a player than mere counting numbers. Just imagine what Bert Blyleven's win total would look like if he had been teammates with Ron Guidry and Reggie Jackson. If a guy won as many games as Blyleven did, my first question would be why he didn't win 300 games. Then seeing the teams he played for would answer my question.

[NJRob65]

Dawson may get in the 2010 Baseball HoF election, at least a 50-50 chance. Blylven has an outside shot of being elected by the BBWAA in the 2010 election. No other candidate will be close to being elected in this upcoming HoF election(2010).

[ol' aches and pains]

The thing is, I'm not convinced that Blyleven's numbers are Hall of Fame worthy, even though I think he'll get in.

Part of me says 287 wins, 3700 stikeouts (5th all-time) should be enough to get in.

The other part of me says that a Hall of Famer should consistently be one of the best in the league. In 22 major league seasons Blyleven was only an All-Star twice, had only one 20 win season and never won a Cy Young. He was good, but clearly not really one of the best.

Yes, he won 287 games, but he also started 685 and lost 250. His win/loss is very mediocore. He lost 15 or more games 7 times.

He played for bad teams for most of his career. He compiled 60 complete game shutouts, more than his HOF contemporaries Gibson, Jenkins, Carlton, Marichal, Palmer and Perry. He deserves to be in there with them.

[JDD]

This SHOULD have been Blyleven's year. But I think causing the stir did more harm than good. I am not sure if he is getting good advice.

Larkin has become one of MLB network's main analysts, so that helps keep public. Does Blyleven call any games on radio or TV? Seems like the only time I see him is on ESPN right before a vote.

This also would have been a good year to put Big Mac in, but that will never happen. He will be the poster boy for players who probably should be elected into the HOF but never were.

I think Bonds gets in. when he comes up. Please don't take this thread in that direction tho'.

Andre Dawson will probably make it. Having Rice in there now is a nice boost to his chances. His stats have not changed, but it's nice if you have a contemporary in the HOF and you don't look silly when you compare your stats to his.

It would make a good story if Raines and Dawson went in together.

[mwiggins]

This SHOULD have been Blyleven's year. But I think causing the stir did more harm than good. I am not sure if he is getting good advice.

Larkin has become one of MLB network's main analysts, so that helps keep public. Does Blyleven call any games on radio or TV? Seems like the only time I see him is on ESPN right before a vote.



Bert is the #1 color guy on the Twins TV broadcasts.

[Paul Wendt]

No one was inducteded in 1940, 1941, 1943, 1950, 1958, 1960. It has been almost 50 years since the last time that has happened. There are also several years where the BBWAA elected no one. The most recent time that happened is in 1996.
The famous old Veterans Committee was established in 1953, meeting only in odd number years until 1962, then annually. So the even number years through 1960 were the last times the BBWAA voted alone, until the even number years beginning 2002.

Furthermore, the Veterans Committee had the "last move" during the intervening forty-one years. It met in person with the results of the BBWAA election in hand (except some early odd number years without any BBWAA election). So by structure and schedule the VC could conveniently include the benefit of induction ceremonies in its deliberations. When the BBWAA elected no one, the VC members knew that the induction event was at stake. (There was a Hall of Fame game matching one AL and one NL team, played at Doubleday Field. I'm sure that some VC members knew the plan for the weekend in case of no induction.)

Today the only veterans committees that meet in person do so in advance of the BBWAA elections. This fall for 2010 induction, one committee will consider managers and umpires, one will consider executives. Among the five different elections that compose the current system, those may be the most likely to produce winners, but I doubt that their members will act in December to ensure an induction ceremony.

(Meanwhile, I expect that the BBWAA will elect Robbie Alomar at least.)In the past, because of the loose setup of the VC, players have been inducted in years where no one received 75%. If no one gets to 75% this election, I wonder if they will do a runoff like they have done several times in the past?
Past runoff elections by the BBWAA occurred under past provisions of the rules for BBWAA elections. Today a runoff would occur only by special action to ensure an induction ceremony. That would alienate writers, look bad to all, and surprise me.

[JDD]

So Bert remains a public figure... that helps. Man, he needs to be talked up by other HOFers. That would help. Willie Stargell could have helped. Kirby Puckett could have helped.

Two voices now silent...

Maybe Dave Winfield and Rod Career (former teammates) are willing to talk him up. I think the best way to get the votes you need is for someone else to talk about you rather than speaking for yourself.

[BigandUgly]

He played for bad teams for most of his career.

I don't really think this argument holds weight. First, in 21 seasons he played for two World Series Champs and a Divisional winner. One out of seven seasons he made the post season. For most of his career there were 28 teams with 4 going to the post season. One out of seven. (I know he played 22 seasons but I'm not counting 1982 when he had only 4 starts.)

Yes, he did play for some very bad teams, but he also played for some very good teams. He also played for some very average teams. As far as the teams he played for I think that his career was very much what a long time player would expect unless you're Chipper Jones or Derek Jeter. There were lots of ups and downs.

The pitcher has such a direct impact on the game. When one of the best takes the mound that team instantly becomes a very good team. Take Zach Greinke. The Royals have 30 wins and 39 losses this year. I think everyone would agree they are a pretty bad team with a .435 winning percentage. Greinke is 9 and 3 in 15 starts. I think the Royals are a pretty good team when he is on the mound. Now, before someone says something, no, I don't think Greinke is a Hall of Famer. But, if he does this for 15 or 20 years he will be.

If Blyleven was consistently one of the best in the game he would have had more than 2 All-Star appearences in his 21 years of pitching. His biggest plus is that he had a long string of above average to good seasons.

Again, I think he had a very good career. I'd give my left nut to be able to play as well as he did for as long as he did. I'm just not convinced he's one of the best ever. I think he's similar (but a little better than) Tommie John. If Tommie John didn't make it after 15 years, and never got close, I don't think Blyleven should make it (although I think he will).

[Ace Venom]

There's also the problem that a win is a team influenced stat. How many times have you seen a pitcher pitch the game of his career and get a no-decision for whatever reason? You're saying that Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame because he didn't get 13 additional wins, which makes me scratch my head. I think you're placing far too much emphasis on the 300 win mark and All-Star appearances while ignoring the fact that the rest of his numbers speak for themselves. There are a lot of deserving pitchers in the Hall of Fame with less than 300 wins that aren't named Sandy Koufax.

[Captain Cold Nose]

So Bert remains a public figure... that helps. Man, he needs to be talked up by other HOFers. That would help. Willie Stargell could have helped. Kirby Puckett could have helped.

Two voices now silent...

Maybe Dave Winfield and Rod Career (former teammates) are willing to talk him up. I think the best way to get the votes you need is for someone else to talk about you rather than speaking for yourself.

I don't think the writers are going to be overly impressed with the ex-players stumping for a teammate. Nor do I think it's on ex-players to really concern themselves with the HOF candidacies of ex-teammates. A lot of people resent cronyism, especially with some of the bullying techniques that have been used with the VC in recent years.

[gman5431]

I think either Dawson or Blyleven or both will pull a Jim Rice and make the jump up to get in. Alomar has a good shot and Larkin as well. Out of those 4 i think at least 1 get in. I think Raines will see a good jump too.

G Man

[BigandUgly]

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be in because he didn't get three hundred. I'm saying his long string of good but not great seasons should keep him out. The Hall of Fame isn't for goodness. It's for greatness.

I think 300 would get him automatic votes but 287 doesn't. I think McGriff is in the same boat with homeruns. 500 is automatic but 493 probably won't be.

I don't know that 300 (or 500 HR) should be automatic though (even though it is). If a player pitched 20 years and got 15 wins each year by being average in his 34 starts, is he HOF material?

[Ace Venom]

I'm still not that confident that anyone will get elected in 2010, though the BBWAA may be a bit more forgiving towards Alomar now given their outrage against PED users is at an all-time high. Andre Dawson should pick up a lot of votes now that Jim Rice is off the ballot. It wouldn't surprise me if Bert Blyleven's vote totals dropped. Sorry Bert. You belong, but you're not getting in.

[mwiggins]

Take Zach Greinke. The Royals have 30 wins and 39 losses this year. I think everyone would agree they are a pretty bad team with a .435 winning percentage. Greinke is 9 and 3 in 15 starts. I think the Royals are a pretty good team when he is on the mound. Now, before someone says something, no, I don't think Greinke is a Hall of Famer. But, if he does this for 15 or 20 years he will be.



Greinke has been absurdly good this year, though. If he does this well for another 5-7, let alone 15-20, years he'll be the best pitcher who ever lived.

But Bert's W-L issue was not just due to his teams. Early in his career he did have the rep of losing focus and not winning as many games as he should have, even with the teams he had around him. That he had dominant stuff, but wasn't a complete pitcher like a guy like Seaver or Palmer were.

If Blyleven was consistently one of the best in the game he would have had more than 2 All-Star appearences in his 21 years of pitching. His biggest plus is that he had a long string of above average to good seasons.


Good W-L records are huge when it comes to All-Star games though. Plus he spent a good part of his prime in a hitter's park up in Minnesota, which inflated his ERA's and his HR's allowed. Even if some of the more stat-oriented folks today overrate him, there's no doubt he was underrated/overlooked when he was in his prime.

Take his 1973 season. He lead the league in ERA+, was 2nd in ERA, 2nd in WHIP, 4th in IP, 2nd in K's, 2nd in BB/9, 1st in Shutouts, 3rd in GC's, and was 1st in K/BB (by a huge amount). In other words, he was probably the best pitcher in the AL that year, yet he only rec'd one Cy Young vote.

Or 1974. He was 2nd in the AL in ERA+, 4th in ERA, 4th in WHIP, 2nd in K's, 2nd in K/BB, and 5th in HR/9. He was probably the 4th best pitcher in the AL behind Perry, Hunter, and Jenkins - yet he didn't make the All-Star team or even get one Cy Young vote.

Or 1977. He was 2nd in ERA+, 2nd in ERA, 1st in WHIP, 7th in K's, 2nd in shutouts, and 8th in K/BB. He was probably the 4th best pitcher in the AL behind Tanana, Ryan, and Palmer - yet again he didn't make the All-Star team or even get one Cy Young vote.

Or 1984. He was 3rd in ERA, 2nd in ERA+, 2nd in Wins, 2nd in W-L%, 2nd in WHIP, 4th in K's, 4th in CG's, 3rd in Shutouts, and 8th in K/BB. He was probably the best pitcher in the AL that year, other than maybe Dave Steib, yet he didn't make the All-Star game and finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting behind a couple of relief pitchers.

That's four great seasons, and only one All-Star game and 4 first place Cy Young votes to show for them.

[Ace Venom]

I don't know that 300 (or 500 HR) should be automatic though (even though it is). If a player pitched 20 years and got 15 wins each year by being average in his 34 starts, is he HOF material?

Are you just focused on wins and not other stats? What about ERA or ERA+? What about strikeouts, WHIP, K/9 or K/BB? If he's around league average with an ERA+ of around 105, I'd say probably not unless he had some serious eye-popping stats. But Blyleven's 118 ERA+ is not average at all and nor are his 3,701 strikeouts, which were third all-time when he retired. When you consider that there are some pitchers in the Hall of Fame like Red Ruffing with a 109 ERA+ you have to wonder how a guy like that got into the Hall of Fame. When you realize his teammates were Gehrig and DiMaggio, you know why a guy like Red Ruffing is in there and guys like Bert Blyleven, who does not benefit from East Coast bias like Jim Rice did, can't catch a break.

[Paul Wendt]

No one was inducteded in 1940, 1941, 1943, 1950, 1958, 1960. It has been almost 50 years since the last time that has happened. There are also several years where the BBWAA elected no one. The most recent time that happened is in 1996.
The famous old Veterans Committee was established in 1953, meeting only in odd number years until 1962, then annually. So the even number years through 1960 were the last times the BBWAA voted alone, until the even number years beginning 2002.

Furthermore, the Veterans Committee had the "last move" during the intervening forty-one years. It met in person with the results of the BBWAA election in hand (except some early odd number years without any BBWAA election). So by structure and schedule the VC could conveniently include the benefit of induction ceremonies in its deliberations. When the BBWAA elected no one, the VC members knew that the induction event was at stake. (There was a Hall of Fame game matching one AL and one NL team, played at Doubleday Field. I'm sure that some VC members knew the plan for the weekend in case of no induction.)

Today the only veterans committees that meet in person do so in advance of the BBWAA elections. This fall for 2010 induction, one committee will consider managers and umpires, one will consider executives. Among the five different elections that compose the current system, those may be the most likely to produce winners, but I doubt that their members will act in December to ensure an induction ceremony.

(Meanwhile, I expect that the BBWAA will elect Robbie Alomar at least.)In the past, because of the loose setup of the VC, players have been inducted in years where no one received 75%. If no one gets to 75% this election, I wonder if they will do a runoff like they have done several times in the past?
Past runoff elections by the BBWAA occurred under past provisions of the rules for BBWAA elections. Today a runoff would occur only by special action to ensure an induction ceremony. That would alienate writers, look bad to all, and surprise me.

[BigandUgly]

Are you just focused on wins and not other stats? What about ERA or ERA+? What about strikeouts, WHIP, K/9 or K/BB? If he's around league average with an ERA+ of around 105, I'd say probably not unless he had some serious eye-popping stats. But Blyleven's 118 ERA+ is not average at all and nor are his 3,701 strikeouts, which were third all-time when he retired. When you consider that there are some pitchers in the Hall of Fame like Red Ruffing with a 109 ERA+ you have to wonder how a guy like that got into the Hall of Fame. When you realize his teammates were Gehrig and DiMaggio, you know why a guy like Red Ruffing is in there and guys like Bert Blyleven, who does not benefit from East Coast bias like Jim Rice did, can't catch a break.


I'm not focused on wins at all. There are many Hall of Fame pitchers with fewer wins. I'm focused on a good, but not great body of work. There is no wow factor.

Picture yourself as a kid opening baseball cards. Mickey Mantle, Wow! Babe Ruth, Wow! Tom Seaver, Wow! Cal Ripken, Wow! Does Bert Blyleven make you say wow?

I know you're going to say that there are many players in the Hall with no wow factor. I think that the mistakes of letting below caliber players get inducted in the past does not give reason to do it in the future. The legend of the Hall of Fame players is made stronger by the quality of the players that you keep out. Great players should be in. Very good players should be left out. Blyleven was a very good player.

[JDD]

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be in because he didn't get three hundred. I'm saying his long string of good but not great seasons should keep him out. The Hall of Fame isn't for goodness. It's for greatness.

As defined in his own time and to some extent how it is defined at the time of the vote...

Example: Lombardi is only getting 30 percent of the vote here, but he was considered a great hitter in his own time. Read what was written about him when he was active and shortly after he retired.

And the HOF is not about greatness. It is moving in that direction now, as voters continue to raise the bar. But in many respects the sins of the past have put in good but not great players. And they are in there for good.

Perhaps voting moving forward will be about the recognition of greatness how we define it at the time of the vote.

[JDD]

I'm not focused on wins at all. There are many Hall of Fame pitchers with fewer wins. I'm focused on a good, but not great body of work. There is no wow factor.

Picture yourself as a kid opening baseball cards. Mickey Mantle, Wow! Babe Ruth, Wow! Tom Seaver, Wow! Cal Ripken, Wow! Does Bert Blyleven make you say wow?

Since when does a player have to be almost Babe Ruth or almost Tom Seaver to be in the HOF? Are we going to keep out all future shortstops who don't hit like Wagner or field like Ozzie Smith?

[ol' aches and pains]

I'm not focused on wins at all. There are many Hall of Fame pitchers with fewer wins. I'm focused on a good, but not great body of work. There is no wow factor.

Picture yourself as a kid opening baseball cards. Mickey Mantle, Wow! Babe Ruth, Wow! Tom Seaver, Wow! Cal Ripken, Wow! Does Bert Blyleven make you say wow?

I know you're going to say that there are many players in the Hall with no wow factor. I think that the mistakes of letting below caliber players get inducted in the past does not give reason to do it in the future. The legend of the Hall of Fame players is made stronger by the quality of the players that you keep out. Great players should be in. Very good players should be left out. Blyleven was a very good player.

60 complete game shutouts makes me say "Wow". If he had those additional 13 wins, right or wrong, he'd be in already. He had one of the best curve balls in history. I said "Wow" (among other expletives) many times watching him mow down the White Sox over the years.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not focused on wins at all. There are many Hall of Fame pitchers with fewer wins. I'm focused on a good, but not great body of work. There is no wow factor.

Picture yourself as a kid opening baseball cards. Mickey Mantle, Wow! Babe Ruth, Wow! Tom Seaver, Wow! Cal Ripken, Wow! Does Bert Blyleven make you say wow?

I know you're going to say that there are many players in the Hall with no wow factor. I think that the mistakes of letting below caliber players get inducted in the past does not give reason to do it in the future. The legend of the Hall of Fame players is made stronger by the quality of the players that you keep out. Great players should be in. Very good players should be left out. Blyleven was a very good player.

Top 10 in shutouts and strikeouts all time doesn't elicit a wow? If anything, one would see that and wonder exactly how the HOF has kept him out.

[BigandUgly]

Since when does a player have to be almost Babe Ruth or almost Tom Seaver to be in the HOF? Are we going to keep out all future shortstops who don't hit like Wagner or field like Ozzie Smith?

No we're not going to keep them out, but I think we should. The Hall should be about the best. Players should have a level of greatest to get in.

[JDD]

I don't think the writers are going to be overly impressed with the ex-players stumping for a teammate. Nor do I think it's on ex-players to really concern themselves with the HOF candidacies of ex-teammates. A lot of people resent cronyism, especially with some of the bullying techniques that have been used with the VC in recent years.

Here is the picture:

Blyleven shuts up
Carew, Winfield, maybe someone who faced him quite a bid like Murray or Schmidt speaks up (imagine Murray running around giving interviews for once... HA!) Maybe Gary Carter. Maybe another pitcher like Ryan.
The writers don't stump, just listen...

Isn't that scenario better for Blyleven? As compared to only hearing him whine and complain? Everyone listens when Ryan speaks. Carter is a great interview.

That was my suggestion for a winning strategy. I really think if Bert Blyleven really wants in, he has to mount a campaign and have someone else do the the talking, someone other than the writers.

Managers would help. Gene Mauch is dead. Get Chuck Tanner on line one...

[JDD]

Following up my own post (I would quote myself, but I only do that at parties, to add spice to the conversation)...

Isn't it interesting that you don't see a lot of HOFers "campaigning" for someone to join them in the HOF.

If it goes on, it must be on a local level, or I am missing it.

You see a lot of comments about Pete Rose from fellas like Schmidt and Morgan, but for instance...

Does Gary Carter talk up Andre Dawson? He may, but I don't think it has reached a national audience.

Does Ryne Sanberg?

Did Wade Boggs or Jim Rice speak up for each other?

I just don't see this going on, or hear about it anyway.

[Ace Venom]

Top 10 in shutouts and strikeouts all time doesn't elicit a wow? If anything, one would see that and wonder exactly how the HOF has kept him out.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? I remember there was a time when getting 3,000 strikeouts was a big deal. People made a pretty big deal out of it when John Smoltz was getting close and got it.

[Brad Harris]

Top 10 in shutouts and strikeouts all time doesn't elicit a wow? If anything, one would see that and wonder exactly how the HOF has kept him out.
And keep in mind that when he retired, he was third in career strikeouts.

Love the new avatar, CCN. I saw Big Klu just the other weekend.

[Ace Venom]

Does Ryne Sanberg?

Sandberg stumped for Andre Dawson before, but that's about it. If you believe rumors, Sandberg was the reason Rafael Palmeiro was driven out of Chicago. He'd never deny Maddux and said he'd vote for Santo on the VC. He recently said Sosa doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame and I never once saw him stump for Mark Grace (his HoF credentials are weak and debatable). Sounds like another typical vet to me.

[BigandUgly]

Top 10 in shutouts and strikeouts all time doesn't elicit a wow? If anything, one would see that and wonder exactly how the HOF has kept him out.

I don't think the top ten shutouts elicits a wow other than a long term consistentcy. Being healthy and having solid years for a long time is good, but I don't think it's a wow.

[BigandUgly]

I think Blyleven would be a fringe Hall of Fame member. Letting him in lowers the accomplishments of those that are already in. Keeping him out helps promote the excellence of the players that are in. Blyleven was very good. I just don't think he was good enough.

[Brad Harris]

Sandberg stumped for Andre Dawson before, but that's about it. If you believe rumors, Sandberg was the reason Rafael Palmeiro was driven out of Chicago. He'd never deny Maddux and said he'd vote for Santo on the VC. He recently said Sosa doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame and I never once saw him stump for Mark Grace (his HoF credentials are weak and debatable). Sounds like another typical vet to me.

HOFers throw their opinions into the public forum all the time. I would suggest, however, that the Hall's Executive Committee pays more attention (if any) to these pronouncements than the BBWAA does.

[Ace Venom]

I don't think the top ten shutouts elicits a wow other than a long term consistency. Being healthy and having solid years for a long time is good, but I don't think it's a wow.


Shutouts aren't exactly easy to compile unless you were dominant. He's in great company.

Top Ten Career Shutouts

1. Walter Johnson - 110
2. Pete Alexander - 90
3. Christy Mathewson - 78
4. Cy Young - 76
5. Eddie Plank - 69
6. Warren Span - 63
t7. Nolan Ryan - 61
t7. Tom Seaver - 61
9. Bert Blyleven - 60
10. Don Sutton - 58

Isn't it funny how Blyleven only has one less shutout than Nolan Ryan even though Nolan Ryan threw over 2,000 more strikeouts than him? Steve Carlton, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson all have more strikeouts than Blyleven, but Blyleven has more shutouts than them. His strikeouts also put him among the best pitchers of the live-ball era

[Cougar]

Here is the picture:

Blyleven shuts up
Carew, Winfield, maybe someone who faced him quite a bid like Murray or Schmidt speaks up (imagine Murray running around giving interviews for once... HA!) Maybe Gary Carter. Maybe another pitcher like Ryan.
The writers don't stump, just listen...

Isn't that scenario better for Blyleven? As compared to only hearing him whine and complain? Everyone listens when Ryan speaks. Carter is a great interview.

That was my suggestion for a winning strategy. I really think if Bert Blyleven really wants in, he has to mount a campaign and have someone else do the the talking, someone other than the writers.

Managers would help. Gene Mauch is dead. Get Chuck Tanner on line one...

Tanner and Blyleven dislike each other, I believe. Or they did 30 years ago, anyway...maybe bygones have been bygones by now.

I'm not sure Chuck Tanner's the best character witness anyway. What's he gonna say, "He was one of the few guys on the team that wasn't face first in a pile of blow all the time"?

[mwiggins]

I think Blyleven would be a fringe Hall of Fame member. Letting him in lowers the accomplishments of those that are already in. Keeping him out helps promote the excellence of the players that are in. Blyleven was very good. I just don't think he was good enough.

I can agree with a lot of the small hall sentiment you have stated, but I think you're underrating how well Blyleven compares to the current crop of pitchers in the Hall. If elected, he would be a middle-of-the-road HoF pitcher, far from the fringes of the Hall. We're not talking about a Bruce Sutter or Jim Rice type of candidate here.

[Ace Venom]

If you just want to look at live-ball era only:

Top Ten Live-Ball Era Shutout Leaders

1. Warren Spahn - 63
t2. Nolan Ryan - 61
t2. Tom Seaver - 61
3. Bert Blyleven - 60
4. Don Sutton - 58
5. Bob Gibson - 56
6. Steve Carlton - 55
t7. Jim Palmer - 53
t7. Gaylord Perry -53
9. Juan Marichal - 52
t10. Don Drysdale - 49
t10. Fergie Jenkins - 49
t10. Luis Tiant - 49
t10. Early Wynn - 49

The only people in that group not in the Hall of Fame are Blyleven and Tiant. Considering Blyleven is third among live-ball era pitchers, I'd say Tiant not being in there is a moot point.

[Cougar]

Shutouts aren't exactly easy to compile unless you were dominant. He's in great company.

Top Ten Career Shutouts

1. Walter Johnson - 110
2. Pete Alexander - 90
3. Christy Mathewson - 78
4. Cy Young - 76
5. Eddie Plank - 69
6. Warren Span - 63
t7. Nolan Ryan - 61
t7. Tom Seaver - 61
9. Bert Blyleven - 60
10. Don Sutton - 58

Isn't it funny how Blyleven only has one less shutout than Nolan Ryan even though Nolan Ryan threw over 2,000 more strikeouts than him? Steve Carlton, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson all have more strikeouts than Blyleven, but Blyleven has more shutouts than them. His strikeouts also put him among the best pitchers of the live-ball era

Never mind top ten; how about top twenty?

Rank Player (age) Shutouts Throws
1. Walter Johnson+ 110 R
2. Pete Alexander+ 90 R
3. Christy Mathewson+ 79 R
4. Cy Young+ 76 R
5. Eddie Plank+ 69 L
6. Warren Spahn+ 63 L
7. Nolan Ryan+ 61 R
Tom Seaver+ 61 R
9. Bert Blyleven 60 R
10. Don Sutton+ 58 R
11. Pud Galvin+ 57 R
Ed Walsh+ 57 R
13. Bob Gibson+ 56 R
14. Mordecai Brown+ 55 R
Steve Carlton+ 55 L
16. Jim Palmer+ 53 R
Gaylord Perry+ 53 R
18. Juan Marichal+ 52 R
19. Rube Waddell+ 50 L
Vic Willis+ 50 R

Everyone in the top twenty is in the HOF except Blyleven at #9!

[BigandUgly]

The case for Blyleven usually comes back to his career shutouts and strikeouts. And it's a good argument. when you consider that they came over 22 years it kind of waters it down. He only average 5.4 K's per start and 6.7 per 9 innings. Both good, but not great. Same with the Shutouts. 2.73 per year is very good, but I don't think it's enough to make him a sure thing HOFer.

[JDD]

Being healthy and having solid years for a long time is good, but I don't think it's a wow.

But it is incredibly valuable. I know it is not the Hall of Value, but let's not discount the longer careers with the shorter peaks. I think we give too much credit to the short career high peak guys and not enough to the guys with long careers who were well above average for nearly all of it.

It's push-pull, sure.

Is Tom Glavine a wow? Baseball Ref has his average season at 15-10 with 130 strikeouts and a ERA+ of 118

Bert Blyleven checks in with the same ERA+ with a record of 14-12 and 183 strikeouts.

But with just one 20 win season (his fourth at the age of 22) while Glavine had five seasons with more than 20 wins. Does that make him better, or just more famous-er? He was on the right team at the right time to be sure, notching THIRTY post-season decisions.

Glavine was 14-16. Blyleven made the most of his short post season career, going 5-1.

Imagine Glavine getting in, and not Blyleven. Was it because he was that much better, or was it because Glavine had 18 more wins, which pulled him across the true HOF finish line of 300 victories (305 to 287)

Both played in 22 seasons, but Blyleven had 500 more innings pitched. Are they more valuable than the 18 wins? Are those innings more valuable than 13 wins?

They made the same number of starts (682 to 685)

Is Tom Glavine a wow? If not, is he still a Hall of Famer? If he is a wow, and therefore a HOFer, then how much better was he compared to Blyleven?

Was Glavine a wow, and Blyleven an "eh..."? I just don't see that much difference between the two, except Blyleven struck out more batters and Blyleven was more apt to give you an extra inning of work.

Wrap up: These guys are close. If Blyleven is almost in but definitely out, then why don't we hear more about Glavine being a borderline case but just on the other side. Most have him as a no-brainer yes. I don't see it that way. I think they are both in, but neither no-brainers nor borderline. Just solid HOFers because they were above average for a very long time.

[ol' aches and pains]

Here is the picture:

Blyleven shuts up
Carew, Winfield, maybe someone who faced him quite a bid like Murray or Schmidt speaks up (imagine Murray running around giving interviews for once... HA!) Maybe Gary Carter. Maybe another pitcher like Ryan.
The writers don't stump, just listen...

Isn't that scenario better for Blyleven? As compared to only hearing him whine and complain? Everyone listens when Ryan speaks. Carter is a great interview.

That was my suggestion for a winning strategy. I really think if Bert Blyleven really wants in, he has to mount a campaign and have someone else do the the talking, someone other than the writers.

Managers would help. Gene Mauch is dead. Get Chuck Tanner on line one...

I agree, Bert hasn't helped himself by whining about it, same for Ron Santo.

[Ace Venom]

I went ahead and condensed it to live-ball era only if people needed more convincing. He's still in great company. Shutouts are not the easiest stat to compile and I think the list proves that. People with shutout totals above 50 are usually in Hall of Fame conversations. It's much easier to compile wins than shutouts. Tommy John is the winningest pitcher not in Cooperstown (288 wins, one more than Blyleven, if you count those who have been voted on by the BBWAA) and he only has 46 shutouts. Jamie Moyer with his 251 wins only has 9 shutouts (count 'em). Of course, Roger Clemens likely will have the albatross of being the winningest pitcher not in the Hall of Fame when we're talking about him 30 years from now.

[ol' aches and pains]

Following up my own post (I would quote myself, but I only do that at parties, to add spice to the conversation)...

Isn't it interesting that you don't see a lot of HOFers "campaigning" for someone to join them in the HOF.

If it goes on, it must be on a local level, or I am missing it.

You see a lot of comments about Pete Rose from fellas like Schmidt and Morgan, but for instance...

Does Gary Carter talk up Andre Dawson? He may, but I don't think it has reached a national audience.

Does Ryne Sanberg?

Did Wade Boggs or Jim Rice speak up for each other?

I just don't see this going on, or hear about it anyway.

Well, Ryne Sandberg is campaigning now to keep Sammy Sosa out of the Hall. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[JDD]

The case for Blyleven usually comes back to his career shutouts and strikeouts. And it's a good argument. when you consider that they came over 22 years it kind of waters it down. He only average 5.4 K's per start and 6.7 per 9 innings. Both good, but not great. Same with the Shutouts. 2.73 per year is very good, but I don't think it's enough to make him a sure thing HOFer.

He doesn't HAVE to be a sure thing to BE a Hall of Famer. The Hall is FULL of players who were not "sure things".

There is not a whole lot of difference between Blyleven and Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins and Gaylord Perry. There is NO case against him which holds water. The only gap here is he is 13 wins short of 300 wins. The case against him begins and ends there.

It's as if the voters are looking for reasons to vote no as often as they look for reasons to vote yes. That's the way it should be, but there are more reasons to vote yes in his case, and just one reason why someone might vote no.

(As if 287 Wins isn't a lot of wins anyway) HA!

[Ace Venom]

Well, Ryne Sandberg is campaigning now to keep Sammy Sosa out of the Hall. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Depending on your point of view. Sandberg conveniently referenced the steroid era when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame. I wonder if he ever took amphetamines in his career and I'd honestly be surprised if he didn't. If he's going to stump for Andre Dawson and say Sosa shouldn't be in just because he wants to be the only one on his team (when he played) with a Cubs cap on his plaque (Dawson would go in as an Expo), then I don't take a lot of what he says seriously.

(As if 287 Wins isn't a lot of wins anyway) HA!

288 wins is a lot of wins too, but I'm not about to compare Blyleven to Tommy John.

[abolishthedh]

Here on BBF, I've made several posts in support of Blyleven. To sum it up with an update, Blyleven has been too much of a jerk about the matter to make it in. This is an Occum's Razor issue: the simplest explanation usually is most accurate.

The simplest explanation for noone stumping on Blyleven's behalf is that he was a prankster who seemed too self-centered.... thus the numerous teams he pitched for. He needs to accept the politics of the HoF and move on.

Back to the list, it may be Dawson's year. I would support his election because his numbers are understated from the injuries he received playing on Montreal's Olympic Stadium turf. He was a five-tool player who held on to those tools long enough to warrant election.

[JDD]

I went ahead and condensed it to live-ball era only if people needed more convincing. He's still in great company. Shutouts are not the easiest stat to compile and I think the list proves that. People with shutout totals above 50 are usually in Hall of Fame conversations. It's much easier to compile wins than shutouts. Tommy John is the winningest pitcher not in Cooperstown (288 wins, one more than Blyleven, if you count those who have been voted on by the BBWAA) and he only has 46 shutouts. Jamie Moyer with his 251 wins only has 9 shutouts (count 'em). Of course, Roger Clemens likely will have the albatross of being the winningest pitcher not in the Hall of Fame when we're talking about him 30 years from now.

You can indeed count Moyer's shutouts... on two hands....

You really think Roger Clemens won't be voted into the Hall of Fame?

My opinion: Pitchers will be treated differently than home run hitters and there will be just enough slack cut by some voters for him to make it in. This is just a hunch on my part. And Clemens may be the only such pitcher to be caught up in this debate as I expect the legitimate pitching candidates to be few and far between over the next fifteen years. He has soooo many wins and strikeouts and therefore too many to ignore. And in an odd twist, the same voters will be able to ignore the home runs. That MAKES NO SENSE, but when has the voting been really predictable?

[mwiggins]

The case for Blyleven usually comes back to his career shutouts and strikeouts. And it's a good argument. when you consider that they came over 22 years it kind of waters it down. He only average 5.4 K's per start and 6.7 per 9 innings. Both good, but not great. Same with the Shutouts. 2.73 per year is very good, but I don't think it's enough to make him a sure thing HOFer.

Yet those rates compare very well to Hall of Fame pitchers from his era.

Seaver: 6.8 K/9, 3.05 Shutouts/season
Palmer: 5.0 K/9, 2.79 Shutouts/season
Carlton: 7.1 K/9, 2.29 Shutouts/season
Jenkins: 6.4 K/9, 2.58 Shutouts/season
Ryan: 9.5 K/9, 2.26 Shutouts/season
Perry: 5.9 K/9, 2.41 Shutouts/season
Sutton: 6.1 K/9, 2.52 Shutouts/season
Hunter: 5.2 K/9, 2.80 Shutouts/season
Niekro: 5.6 K/9, 1.88 Shutouts/season

So, of those Hall of Famers, he's 3rd in K/9 and 4th in Shutouts/season.

[Ace Venom]

I do agree that Andre Dawson should go into the Hall of Fame. He probably would be in by now if he walked more because his .323 OBP has been used against him a lot.

[BigandUgly]

JDD-I love the comparison to Glavine. They are both the same kind of pitcher. They showed up and did their job without flash, flare and negative headlines.

I believe Glavine will get in, likely on his first vote. His 300 wins will be enough to do that. I think when you look at everything Glavine does look like a better HOF candidate though.

10 All Star Appearences, a Cy Young award (two second place and two third place finishes), 5 20 win seasons puts him on a higher level than Blyleven. He was at the top of his position for several years. The guy even won 4 Silver Slugger Awards (although this award for pitchers is crap).

Glavines post season numbers are actually better than his regualr season number. He was unfortunate to play on teams that didn't do well in the playoffs. His post-season ERA and WHIP were lower and his K/9 was higher in the post season.

I think the extra innings that Blyleven pitched were because the game was different in Blyleven's career. Teams started to depend on bullpens more in the 90's. I'd love to see Blyleven's stats if he pitched 1987-2008.

I would rather have Glavine on my team than Blyleven.

[BigandUgly]

Yet those rates compare very well to Hall of Fame pitchers from his era.

Seaver: 6.8 K/9, 3.05 Shutouts/season
Palmer: 5.0 K/9, 2.79 Shutouts/season
Carlton: 7.1 K/9, 2.29 Shutouts/season
Jenkins: 6.4 K/9, 2.58 Shutouts/season
Ryan: 9.5 K/9, 2.26 Shutouts/season
Perry: 5.9 K/9, 2.41 Shutouts/season
Sutton: 6.1 K/9, 2.52 Shutouts/season
Hunter: 5.2 K/9, 2.80 Shutouts/season
Niekro: 5.6 K/9, 1.88 Shutouts/season

So, of those Hall of Famers, he's 3rd in K/9 and 4th in Shutouts/season.

Again, good, but not enough to convince me he should be in. And for the record there is not one pitcher on your list that I wouldn't take over Blyleven.

[Ace Venom]

I wouldn't take either of them right now because I don't think that fastball would get anyone now. :D I really don't know how you get the idea that getting 60 shutouts over a 22 year career diminishes that number. Nolan Ryan had a 27 year career and only got one more shutout than Blyleven. It is not the easiest stat to compile. Warren Spahn, the winningest pitcher of the live ball era only has three more shutouts than Blyleven.

[BigandUgly]

Don't get me wrong. The shutouts are VERY impressive. some are amazing. 9 in a year had some wow to it. 5 at the age of 38 is crazy. It's just not enough for me to think he belongs in the Hall.

[mwiggins]

Again, good, but not enough to convince me he should be in. And for the record there is not one pitcher on your list that I wouldn't take over Blyleven.

Then I can see why you don't want him in.

[BigandUgly]

Some players you look at and they scream Hall of Fame. Some, like Blyleven make you think he could get in. I think Blyleven will get in, I just don't think he should.

[Ace Venom]

I can see it now too. I don't see why Blyleven getting to 300 wins would have made him a better pitcher than he was, which is where I scratch my head when people talk about Tom Glavine. If Glavine had pitched for any other team than the Braves during the 1990's, he might never have gotten to 300 wins (Maddux would have never gotten to 350, but that's another conversation). If Blyleven was with the Yankees during their late-70's run, there's no question that he would have 300+ wins and likely would already be in.

[BigandUgly]

If you were to look at Hunter, Perry or Neikro and ignored the 300 wins would you vote them in or out?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Again, good, but not enough to convince me he should be in. And for the record there is not one pitcher on your list that I wouldn't take over Blyleven.

You're being fair about it, at least. Considering you're practically being ganged up on (I'm in the gang) you get credit for that.

In a couple years, this forum could be awfully quiet since both Blyleven and Santo have decent shots to get elected in the very near future. Whenever someone says they don't think either are HOF'ers, here comes the rush.

Blyleven may be whining, but he has plenty or eventually elected role models in that respect. Mostly by the VC.

[jalbright]

If you were to look at Hunter, Perry or Neikro and ignored the 300 wins would you vote them in or out?

Uh, Hunter had 224 wins.:lookitup

[Ace Venom]

If you were to look at Hunter, Perry or Neikro and ignored the 300 wins would you vote them in or out?

Here's how I would vote:
Gaylord Perry - In
Catfish Hunter - In (224 wins, but he belongs imho just like another guy named Curt Schilling who only has 216 wins)
Phil Neikro - In

[Captain Cold Nose]

If you were to look at Hunter, Perry or Neikro and ignored the 300 wins would you vote them in or out?

Hunter didn't clear 200 by much. He did not reach 300. And he has plenty of detractors on this site. Fergie Jenkins got in with less than 300. Less wins, less k's, a felony conviction, and he had to wait for three years.

Perry and Niekro very much belong regardless of 300 wins. Sutton, maybe not.

[BigandUgly]

Uh, Hunter had 224 wins.:lookitup


Ok, bad example. My point was going to be that I'm not real high on any of them, but I think Blyleven is a little below them. I think they are on the lower level of who should get in and Blyleven is a small step below them.

[Ace Venom]

Perry and Niekro very much belong regardless of 300 wins. Sutton, maybe not.

Perry, Niekro and Sutton cleared 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts. That's a pretty exclusive club.

[BigandUgly]

Probably my biggest downfall on this subject is that I have unreasonable expectations. When I think of the Hall of Fame I want to feel like that twelve year old kid looking at the larger than life players. I think the standards of some inductions have been too low. We need a higher bar going forward. Just because player X is in and player Y is just as good doesn't mean player Y should get in if player X should not have been elected to begin with.

By the way, even though I'm getting beat up a little this has been one of the most enjoyable conversations I've had on a discussion board in a long time. Thanks everyone.

[mwiggins]

If you were to look at Hunter, Perry or Neikro and ignored the 300 wins would you vote them in or out?

Hunter - in
Perry - out
Niekro - in

And I would rank Bert above all three of those guys.

[BigandUgly]

Now if I could only get you guys fighting for Dale Murphy :-)

[Captain Cold Nose]

Now if I could only get you guys fighting for Dale Murphy :-)

He deserves a look, for sure. One of my favorites.

[Ace Venom]

If we're going to talk about the unworthy players elected when Frankie Frisch ran things, we'd have a conversation. It's probably one of the reasons that the bar is being set so high. People talk about the "Hall of Very Good" as an excuse, but having Phil Rizzuto in as a player doesn't scream "Hall of Very Good." If you were talking about Ron Guidry being in would make it the Hall of Very Good, then you've got a selling point.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Perry, Niekro and Sutton cleared 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts. That's a pretty exclusive club.

I think Sutton is ultimately deserving, he was a very good pitcher for a very long time, which is great it and of itself. But he's a step behind the other two.

[Ace Venom]

I can't disagree with you on the sentiments with Sutton. I think Sutton would have eventually gotten in without 300 wins.

[BigandUgly]

If we're going to talk about the unworthy players elected when Frankie Frisch ran things, we'd have a conversation. It's probably one of the reasons that the bar is being set so high. People talk about the "Hall of Very Good" as an excuse, but having Phil Rizzuto in as a player doesn't scream "Hall of Very Good." If you were talking about Ron Guidry being in would make it the Hall of Very Good, then you've got a selling point.

That's one of the points that I'm (unsuccessfully) trying to make. Phil Rizzuto should not be in the Hall as a player. It leads to the thought that if a player is better than him than he should get in. We're not going to pull players out of the Hall, but when can make things better going forward.

By the way, I do think Rizzuto should be in the Hall because of his contribution to baseball both on and off the field, just not as a player.

I loved watching Guidry play, but it was correct to leave him out of the Hall.

[Cougar]

JDD-I love the comparison to Glavine. They are both the same kind of pitcher. They showed up and did their job without flash, flare and negative headlines.

I believe Glavine will get in, likely on his first vote. His 300 wins will be enough to do that. I think when you look at everything Glavine does look like a better HOF candidate though.

10 All Star Appearences, a Cy Young award (two second place and two third place finishes), 5 20 win seasons puts him on a higher level than Blyleven. He was at the top of his position for several years. The guy even won 4 Silver Slugger Awards (although this award for pitchers is crap).

Glavines post season numbers are actually better than his regualr season number. He was unfortunate to play on teams that didn't do well in the playoffs. His post-season ERA and WHIP were lower and his K/9 was higher in the post season.

I think the extra innings that Blyleven pitched were because the game was different in Blyleven's career. Teams started to depend on bullpens more in the 90's. I'd love to see Blyleven's stats if he pitched 1987-2008.

I would rather have Glavine on my team than Blyleven.

Important Correction: Glavine won TWO Cy Young Awards!

[Brad Harris]

Blyleven and Ryan were contemporaries; they both pitched from 1970-1990, 1992. According to BP's WARP3 numbers Blyleven outperformed Ryan in 12 of those 22 seasons. Furthermore, Blyleven eclipsed Ryan's best year single season performance three times. In fact, Blyleven bests Ryan on career WARP3 also, in spite of Ryan pitching five more seasons than Bert.

Yet Ryan gets voted to the All-Century Team and Blyleven can't buy his way into the Hall of Fame.

[mwiggins]

I think Sutton is ultimately deserving, he was a very good pitcher for a very long time, which is great it and of itself. But he's a step behind the other two.

And he did have some legitimately dominant years like 1972, 1973, & 1980 where he was a great pitcher.

[Cougar]

Now if I could only get you guys fighting for Dale Murphy :-)

I'm with you!!! Murphy's vote totals are a travishamockery! The guy is one of the top dozen CF of all time.

[Brad Harris]

I'm with you!!! Murphy's vote totals are a travishamockery! The guy is one of the top dozen CF of all time.

Barely. ;) But true.

[BigandUgly]

Blyleven and Ryan were contemporaries; they both pitched from 1970-1990, 1992. According to BP's WARP3 numbers Blyleven outperformed Ryan in 12 of those 22 seasons. Furthermore, Blyleven eclipsed Ryan's best year single season performance three times. In fact, Blyleven bests Ryan on career WARP3 also, in spite of Ryan pitching five more seasons than Bert.

Yet Ryan gets voted to the All-Century Team and Blyleven can't buy his way into the Hall of Fame.

Dispite the walks and wild pitches Ryan had the Wow factor. Over a strikeout per inning. The lowest hits per 9 innings ever. What did he have, something like 107* no-hitters? I think you could argue that he was one of the most difficult pitchers to hit against ever. He belongs in the Hall. Very little debate on this one.

(7 no-hitters, 12 1-hitters).

[Brad Harris]

Dispite the walks and wild pitches Ryan had the Wow factor. Over a strikeout per inning. The lowest hits per 9 innings ever. What did he have, something like 107* no-hitters? I think you could argue that he was one of the most difficult pitchers to hit against ever. He belongs in the Hall. Very little debate on this one.

(7 no-hitters, 12 1-hitters).

Scrapping judicious consideration of the evidence in favor of the "Wow factor" is just another sign of the suicide of civilization.

[Cougar]

I'm willing to give some weight to the "Wow" factor. Just not all of it.

[BigandUgly]

I'm with you!!! Murphy's vote totals are a travishamockery! The guy is one of the top dozen CF of all time.

I have to admit to being partial on this one. I caught a Dale Murphy Homerun ball at Shea when I was a kid and was hooked for life.

I think you could use the Sandy Koufax argument for Murphy. Koufax had 5 years where he was simply the best. I don't think many people will argue that too seriously. The rest of his career was pretty "eh." His 5 great years was enough to put him in. Also, he left the game on top. Didn't have the old, downfall years. He's in despite having a short career and not hitting all the traditional milestones.

Murphy had 5 years where he was on top. Would Murphy have made the Hall if he retired after the 1987 season? I'm torn. I'd LOVE to see Murphy get in but I don't think it will happen until he gets in front of the Veteran's commitee.

[BigandUgly]

Scrapping judicious consideration of the evidence in favor of the "Wow factor" is just another sign of the suicide of civilization.

what is the judicious consideration of keeping Ryan out?

[Brad Harris]

what is the judicious consideration of keeping Ryan out?

I've never said that Ryan doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My point is that Blyleven was essentially just as good a pitcher as Ryan was. The "Wow factor" is what put Ryan in and keeps Blyleven out and it's a crock.

[BigandUgly]

I don't believe that Blyleven was as good of a pitcher as Ryan. I don't believe in WARP totals unless someone can tell me how it's calculated.

[Ace Venom]

That's where you'd have to take a trip to the statistics forum. WARP stands for wins above replacement player. They have pretty good explanations about that stuff over there and I don't want to derail the thread.

[BigandUgly]

I understand what it stands for. There is just no way to calculate it and have it mean anything.

[Senor Octobre]

Hold the phone - did I just read, in two separate posts, that "Catfish" Hunter DESERVES to be in the HOF??? Good grief... :ughh

[jalbright]

Hold the phone - did I just read, in two separate posts, that "Catfish" Hunter DESERVES to be in the HOF??? Good grief... :ughh

You did, but I am in full agreement with you--despite the fact I generally give the benefit of the doubt to guys inducted by the writers.

[jjpm74]

I've never said that Ryan doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My point is that Blyleven was essentially just as good a pitcher as Ryan was. The "Wow factor" is what put Ryan in and keeps Blyleven out and it's a crock.

Does "fame factor" or "media darling vs. media outcast" have a better ring to it? :hide:

[Brad Harris]

Does "fame factor" or "media darling vs. media outcast" have a better ring to it? :hide:
A man's reputation with his fans does not equate into better performance on the field, which ought to be the primary (if not the only) concern where judging Hall candidates is concerned.

[jjpm74]

A man's reputation with his fans does not equate into better performance on the field, which ought to be the primary (if not the only) concern where judging Hall candidates is concerned.

I agree, but we're talking about a huge political bureaucracy here. The BBWAA are comprised of the same people Ryan wooed and Blyleven eschewed for much of their careers. That's why Ryan cruised in and Blyleven languishes. Like it or not, a player's ability to ham it up for the media playes a role in how they do in the HOF voting. That's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

[Cougar]

It looks like one of the weaker HOF classes is coming up. I don't see anyone that I think is "automatic." Of the eligible players who do you think will be enshrined?

*Alomar, Roberto: 12 All-star games, 10 Gold gloves (most ever by a second baseman), 2724 hits, over 1500 runds scored. Every modern major leaguer that has earned 12 All-Star appearences or scored 1500 runs (except for Pete Rose) is either in the Hall or under consideration this year.

Appier, Kevin

Ashby, Andy

Baines, Harold: 11 20 HR seasons

*Blyleven, Bert: 287 Wins, 10 15 win seasons. Received 62.7% of votes in 2009 (75% needed).

Burba, Dave

Burkes, Ellis: 352 HR

*Dawson, Andre: 438 HR. 8 gold gloves. 13 20 HR seasons. One of three players with 400 HR/300 SB (Barry Bonds & Willie Mays).

*Galarraga, Andres: 10 20 HR seasons, 398 HR. Fought cancer twice during his career. Where would his numbers be if he was healthy?

Hentgen, Pat: Cy Young in 1996. 5 consecutive complete games.

Jackson, Mike: One of 12 pitchers with over 1000 appearences.

Karros, Eric

Lankford, Ray

*Larkin, Barry: 12 All-Star appearences. See note under Alomar.

Martinez, Edgar: Great hitter. Didn't have big career numbers due to late start.

*Mattingly, Don: Consistent hitter that looked like a sure thing early. Chronic back ailments caused short career. 9 Gold gloves.

*McGriff, Fred: 493 HR. Hit 20 or more HR 15 times, 30 or more 10 times. 8 100+ RBI seasons.

*McGwire, Mark: Does he really need to be discussed?

McLemore, Mark

*Morris, Jack: 254 Wins, 4 World Series titles. 12 15 win seasons. 3 20 win seasons. I can't think of any modern 250 winners that are not in the Hall. Anyone? (Edit - Tommy John).

*Murphy, Dale: MVP in 1982 and 1983. 398 career HR. 12 20 HR seasons. 6 30 HR seasons. 7 time AS, 5 time Gold Glove. Always known as a clean, no-drug, no-alcohol player. Might get extra votes due to PED in media.

*Parker, Dave: 1978 MVP, 7 All Star appearences, 3 Gold Gloves. Admission of drug use may hurt chances.

*Raines, Tim: 808 stolen Bases, 50 or more steals 8 times. 1571 runs (see note under Alomar). Biggest downfall is that he played many years in small market and was over shadowed by Ricky Henderson.

Reynolds, Shane

Segui, David

*Smith, Lee: All time saves leader until 2006. 7 time All Star, 30 or more saves 10 times, 40 or more 3 times. Most games finished with 802.

Trammell, Alan: 6 time All-Star, 4 Gold Glove.

Ventura, Robin: 9 20 HR seasons, 2 30 HR seasons. 6 Gold Gloves. 18 Grand Slams is 4th all-time.

Vina, Fernando

Zeile, Todd: Played for 11 teams in 15 seasons.

The players marked with a "*" are the ones that I think have a chance to someday get into the Hall of Fame.

I think this is the year for Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson. Both have been close in the past. The lack of competition may help them. My gut says that Fred McGriff will get in this year too. 493 isn't 500, but it sure is close.

My heart says Dale Murphy should get in, but I don't think it will happen. His numbers dropped off too quickly when he aged. I think he'll get in when the players can vote on him. I don't see anyone that played with him denying his ability.

What do you think?

Alomar and Larkin are clearly qualified, although one never knows whom the BBWAA will make wait a year or two.

Dawson and Blyleven have served their time on the ballot. There's rapid momentum for Hawk, more of a simmer for Bert. Both could make it: Dawson is more likely.

Murphy should get more support, but doesn't. I wonder if he'll surge after Dawson gets in; maybe the BBWAA just has a pecking order for slugging outfielders.

I think Parker is in that queue too, but he's being demerited for the years lost to cocaine. Absent that (and the long term effects thereafter), he probably would have had 3000 hits and would have sailed in.

Raines, of course, belongs, but suffers from the comparison to Henderson. It'll take a few years for the voters to come to their senses.

Perhaps no one's HOF case was hurt more by the 1994 strike than Fred McGriff. He was having his career season, and almost certainly would have cleared 500 home runs but for the stoppage. Regardless, he belongs in the Hall.

Trammell's qualifications/value are nearly indistinguishable from Larkin's. Biggest difference is that Larkin got his MVP while Trammell was utterly robbed of his by the worst season of awards voting ever. (Ozzie Smith was robbed in the NL too).

Edgar Martinez would be in easily but that he was a DH. That'll keep him from going in first ballot for sure. He should get in eventually.

Harold Baines -- career stats would probably get him close if he'd played the field. As a primary DH...he's probably going to be the guy with the most RBI not in the HOF, the most hits not in the HOF,...

Lee Smith -- He's not just the saves...he was truly very good for a long time. But, the fact that he's now #3 all time rather than #1 in saves hurts his argument (in a silly way, if you ask me). The standards for relievers are still pretty undefined.

Several first basemen:

McGwire...clearly qualified, except for the PEDs. Tired of talking about PEDs.

Galarraga -- Coors Field and Mile High helped, a lot, but Big Cat was a fine player on the road and in his Montreal and Atlanta incarnations too. The question is, was he a great player who happened to play in Colorado (Walker, Helton), or was he a Coors Field creation (Bichette, Castilla). I'm very much inclined towards the former.

Mattingly -- People say his career was too short, his peak was too short, he didn't walk enough...all I know is that Mattingly was the premier batsman in baseball in the mid 1980's, that he was comparable to Hernandez with the glove (even in the lean years), that he still got over 2000 hits with a >.300 BA...the guy just belongs in the HOF.

Hard cases:

Burks: One of the quietest 350 HR in history. His career year was as a Colorado Rockie...uh oh. A very good player for a long time...probably HOF talent...rarely 100% healthy. From where Burks is in the HOF queue, he can't even see Murphy and Dawson from there. The HOF would need to get a lot bigger.

Ventura -- Very solid player...sneaky great. Wonderful glove man, clutch power (as evidenced by the grand slams). Standards at third base are very murky, but there's probably at least a half dozen hot cornermen ahead of him in line.

Morris -- Biggest winner of the 80's. Yeah, that's a lousy argument, but it's an argument. How'd he do it? Was lucky with his teammates, but also took the ball, every time, and ate innings with above average pitching. That's pretty cool if you can do it for close to two decades, as Morris did. Obviously a fierce competitor and a guy with a reputation for coming through in the clutch. (That's been picked apart, but at the very least it's what people thought at the time, even before the Minnesota tour de force against Smoltz.) Is he the best pitcher not in the HOF? No; he's not even in the top 5. Is he HOF worthy? Maybe...

Don't think I've missed anyone plausible...maybe Appier, but you've really got to be a sabermetric contortionist to make a case for him, and I don't really buy it myself.

[baseball junkie]

Blyleven, Alomar and perhap Larkin are likely to be elected.

[Los Bravos]

Cougar has already written pretty much everything I would have.

[Seattle1]

Blyleven, Alomar and perhap Larkin are likely to be elected.

It would be good if Edgar Martinez were elected too.

:twocents:

[Cougar]

Cougar has already written pretty much everything I would have.

Thanks, LB!

[Brad Harris]

Andre Dawson - steady upswing on his vote totals, last year's 67%/361 votes were highs for him. None of the newly eligible outfielders (Burks, Lankford, etc.) are going to steal votes from Dawson and, as the top vote-getter among returning candidates, there will be a push for his election on this ballot.

Bert Blyleven - similar to Dawson's rise, if over a longer period of eligibility. Blyleven has three elections left and he has about as much popular support online as any candidate, far more than the "Elect Jim Rice" crowd. Next year, Kevin Brown debuts on the ballot, so Blyleven really needs to get bumped up quite a bit more this year.

Lee Smith - Although John Franco is the only reliever becoming eligible (2011) until Smith's eligibility nearly runs out (when Hoffman and Rivera will probably debut), the flood of strong starting pitchers beginning in 2013 and the quality of the overall candidates beginning with this year's crop of freshmen, will serve to keep Smith's percentages down. Extremely doubtful that he cracks the fifty-percent barrier this year.

Jack Morris - Morris won't be elected by the BBWAA. His percentages will only go up in years with no direct comps among starters. The next three years will see Blyleven > Morris arguments keep him down. Next year will see Kevin Brown debut. In 2013, it's Clemens, Schilling and Wells. The following year are Maddux, Martinez, Mussina, Glavine and Rogers. For Morris to get elected, he has to leap into the 50-60% range this year and move up before 2013; it won't happen.

Tim Raines - Raines is as likely to steadily climb over the next several elections as he is to drop into a perpetual Under-20 group of solid supporters. It's going to be difficult to pit a 1980's leadoff hitter against the 1990's power hitters that are going to be debuting on a regular basis. Sadly, I think he's doomed to the latter outcome, in spite of his worthiness.

Mark McGwire - Could upsurge as more PED candidates (Palmeiro in '11, Bonds and Sosa in '13) surface on the ballot. Not optimistic about the voters having a change of heart.

Alan Trammell - Since Concepcion dropped off the ballot, Trammell seems to have picked up a vote votes, but with middle infielders Alomar and Larkin showing up this year, that trend isn't likely to continue. Larkin's election may be followed by an upward tick in Trammell's support until his eligibility ends, but he's unlikely to ever garner as much as a quarter of the votes.

Dave Parker - Eligibility ends in a couple years. Will probably not drop below five percent before then, but will certainly lose votes due to the crowding of 1B/COF types. Consider: McGriff, Martinez, Galarraga this year; Palmeiro, Bagwell, Walker, Olerud, Gonzalez, next year.

Don Mattingly - Will be interesting to see how voters rate him in direct competition against newcomers Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez. Chances are Mattingly will drop off the ballot before his eligibility period ends.

Dale Murphy - Similar issues to Parker, though there's no center fielder to challenge him debuting until Bernie Williams in 2012. That comp will make Murphy look good so, like Parker, he stands a decent chance of sticking on the ballot until his 15 years are up.

Harold Baines - Gone this year and good riddance. How this joker stayed on the ballot longer than Albert Belle, Will Clark and other more deserving names over the past three years is beyond me.

Roberto Alomar - Best chance of any newcomer to get elected. Top ten all-time second baseman.

Barry Larkin - This top-ten all-time shortstop will probably have the same election path that Ryne Sandberg took. Will be interesting to see, with Larkin and Trammell on the same ballot, which candidate the comp helps/hurts.

Fred McGriff - Just shy of 500 home runs. Will voters smile more at McGriff's career or Mattingly's peak. Could debut anywhere from 10-50 percent. A real question mark.

Edgar Martinez - One of the top 50 batters in baseball history. How strong is the DH prejudice? My guess is that Edgar debuts between 25-35%. Could be the most controversial candidate of the season for voters who publish their ballots.

Andres Galarraga, Ellis Burks, Robin Ventura, et al. - None are going to garner the necessary 5 percent to remain on the ballot. Ventura is the most "worthy" candidate of the leftovers, being much closer to a top 20 player at his position than anyone else.

Summary
Likely Inductees - Alomar, Dawson
Also Runs - Blyleven, Larkin
Significant Support - McGriff, Smith, Morris, Martinez
Hovering - Raines, McGwire, Trammell
Dangerously Low - Parker, Mattingly, Murphy
Gone - Baines and all other freshmen

[Brad Harris]

For your consideration.....


Holdovers from 2009, by Vote Percentage
67% Andre Dawson
62% Bert Blyelven
44% Lee Smith
44% Jack Morris
22% Raines
21% Mark McGwire
17% Alan Trammell
15% Dave Parker
11% Don Mattingly
11% Dale Murphy
5% Harold Baines


Holders from 2009, by order of Eligibility Expiration (15th Year on Ballot)
2011 Dave Parker
2012 Bert Blyleven
2013 Dale Murphy
2014 Jack Morris
2015 Don Mattingly
2016 Andre Dawson, Alan Trammell
2017 Lee Smith
2021 Harold Baines, Mark McGwire
2022 Tim Raines


Prominent Newcomers in Future Elections
2010 - Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff
2011 - Jeff Bagwell, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Larry Walker
2012 - Bernie Williams
2013 - Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Kenny Lofton, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Curt Schilling, David Wells
2014 - Jim Edmonds, Tom Glavine, Luis Gonzalez, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Frank Thomas

[brett]

Larkin, Raines, Blylevin and Alomar should be in the hall of fame based on their value.

I sure hope the voters eventually get it right on those 4. Other than that, I don't need to see any of the others get in, but Dawson would be OK. He was a great centerfielder for his first 5-7 seasons.

[538280]

I was listening to the radio about a week ago and they were talking about the 2010 HOF ballot and mentioned some names, the name Barry Larkin came up and all of the radio hosts simply tossed his name aside as someone with no shot. IMO anyone who thinks Barry Larkin isn't a HOFer just doesn't have the inclination to look at anything beyond what their first impression may be. Larkin had a pretty long career, over 2000 games, he was a great baserunner/stealer, he was good at getting on base, had some power, 116 OPS+, many very good peak hittting seasons, he stacks up extremely well as a hitter among shortstops historically. There's no reason at all he shouldn't be a HOFer. If he doesn't get in he'll go right with Raines IMO as the best player not in.

Roberto Alomar should also be an easy selection, I have much more hope on him getting in than Larkin just because for some reason he seems to get more respect, not sure why really. Larkin and Alomar really are probably about the same in terms of value, if Larkin was more durable in season he'd be better. These are the guys I'd vote for;

Alomar
Larkin
Raines
Blyleven
McGwire
Trammell
Martinez
Parker
McGriff

Parker and McGriff to me are close, Larkin, Alomar, and Martinez are new, and the other guys (Raines, Blylven, Trammell) I think haven't been in due to ignorance of the voters. McGwire is a different issue obviously but I would vote for him.

[Los Bravos]

I'm not going to predict this, as such, but it will not surprise me one little bit if Kevin Brown is one and done. If a writer-friendly guy with no taint like David Cone is out after one year, this guy might just follow him.

[Brad Harris]

I'm not going to predict this, as such, but it will not surprise me one little bit if Kevin Brown is one and done. If a writer-friendly guy with no taint like David Cone is out after one year, this guy might just follow him.

I tend to agree. I think it's sad that guys like Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, etc. are one-and-done with this group of voters when Jack Morris (who wasn't as good as any of them) is garnering 40%+ support.

[Cougar]

I'm not going to predict this, as such, but it will not surprise me one little bit if Kevin Brown is one and done. If a writer-friendly guy with no taint like David Cone is out after one year, this guy might just follow him.

I'll predict it...Kevin Brown is one and done.

Writers hated him, teammates hated him, and he was named in the Mitchell Report.

If people are saying that Clemens won't make it, what popsicle's chance in Hades does Kevin Brown have?