2010 Baseball HOF Voting Results

[Sun Tzu]

McGwire gets F'ed in the A again. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already 20+ "juicers" in the HOF already. This whole thing is completely backwards. I don't pay attention to anything but the games on the field anymore.

[rowech]

My thoughts...

Dawson isn't a hall of famer...good player, nice guy, could have been more but the key words are could have been. Same goes for Mattingly.

Edgar Martinez...how in the world do people think this guy is a hall-of-famer? He isn't even close. If all you're going to do is be a DH and not play the field you better put up some insane numbers and he doesn't have anything close.

Alomar over Morgan? A lot closer than people think but I'd still take Morgan. Alomar put his numbers up in an era where steroids were rampant and I have no problem believing he used them. He was in Baltimore at the same time Palmeiro was and that spitting incident screams of Roid rage.

The HOF has become a joke...these writers want to act as if they are moral leaders instead of writers who are judging the game's greatest players. Steroids happened, they need to get over it. That said, they need to adjust their thinking for that era unfortunately. It's sad that a guy like Fred McGriff, who I believe was clean most, if not all of his career as opposed to some others, is going to get shafted because he played with these guys. In a different time, McGriff would be a no-brainer.

As for Dawson getting in, well...somebody needs to take a look at Dave Parker's stats and explain to me how in the world Dawson's numbers are better...especially 45% voting record better. Vada Pinson not getting in is extremely unfortunate now as well.

I wonder how much tv the growth of TV exposure for baseball in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, plays into so many more of these guys getting in. Before, you saw a guy only when he rolled into town to play your home team. Now? Flip on a channel and see them. You learn to like more players and in the end, a lot of these guys get support. How much of Blyleven's support is because of the internet and all the info out there? 20 years ago, there would be no way he would be getting in but now we have all kinds of stuff to look at, discuss, etc.

Times have changed and the HOF voting needs to as well.

1st vote -- I have no trouble accepting certain guys get in on the 1st ballot compared to others.

2nd vote -- if you don't make it, the next time you're up is in year 5.

3rd vote -- crucial moment in the year five vote. If you don't get at least 50% you're gone for good. If you get 50% but don't get in, you get one last chance in year 10.

4th vote -- if you still don't have it, then you don't get in...just the way it goes.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I wanna know what 2 people voted for Erik Karros.

ERIC KARROS HIT A HOMERUN IN HIS FIRST START OF HIS ROY SEASON! THAT'S CLUTCH!

[DanGarion]

Here we go!

The Hall of Very Good

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Edgar Martinez...how in the world do people think this guy is a hall-of-famer? He isn't even close. If all you're going to do is be a DH and not play the field you better put up some insane numbers and he doesn't have anything close.

A career line of .312/.418/.515 doesn't qualify as "insane"? Only 20 players in history have a career line of .300+/.400+/.500+; 12 of those are Hall of Fame eligible, and 11 of those 12 have been enshrined (Lefty O'Doul is the only one who hasn't).

A career OPS+ of 147 doesn't qualify as "insane"? That's 43rd on the all-time list (there are 292 players in the Hall of Fame, 230 of which are hitters).

It'd be one thing to say he's a borderline candidate - his career wasn't as long as it could've been (though that's mostly the fault of inept Mariner's management in the '80's who didn't call him up when he was clearly ready and didn't give him a full-time job soon enough). And I get that people are biased against the DH, but a few points on that:

- For everyone that says "a DH doesn't contribute anything on the field" - well, that's true, but they're also not costing their team anything by being a bad fielder
- The DH is a legit position in the AL, so I don't think it's fair to disqualify someone simply for being primarily a DH
- Edgar was clearly enough of a hitter that he would've played 1B for an NL team, and for the M's too if they didn't have other decent options, and he probably would've been OK - he was a pretty good 3B when he played the field earlier in his career
- While the DH is kind of a specialty position, so is a RP, and a number of them have already been enshrined - why not the best DH?
- Paul Molitor had a longer career than Edgar and thus more counting totals, but he wasn't as a hitter, and he likely wouldn't have gotten into the Hall had he not been able to extend his career by 8 years by playing DH

[jbergey22]

I dont understand why it would even take 4 ballots. IMO you are either a HOF'er or you arent. I am guessing some voters didnt think he was first ballot worthy which is just silly to me.

Im not sure about all of you but I dont pay much attention to what ballot they were finally elected in and I certainly dont judge how I feel about a player according to what these clowns we call sportswriters think.

Its kind of like these sportswriters think they are intelligent enough to decide for everyone how a player rates among the all time greats.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by path12

Edgar will get there eventually. It's going to take a few years to get over the DH thing.

He is my favorite player. But I don't think that carries a whole lot of weight.

I don't think he gets in. I know that I would not vote for him. In terms of votes 31% in your first year is a big challenge to over come. we shall see over the next two years if he really becomes a legitamite candidate.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

A career line of .312/.418/.515 doesn't qualify as "insane"? Only 20 players in history have a career line of .300+/.400+/.500+; 12 of those are Hall of Fame eligible, and 11 of those 12 have been enshrined (Lefty O'Doul is the only one who hasn't).

A career OPS+ of 147 doesn't qualify as "insane"? That's 43rd on the all-time list (there are 292 players in the Hall of Fame, 230 of which are hitters).

I change my feeling on Edgar quite often.

He was one of the best right handed hitters to play the game in the past 50 years and he was as big of a threat in that loaded Mariner lineup as Griffey or ARod was. He was also as good as Kirby Puckett(HOF'er) as a hitter.

I wish he would have played 2 more years than he was certain IMO. Voters tend to put too much stock in overall stats and not enough in peak years.

I have used the DH argument to say maybe he wasnt deserving but you make some great points in response to that.

[rowech]

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns? And this is a HOFer? Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s. Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.

[ntndeacon]

Even though I do disagree with the folks that the BBWAA put in the hall, they do get it right most of the time. I was not a big Jim Rice guy, but that might be cuz I a,m a NL boy. The Hawk was a borderline guy I think.

That being said, I believe there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of years eligible. I do wish that broadcasters were given at least some sort of role in the process. I am also looking forward to both Blyleven and Alomar getting in the Hall soon.

Some of the names that had been brought up belong no where near the Hall as far as I am concerned... Parker and Murphy should not get in. I think Walker might have a case, but Ineed to look at his numbers.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by rowech

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns? And this is a HOFer? Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s. Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.

So you dont count his 1400 walks?3
His career OBS+ is 147. His career batting average is 312. He had over 500 doubles and 300 homers.

His 1995-2000 seasons were as good any 6 year span in recent history. Im not sure how you can argue with him as a hitter.

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Because his career wasnt long doesnt make him a non-HOF'er IMO. If he had played 2 more seasons and hit .220 with 10 homers in 600 At Bats. Does he then become a Hall of Famer?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

Even though I do disagree with the folks that the BBWAA put in the hall, they do get it right most of the time. I was not a big Jim Rice guy, but that might be cuz I a,m a NL boy. The Hawk was a borderline guy I think.

That being said, I believe there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of years eligible. I do wish that broadcasters were given at least some sort of role in the process. I am also looking forward to both Blyleven and Alomar getting in the Hall soon.

Some of the names that had been brought up belong no where near the Hall as far as I am concerned... Parker and Murphy should not get in. I think Walker might have a case, but Ineed to look at his numbers.

Based on the shit I've heard from broadcasters over the years I want them as far away from any award/HoF voting as possible. I'll take the worst of the BWAA over the likes of Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver any day.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

So you dont count his 1400 walks?

His career OBS+ is 147. His career batting average is 312. He had over 500 doubles and 300 homers.

His 1995-2000 seasons were as good any 6 year span in recent history. Im not sure how you can argue with him as a hitter.

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

I don't argue with him as a hitter. I argue with him as a hall of famer.

[rowech]

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:

1. Will Clark (902)
2. Todd Helton (888)
3. John Olerud (885)
4. Moises Alou (879)
5. Bobby Abreu (862)
6. Bernie Williams (860)
7. Bob Johnson (857)
8. Paul O'Neill (852)
9. Ellis Burks (850)
10. Orlando Cepeda (840) *

I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by rowech

I don't argue with him as a hitter. I argue with him as a hall of famer.

Fair enough.

IMO if Andre Dawson and Jim Rice are Hall of Famers. Edgar Martinez certainly is.

Of course I wouldnt have Dawson and Rice in.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Fair enough.

IMO if Andre Dawson and Jim Rice are Hall of Famers. Edgar Martinez certainly is.

Of course I wouldnt have Dawson and Rice in.

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker. I really don't like Dawson in the HOF...I'm lukewarm on Rice. I think the scary trend is they let Rice in last year so now Dawson gets in. Now that Dawson gets in, someone like Dwight Evans or Harold Baines suddenly starts to say, wait a minute...I'm right there with this guy.

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.

[rowech]

One other question that is needing to be considered more and more...how long does a player's great period need to last? I think that has changed and is affecting how some guys get in. I think it used to be you really needed to be great for 12-15 seasons. (war years players excluded) Now, I think if you're great for 7-8 you're getting consideration.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by rowech

One other question that is needing to be considered more and more...how long does a player's great period need to last? I think that has changed and is affecting how some guys get in. I think it used to be you really needed to be great for 12-15 seasons. (war years players excluded) Now, I think if you're great for 7-8 you're getting consideration.

If the bar is set at 12-15 great seasons the HoF would have about 20 people in it. Probably less.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns?

If you think hits and HR's are the only important stats for a hitter, there's not much hope in convincing you. But perhaps you've heard of walks and doubles?

Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s.

Utter bullshit. He was a fantastic hitter - he would've been switched to 1B if DH were not an option.

Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.

You must think the Hall of Fame is filled with a huge number of undeserving players if that's the case.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:

1. Will Clark (902)
2. Todd Helton (888)
3. John Olerud (885)
4. Moises Alou (879)
5. Bobby Abreu (862)
6. Bernie Williams (860)
7. Bob Johnson (857)
8. Paul O'Neill (852)
9. Ellis Burks (850)
10. Orlando Cepeda (840) *

I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.

That's based off of counting stats. Not one of those players on that list has a higher OPS+ than Edgar (147). The closest is Helton at 140, and that's likely to decline as he ages.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You must think the Hall of Fame is filled with a huge number of undeserving players if that's the case.

I absolutely do.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns?

Also keep in mind that the M's didn't call him up until he was 24, and didn't hand him a full-time job until he was 27 - not because he wasn't worthy or ready, but because the M's at that time were idiots.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.

Jeebus, really? So you value the "fame" part over how good they actually were then?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by rowech

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker.

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

I wouldn't put Parker in...what I said was that now that they've put Dawson in, then there's no reason Parker shouldn't be in. I wouldn't have either.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Jeebus, really? So you value the "fame" part over how good they actually were then?

I said a part of me...I always end up looking at the guys...I've spent the last 15 minutes looking at Edgar to see if I'm missing something. His rate stats are outstanding and as you mentioned, his doubles and walks are what really help that. Great hitter but I just don't see him as a HOFer...as you said...my standards might be quite a bit higher than yours or others.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

As a matter of fact, it was Bill James that pointed all of this stuff in his Historical Baseball Abstract, so no. Because this is stuff that can be measured - it's just stuff that most fans don't spend a lot of time looking at.

Man, dawg, anyone ever tell ya you need to get a sense of humor? Sheesh...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by rowech

The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker. I really don't like Dawson in the HOF...I'm lukewarm on Rice. I think the scary trend is they let Rice in last year so now Dawson gets in. Now that Dawson gets in, someone like Dwight Evans or Harold Baines suddenly starts to say, wait a minute...I'm right there with this guy.

There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say.

Dwight Evans >> Harold Baines, IMO. Evans was a hell of a fielder, as opposed to a slug/DH. Evans is LONG gone from the ballot of course.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Dwight Evans >> Harold Baines, IMO. Evans was a hell of a fielder, as opposed to a slug/DH. Evans is LONG gone from the ballot of course.

Evans was better than Jim Rice. Considerably better when you factor in fielding.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Really Dave Parker over Edgar Martinez? Maybe I am missing something but Edgar was A LOT better.

You are missing quite a bit if you think Edgar Martinez was "A LOT" better than Dave Parker. You can make a reasonable argument that Martinez was better, but I think you can just as easily make the argument that Parker was a lot better when you consider his value as a rightfielder during his prime.

Parker finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting five times and won it once (and was runner up once). Martinez only finished in the top 5 once (w/ one 3rd place finish). Parker had significantly more hits and RBI and more HRs.

Parker was also on two World Series champions, won 3 gold gloves, and was a 7-time all-star, while Martinez never won a World Series (despite playing with 4 or 5 probable Hall of Famers, with all but Randy Johnson in the same lineup with him) and was also a 7-time all-star. Parker won 3 Silver Sluggers (even though it wasn't awarded until 1980 -- he likely would have won at least 3 more) as the best player at his position, while Martinez won "only" 5 over the course of his career. To me, that indicates that Martinez didn't exactly dominate the "position" of DH.

Once you factor in Parker's ability to play right field pretty well (he was well known for his arm) and consider the eras that the two played in, I think you can make a reasonable case that Parker, at his peak, was better than Martinez at his peak (based on MVP voting) and, based on their career lengths and numbers, that Parker had better career milestone numbers.

I'm not advocating that either should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if we are considering guys like Rice, Dawson, or Edgar Martinez, then Dave Parker (along with Tim Raines and Dale Murphy) are equally, if not more, deserving.

[Bad-example]

Some good stuff on Edgar Martinez in this article.

The Baseball Analysts: In Which a Baseball "Expert" Asserts Jack Morris Was Better Than Curt Schilling

I think he clearly belongs and should eventually make it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

You are missing quite a bit if you think Edgar Martinez was "A LOT" better than Dave Parker. You can make a reasonable argument that Martinez was better, but I think you can just as easily make the argument that Parker was a lot better when you consider his value as a rightfielder during his prime.

Parker finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting five times and won it once (and was runner up once). Martinez only finished in the top 5 once (w/ one 3rd place finish). Parker had significantly more hits and RBI and more HRs.

Parker was also on two World Series champions, won 3 gold gloves, and was a 7-time all-star, while Martinez never won a World Series (despite playing with 4 or 5 probable Hall of Famers, with all but Randy Johnson in the same lineup with him) and was also a 7-time all-star. Parker won 3 Silver Sluggers (even though it wasn't awarded until 1980 -- he likely would have won at least 3 more) as the best player at his position, while Martinez won "only" 5 over the course of his career. To me, that indicates that Martinez didn't exactly dominate the "position" of DH.

Once you factor in Parker's ability to play right field pretty well (he was well known for his arm) and consider the eras that the two played in, I think you can make a reasonable case that Parker, at his peak, was better than Martinez at his peak (based on MVP voting) and, based on their career lengths and numbers, that Parker had better career milestone numbers.

I'm not advocating that either should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if we are considering guys like Rice, Dawson, or Edgar Martinez, then Dave Parker (along with Tim Raines and Dale Murphy) are equally, if not more, deserving.

Come on Swaggs. You havent learned to not trust the voters in making smart decisions yet? They voted Palmeiro a gold glover despite playing 28 games at 1st base one year and 1 of them actually managed to find a way to give Miguel Cabrera a MVP vote this year despite getting in trouble the morning before their biggest series of the year.

Edgar has a career OPS+ of 147 while Parkers is at 121.

Parkers best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 149, 133, 145, 166, and 141 an average of 146.8 while Edgars best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 185, 166, 165, 158, and 152 for an average of 165.2.

Edgar was clearly a lot better hitter. OPS+ takes league average(era) and ballparks into its figures.

Now Parker did play defense but if you look at the links I just sent you in the fielding area/more stats and you look for rtot/yr(total fielding runs above average per 1250 innings) you will see that Parker actually cost the teams he was playing on an average of 1.4 runs per year by being a below average fielder. So because he was a below average fielder is that better than a DH that doesnt hurt the team defensively?

Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Dave Parker Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

[RainMaker]

I'm torn on Dawson. Part of me says he's a real good player from that era but not a Hall of Famer. The other says that for parts of his career, he was an elite player. I think part of being a Hall of Famer is that at some point in your career, you had to be one of the top players at your position (if not the best). That's why I don't believe guys like Palmeiro even without the steroid issue belong in. There was never a time where you looked at Palmeiro and said he's one of the best in the league. With Dawson, there was a time. He did virtually everything well and a lot of his prime was stolen by the unforgiving turf up in Montreal.

I used to be of the belief that the Hall should be very picky. I've changed over the years. I don't think it should be like the NFL, but it should be more inclusive. If there is a strong debate over a player like Dawson, then the player should get the benefit of the doubt.

I also think it's a travesty that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm torn on Dawson. Part of me says he's a real good player from that era but not a Hall of Famer. The other says that for parts of his career, he was an elite player. I think part of being a Hall of Famer is that at some point in your career, you had to be one of the top players at your position (if not the best). That's why I don't believe guys like Palmeiro even without the steroid issue belong in. There was never a time where you looked at Palmeiro and said he's one of the best in the league. With Dawson, there was a time. He did virtually everything well and a lot of his prime was stolen by the unforgiving turf up in Montreal.

I used to be of the belief that the Hall should be very picky. I've changed over the years. I don't think it should be like the NFL, but it should be more inclusive. If there is a strong debate over a player like Dawson, then the player should get the benefit of the doubt.

I also think it's a travesty that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame.

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rowech

Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:

1. Will Clark (902)
2. Todd Helton (888)
3. John Olerud (885)
4. Moises Alou (879)
5. Bobby Abreu (862)
6. Bernie Williams (860)
7. Bob Johnson (857)
8. Paul O'Neill (852)
9. Ellis Burks (850)
10. Orlando Cepeda (840) *

I consider all of those guys good to great players but none of them as hall of famers with the possible exception of Cepeda and I've never been 100% sold on him. It's very possible I just have higher standards than most.

Yeah, but with a peak similarity score of 902, you're talking about guys who aren't all that similar.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.

I think the steroid era helped Rice and Dawson a lot. I guess a lot of it is homerism and seeing him play in Chicago when I was growing up (my Dad actually had season tickets that he moronically got rid of). I also have a soft spot for guys who did multiple things well and didn't get the attention being in a small market. I contend that if Dawson had played in New York, he'd have been a Hall of Famer a long time ago.

Clark should have won the MVP that year but it was before OBP mattered to baseball guys. I still don't think it was a horrible pick as hitting 49 homers was a really rare feat. This was a time when 40 homers was a big deal. Clark also missed like 30 games that season. Dawson also did it with zero protection in that lineup.

[RainMaker]

Thought this was interesting about how bad some of the HOF voters are.

Presenting The Absolute Worst Hall Of Fame Voter - Bill Conlin - Deadspin

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite.

His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.

Actually, Rice was considered Elite when he was playing. When you went to see the Red Sox in the late 70s and early 80s, you didn't go to see Dewey Evans, Fisk or Lynn. You went to see Jim Rice. In fact, he seemed like pretty much a shoe-in by 1982-1983 for the HOF. What was amazing was how fast he tailed off after 1984-1985. But since he's in, let's move on...

As for some of the other guys mentioned:

Edgar Martinzez - Good stats, bordering on great ones. But I don't think he's a HOFer. I think if he had played in the field, he'd have a better shot. If I'm not convinced Moises Alou (.303 BA, 2134 hits, 421 doubles, 106 steals and 332 HRs in 17 seasons) should get in, then I'm really not sure I'm convinced that a DH who puts up similar stats (.312 BA, 2247 hits, 514 doubles, 49 steals and 309 HRs in 18 seasons) should get in. Heck, the late 80s and early 90s were so juiced that a guy like Ellis Burks put up similar stats (.291, 2107, 402, 181, 352)...and Burks doesn't get anywhere near the HoF without a ticket.

Alomar - In, next year. Keeping him out this year was punishment.

Jack Morris - Out, barely. He was a great pitcher at times with an excellent postseason record and the longevity, but that 3.90 ERA and that he couldn't finish better than 3rd in Cy Young voting works against him.

Tim Raines - It's a travesty that he's not in. A lead-off hitter that gets on base 38% of the time and steals a whopping 808 bases? Yea, that's a game-breaking player.

Barry Larkin - He's got the longevity (19 years), but was he truly great? He has good stats (.295 hitter, 2340 hits, 441 doubles, 198 HRs, 379 steals, .371 OBP) and was good in the field. Alan Trammell in 20 years had (.285, 2365, 412, 185, 236, .352) and was probably better in the field. Both were comparable in the field. I'd say if you think Trammell deserves to be there, you have to vote Larkin in. Personally, I'd vote him him on the basis that he also made 12 All-Star games (Trammell made 6).

Mark McGwire - The 'roids don't matter. He was never tested positive. I'm a Big Mac fan. I love the guy. But he's a career .263 hitter (in a hitters' era), was below average in the field and didn't steal bases. What he did offer up is 583 homers and a .394 OPB. He also helped save the game of baseball in the mid-90s and, like Jim Rice, was the guy you came to see in the ballpark. And it's on that basis that I'd probably vote for McGwire.

That leads me to the most difficult case, Bert Byleven. In large part because he played 22 years, he has the stats. He's 5th all time in strikeouts. He's 9th all time in shutouts. 242 complete games. 287 wins. Yet for every positive, there's a negative. 250 losses. 135th all time in adjusted ERA. 8th in the most home runs given up.

Here's what kills me about Byleven. He was never considered great in his own time. 2 All-Star games in 22 years. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting and made the top 10 only 4 times in his career. That really says something. I understand how you can say a guy was under appreciated, but either Bert must be the most under appreciated player ever, or perhaps he just wasn't as good as his compiled stats suggest.

He was good and pitched a shitload of innings. But was he ever great? His best season was at 22, where he went 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and a whopping 9 shutouts. But when a guy is, on average, 13-11 with a 3.31 ERA, does that make him a HoFer? His best argument is that Robin Roberts, a guy with a very similar profile, got into the HoF. Personally, I'd leave Byleven out, but he'll make it next year.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Here's what kills me about Byleven. He was never considered great in his own time. 2 All-Star games in 22 years. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting and made the top 10 only 4 times in his career. That really says something. I understand how you can say a guy was under appreciated, but either Bert must be the most under appreciated player ever, or perhaps he just wasn't as good as his compiled stats suggest.

He was good and pitched a shitload of innings. But was he ever great? His best season was at 22, where he went 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and a whopping 9 shutouts. But when a guy is, on average, 13-11 with a 3.31 ERA, does that make him a HoFer? His best argument is that Robin Roberts, a guy with a very similar profile, got into the HoF. Personally, I'd leave Byleven out, but he'll make it next year.

Everything else you said I agree with, but once you starting mentioning Wins and Loses you lost me. W-L record has very little to do with a pitchers performance.

[RainMaker]

I agree with just about everything you said there. When I look at Rice's decline, I also factor in that they weren't taking roids and other stuff like they do today. When your body went, it went. No drugs to keep you in your prime through your late 30's. For a few years in the late 70's, you could argue he was the best player in baseball.

I'd give Larkin the nod because it was in an era before you had SS hitting 30+ homers a year on a regular basis. You could make the case he was the best SS in baseball for about a 5-10 year stretch. Good in the field and stole some bases too.

Bert is a real tough one. While people say that his longevity is why his numbers are good, it's also a case for why he should get in. If a guy can pitch at a high enough level for that long, that says something. But as you said, he was never considered a top pitcher in the game at any point in his career. He had some good years but 2 All-Star appearances in over 20 years isn't impressive. If he had a stretch in there where he was a perennial Cy Young candidate for 4-5 years, I'd give him the nod, but it just seemed to me like he was a really good pitcher for a really long time.

[ISiddiqui]

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.

He was on some decent teams and his run support was only 3% lower than the average pitcher of that era.

You can be considered a top pitcher on a bad team. Tom Seaver only pitched for a couple top flight teams in his career and was on some really bad ones too. I guess the issue to me is that if you were able to pick lets say 5 pitchers from any year, would Bert Blyleven consistently show up on that list? Was he regularly someone who was considered on a yearly basis to be one of the best pitchers in the league? His 2 all-star game appearances would seem to indicate he wasn't.

The other problem I have with adding Bert is you have to add in others who had long careers like it. It should make Tommy John a lock for the Hall of Fame since they had nearly identical numbers. Guys who have similar statistics too outside of Wins-Losses would have to make it like David Cone who actually was considered a top pitcher for a few years.

Was Blyleven a great pitcher or a really good one for a really long time?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.

What, comparison to ones' peers is now a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on? It seems to me that's the first thing you should hang your hat on. It's how you judge players within their era. As RainMaker said, plenty of pitchers on bad teams have been acknowledged. Blyleven was either the most overlooked pitcher in history, or he was just an above-average pitcher who played a really long time.

One of the interesting comparison with Blyleven is Warren Spahn. They both had a really crappy ERA+ (118), good enough for 135th of all time (with guys like Willie Hernandez and Alexandro Pena). Yet one is in the HOF and the other is not.

The difference? Spahn made 17 All-Star games and won a Cy Young (top 3 five times). Blyleven barely sniffed a Cy Young and made 2 All-Star games. Yet Spahn played on teams that only made the post-season 3 times versus Byleven's teams making it 5 times (though it was harder for Spahn's teams to make it). How does that happen? It's because, compared to his peers, Spahn was deemed a great pitcher, even playing in the small market of Milwaukee. Blyleven was not deemed to be a great pitcher while playing. What makes him so good now?

By the way, it's a myth that Blyleven played for bad teams. Blyleven played 22 seasons and his teams were actually pretty average. If my count is correct, his teams had 10 winning seasons, 10 losing seasons and 2 seasons at .500. So lets toss out the "good pitcher on bad teams" theory.

I disagree that wins aren't important. Great players find a way to win and I'm firmly convinced of that. Wins aren't the end-all-be-all of any discussion, but they're not a throwaway statistic.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's see, Blyleven was in the Top 5 in ERA+ 7 times in his career. He was top 5 in K/BB 13 times in his career. As stated, his is 146th all time in ERA+. He is 50th all time in K/BB (and of course 5th in K's).

How does Tommy John compare? His 110 career ERA+ is 311th all time. He was only in the Top 5 in ERA+ twice. He was never in the Top 5 for K/BB. And he's 49th in career strikeouts.

Seems a very silly comparison.

[ISiddiqui]

This is a good blog posting too:

Sports: A Game Of Inches: Call Me Crazy, But Bert Blyleven Deserves To Be In The Hall Of Fame

Today, December 8, is the one-year anniversary of the creation of the Game Of Inches blog. We began our blog with a mission: "to prove that God doesn't exist and that athletes are merely cold, metal machines with no souls or heart." With the then-recent death of FireJoeMorgan.com and an ever growing appreciation of the deeper stories in baseball -- those told below the surface of Batting Average and ERA --we started a blog to join the realm of sabermetrics fans everywhere and help penetrate the myths, while often trying to be funny and relevant along the way.

It all began with a single post, written late one night, following a heated argument with a friend about whether or not Tom Glavine deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Though we were then-inexperienced in the ways of FIP and wOBA and the likes, we still knew of the importance of strikeouts, walks, home runs and the gallimaufry of hits, total stolen bases, wins and ERA. From that post sprung many more and today we at Game Of Inches sit proudly today, exactly 1,200 posts later, having grown from nothing into what we are today. We would proudly like to thank you, the 400+ readers who visit this site daily, and Google Images, for making us the #1 search result for "lesbians."

It is only fitting that in honor of our anniversary and first post that I follow it up by expounding upon a question I raised in passing 365 days ago: why is Bert Blyleven not in the Hall Of Fame?

In the long, traditional and tainted history of baseball, you will find few players who were as good as Bert Blyleven. A pitcher who spent 86% of his career in the AL, Blyleven was not only one of the most durable pitchers to ever play the game (14th all time in innings pitched), but he also played each and every one of those innings, up until the last few years of his career, remarkably well and consistently. Blyleven was not just "good" at baseball, he was nothing short of great, and unlike Javier Vazquez, he did not underperform his stellar peripherals.

In terms of the topical, traditional and irrelevant statistics, Blyleven's career 3.31 ERA puts him in company with current/future Hall Of Famers Randy Johnson (career 3.29 ERA), Fergie Jenkins (career 3.34 ERA), Phil Niekro (career 3.35 ERA), and Robin Roberts (3.41 ERA). His ERA is also lower than that of Tom Glavine (career 3.54 ERA). You like wins? His 287 wins are give him one more than Robin Roberts, and makes him 27th all time. Only six other players in the history of baseball who have more wins than Blyleven (Tommy John (288), Bobby Mathews (297), Randy Johnson (303), Tom Glavine (305), Roger Clemens (354), and Greg Maddux (355)) are not currently in the hall of fame, and five years from now, that number will dwindle down to two. Many pitchers with less wins are already in. Furthermore, Blyleven was never known as a jerk or cheater or drug user like Albert Belle, Ron Santo, Tim Raines, Kenny Rogers, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al. (to the contrary,he has a good sense of humor). But wins don't really matter, attitude has nothing to do with talent and production on the field, and a career ERA may tell much about a pitcher's success over the years, but it does not necessarily showcase a pitcher's true talent (see Javier Vazquez). However, these are three of the most common factors by which voters approve or deny players into the Hall Of Fame. How Blyleven, who performed remarkably well in his surface stats and other irrelevant, but considered aspects of the game is not given due credit (he only got the nod from 62.7% voters last year) is downright puzzling.

Below the very quality surface stats, however, you find an even more impressive skill set. Bert Blyleven ended his career with a 3.19 FIP over almost 5,000 innings pitched, making him top 50 all time amongst starting pitchers who threw 2500+ innings. A 3.19 FIP puts Blyleven in company with such current/future Hall Of Famers as Steve Carlton (career 3.15 FIP) and Jim Bunning (3.22 FIP) and ahead of such guys as Don Sutton (career 3.24 FIP), Greg Maddux (career 3.26 FIP), Fergie Jenkins (3.28 FIP), Dennis Eckersley (career 3.40 FIP), and Phil Niekro (career 3.60 FIP). In fact, Blyleven's FIP was only above 3.00 twice during his first ninemajor league seasons (one of which was his rookie year). Over those first nine years of his career, his career high FIP was 3.27. In his career, his FIP was above 4 only three times. His BB/9 was only three times above 3.00 in a season and only once above 3.50. Blyleven's K/9 (6.70 career) was also above average each season until his final three in the majors. With the exception of his final three seasons -- over which Blyleven's K/BB was 2.98, 2.76, and 2.41 -- Blyleven's K/9 was never below 6.0.

Blyleven's numbers are so good because his control was superb. It was not Greg Maddux like, but his career 2.39 BB/9 is none the less fantastic. Blyleven posted a career 2.80 K/BB mark, which is top 35 amongst all pitchers who threw 2000+ innings (top 25 amongst all pitchers with 2500+ innings). And just in case Blyleven's career 2.80 K/BB does not sound sweet enough, between 1970 and 1992, the league average K/BB was only above 1.75 once (1988).

Fangraphs does not have any groundball data available for any season prior to 2002, but it is well known that Blyleven had a fantastic curveball and he kept the ball in the yard plenty with a 0.78 HR/9.

In sum, we have the portrait of a pitcher with great peripherals and quality surface stats. Blyleven was an almost entirely AL pitcher with a good reputation, a lot of wins, great control (in terms of both BB/9 and K/BB), and a very quality FIP and ERA. His 3,701 career strikeouts are fifth all time and he's better than many of the pitchers who are already honored (some of whom should not be...) in the halls of history in Cooperstown, NY. Blyleven was one of baseball's true greats and he is for some befuddling reason (perhaps it's the superfluous lack of 300 wins or the fact that Joe Morgan hates all non-Joe Morgan players) overlooked every year.

Blyleven still has a handful more years upon which his name will appear on the annual HOF ballot, but time is running out. The world of baseball needs to take a second look at Blyleven's career before it's too late and hopefully, in the process, the world of baseball will also catch notice of the career of Mike Mussina.

[ISiddiqui]

In addition, there is a stat called "Wins Above Replacement", stands for the wins a player is responsible for above a replacement player (obviously).

Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided… | FanGraphs Baseball

… the most outstanding players on the ballot are (with BaseballProjection.com WAR in parens):
16-20. Burks (48), Da Parker (38), Lankford (38), Le Smith (30), Galarraga (27)
13-15. Mattingly (40), Ja Morris (39), Baines (37)
12. Ventura (55)
11. Appier (50)
10. Da Murphy (44)
9. McGriff (51)
8. Dawson (57)
7. Trammell (67)
6. McGwire (63)
5. Edgar (67)
4. Larkin (69)
3. Raines (65)
2. Alomar (64)
1. Blyleven (90)

Interestingly, I would bet that a small minority were aware of the BProj numbers, and yet, those numbers reflect the perceptions of the fans pretty well. The eight most outstanding players according to the fans is identical to the eight players with the most WAR.

That's not a typo. Blylevens WAR is 90, which is 26 wins above Roberto Alomar.

[cougarfreak]

Just out of curiosity, would you guys put in Schilling?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is a good blog posting too:

The main thrust of the article is that Blyleven was good for a long time. I don't think anyone is denying that. It's the same thing with the WAR stat (which I think is a very suspect statistic in the first place, especially when it suggests Blyleven was more valuable than someone like Steve Carlton). Everything is based on longevity and no one is denying that he played for a long time. It appears he was a good pitcher who played for a long time. Maybe that's enough for you. But I want a player to be great to be in the HoF. Where's any proof that he was ever a great pitcher, especially as compared to his peers?

[Young Drachma]

No wonder the economy sucks, all of the dudes who should've been economists are baseball eggheads who make up stats.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In addition, there is a stat called "Wins Above Replacement", stands for the wins a player is responsible for above a replacement player (obviously).

Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided… | FanGraphs Baseball

That's not a typo. Blylevens WAR is 90, which is 26 wins above Roberto Alomar.

I don't know anything about that stat, but I'd like to see where other starting pitchers fall on it other than Kevin Appier. Appier is a little too close to Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson there for me to put too much weight in a pitcher v. hitter comparison.