A CFL player "honored" Michael Jackson after a TD by taking off helmet and pretending to be dead and buried? Couldn't he have moonwalked?

The Hall of Fame Roundup

Posted: January 13th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 164 Comments »

Here it is … your 2009 overly long, absurdly obsessive, Hall of Fame recap.



Rickey Henderson (511 out of 539 votes, 94.8%): So, in the end, there were 28 people who did not vote for the all-time leader in runs, unintentional walks and stolen bases …

I do wonder how many people left Rickey off the ballot as some sort of political statement, and how many left him off because they honestly believe that Rickey Henderson does not belong in the Hall (you know the guy only hit .279). I wish every voter would express their reasoning … not for some sort of voter witch hunt, not to embarrass anyone, but because I’m genuinely curious about what voters think about this stuff.

Greg Maddux. That’s my next choice for unanimous. I simply cannot imagine how ANYONE will be able to vote against Greg Maddux. He has the core accomplishments — 355 wins, four Cy Young awards, 3,371 strikeouts, a terrific (for his time) 3.16 ERA. He has the intangibles — everyone loves what Maddux represented on the mound, and he seems utterly unblemished by scandal (with Maddux there never even seemed a motive for him to use steroids). His Hall of Fame call is five years away, but I’m already making the prediction: Greg Maddux will finish with the highest percentage in baseball history. And he has a shot at unanimous — I say he gets within five votes of unanimous.

* * *

Jim Rice (412 votes, 76.4%). Plenty — PLENTY — has already been said and written about Jim Rice, and there’s not a lot more to add. I will say this: I find it a fascinating study of human nature that Jim Rice was elected. Why? Well, you might recall that for years, common reasoning was that Jim Rice was being denied his rightful place in the Hall of Fame because he could be surly and not particularly good to the media and not especially likable.

And then, in the end, he was voted in even though numerous people with similar Hall of Fame credentials — men who WERE NOT surly, WERE good to the media, WERE likable — have not been elected. In many cases, these others never even came CLOSE to being elected. Just off the top of my head: Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Joe Torre, Ken Singleton, Keith Hernandez, Tim Raines, Don Mattingly, Rocky Colavito …

I’m not passing judgment now — Rice is in the Hall of Fame, and I’m happy for him. I’m just saying that’s kind of interesting.

Well, wait, one other thought: To once again quote my friend Ken Rosenthal: He wrote that Rice deserves induction because he met “my first essential requirement for a Hall of Famer — 10-year dominance.” I appreciate that. I respect anyone who has thought through what the Hall of Fame means and then is consistent in that thinking.

However, if 10-year of dominance is the theme then I would like to point out …

Rocky Colavito (1957-1966): Led the American League in games (1,533), homers (337), RBIs (1020), extra base hits (603), times on base (2,355), runs produced (1,545), outfield assists, … 2nd in Doubles (252 — to Kaline), runs (862 — to Mantle), walks (824 — to Mantle). Total Hall of Fame votes: 2 in 1974; 1 in 1975.

Dale Murphy (1981-1990): Led the National League in games (1,535), home runs (299), RBIs (923), walks (786), total bases (2,741), runs produced (1,524) and intentional walks (138) … 2nd in runs (900 — to Raines), 2nd in runs created (1002 — to Raines), 2nd in times on base (2,339 to Raines). Shows that Tim Raines was pretty dominant over a 10-year period too.

Dan Quisenberry (1990-1989): Led the American League (500-plus innings) in saves (233), games finished (482), ERA (2.53), ERA+ (162), walks per nine innings (1.35), fewest wild pitches (3). Set the save record. Had five Top 5 Cy Young Award finishes. Was on the Hall of Fame ballot for one season.

Ron Guidry (1977-1986): Led the American League in wins (163), winning percentage (.674), shutouts (26), starter ERA (3.23) and strikeouts (1,623 — 300 more than anyone else). That’s a 10-year Pitcher Triple Crown. Guidry did stay on the ballot for nine years, though he never got more than 8% of the vote.

Just something fun to think about.

* * *

Speaking of something to think about, here’s a game. Name the non-Hall of Famers. Answers on bottom.

Contestant No. 1: He’s a three-time Gold Glove outfielder who finished his career with a 129 OPS+. He played in a tough hitting environment, so if you neutralize his statistics, he has 364 homers and 504 stolen bases. Even as he was, his Power/Speed Number is fourth all-time, and over 162 games he averaged 29 homers, 40 stolen bases, 110 runs scored and 90 RBIs.

Contestant No. 2: He’s a seven-time Gold Glove outfielder who finished his career with a 127 OPS+. He had almost 2,500 hits, hit 385 home runs in his career and he hit .300 in his two World Series appearances. He also made one of the greatest defensive plays in World Series history.

Contestant No. 3: He’s a three-time Gold Glove second baseman who finished with a 116 OPS+. He hit double digit home runs thirteen times in his career, and he knocked out 2,369 hits. He scored more runs, drove in more runs, walked four hundred more times and struck out 150 fewer times than Ryne Sandberg.

Contestant No. 4: He won five Gold Gloves as a shortstop and many people — both scouts and statistical analysts — believe he has a case as the greatest fielding shortstop of all time, right there with Ozzie Smith. His OPS+ was better than Ozzie’s, and also better than Luis Aparicio’s and Rabbit Maranville’s — two other shortstops got in mainly for their great defense. He is one of only three shortstops in baseball history to put together the odd combination of 300 stolen bases and 900 RBIs.

Contestant No. 5: He had more hits than Monte Irvin, more doubles than John McGraw, more triples than Johnny Bench, Orlando Cepeda OR Harmon Killebrew. He had more triples than Roy Campanella and Branch Rickey combined. He had more stolen bases than Joe DiMaggio or Wade Boggs (and more caught stealing than Al Kaline or Roberto Clemente). He hit as many home runs as Hoyt Wilhelm and more than Tommy Lasorda or Don Sutton (though not quite as many as Sandy Koufax). He played second base with aplomb. He deserves his own wing in the Hall of Fame.

Contestant No. 6: He was Rookie of the Year and an MVP in separate seasons, twice led the league in on-base percentage, three times led the league in slugging percentage, and is one of the few people (only person?) to lead the league at different times in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, runs, RBIs, total bases, triples, homers, walks and adjusted OPS+. His career 156 OPS+ is better than all but thirteen players in the Hall of Fame.

* * *

Andre Dawson (361 votes, 67%): I heard some people say that there was some momentum for Dawson this year … but best I can tell he only picked up three votes. I do think he will get elected, but I’m not sure … I think it could be closer than many expect. The vibe today seems to be that the ballots for the next couple of years are not especially intriguing and the void could provide an opening for Dawson (and Blyleven).

But I don’t know if there is a void. It seems to me that next year’s ballot is actually quite loaded. A lot of people are saying there are no slam dunk Hall of Famers. Strange, I see two of them: Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin.

– Alomar is a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 lifetime batting average — he scored a monstrous 193.5 on the Hall of Fame Monitor (100 is a likely Hall of Famer). I’m not saying these are the numbers that make him Hall of Fame worthy — you know how about I feel about Gold Gloves and batting average. Alomar has all sorts of great statistics. No, what I’m saying is … there’s no way a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman who hit .300 for his career is not a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

– Barry Larkin is, in the words of Bill James, one of the 10 most complete players in baseball history. In fact, when the Reds honored him this year along with Cesar Geronimo (09/09/09), they quoted Bill in the ceremony and put his quote on the JumboTron, which was kind of fun. Well, it’s true: Larkin hit, he hit for power, he walked, he stole bases, he played great defense, he turned the double play, he did not strike out, he won an MVP, he was better the year AFTER he won the MVP, he won the Clemente Award, he won the Gehrig Award, he rarely made mistakes and — not that this is a Hall of Fame quality, but it is cool — he played his whole career in his hometown.

To me, those are two surefire Hall of Famers — either the first year or soon thereafter. Then you add Fred McGriff, who had a REALLY good career that only looks better when placed against Jim Rice and Tony Perez and, yes, Andre Dawson too … I mean .284/.377/.509 with 493 career homers? On the downside, he wasn’t a defensive whiz by any means, and he couldn’t run, and he was only voted to five All-Star Games. But those numbers …

There’s one more. Next year’s ballot adds Edgar Martinez, who is honestly one of the best hitters in baseball history.

No joke. You know how many players in baseball history have 8,000 or more plate appearances and an OPS+ of 147? There are 26. And they are: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Stan Musial, Tris Speaker, Frank Thomas, Willie Mays, Manny Ramirez, Hank Aaron, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie, Jeff Bagwell, Jim Thome, Harry Heilmann, A-Rod, Edgar Martinez, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey.

Every single one of those 26 is either center stage in the Hall of Fame or is going to be real soon … except Edgar (and maybe Thome … we’ll have a LOT more to say about one of my favorite guys over the next few years). Maybe it’s because Edgar didn’t play a full season until he was 27. Maybe it’s because he spent most of his career as a DH. Maybe it’s because he was never full appreciated playing those late games on the West Coast. But two batting titles, three OBP titles, led the league in runs, doubles, RBIs and a bunch of other stuff. He really was an amazing hitter. We’ll see what the voters think.

Anyway, I don’t think next year’s ballot is a really a down year. And Jeff Bagwell hops on in 2011. I do see a down-ballot in 2012, though, before all hell breaks loose in 2013 (Barry, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Schilling, etc.).

* * *

Bert Blyleven (338 votes, 62.7%). Up only two votes this year … not a whole lot of momentum there. Sigh. I fear what Blyleven is missing is a solid theme, a slogan, a new campaign, something to rival “Most fearsome hitter of his time.” I’m not going to lie: I don’t think, “Guy whose numbers impress a lot of Internet Geeks” is getting it done for us.

Maybe we need to simply play up his shutouts. I think we all know that shutouts are good things … and they are an old fashioned thing. The old writers should APPRECIATE a good shutout. And shutouts are not things that you can just COMPILE by hanging around. Pedro Martinez is 36 years old, he has an argument as the most dominant pitcher ever, and I suspect he will NEVER throw another shutout.

So, let me kickoff the new “Project Shutout” by putting it this way:

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Bob Gibson. He has more shutouts than Juan Marichal. He has more shutouts than Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson — a lot more than either of them. He has more shutouts than Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins or Robin Roberts. He, of course, has more shutouts than Koufax, who had his career shortened, and he has more shutouts than Phil Niekro who pitched forever. He has more shutouts than Three Finger Brown, more than Five Finger And Some Sandpaper Don Sutton, more than Early Wynn, who threw at batter’s fingers.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Lefty Grove, Lefty Gomez, Lefty Hoerst, Lefty Tyler, lefty Hopper, Lefty Williams, Lefty Stewart and any other pitcher named Lefty including Steve Carlton, who was nicknamed Lefty.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Bob Lemon and Jack Morris combined.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Greg Maddux and Mike Mussina combined.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Whitey Ford and Don Gullett combined.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Bob Feller PLUS Roy Halladay.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Tom Glavine PLUS John Smoltz and you could throw Babe Ruth’s 18 shutouts on top of that and still not get there.

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than Curt Schilling PLUS Pedro Martinez PLUS Johnny Sain PLUS Two Days of Rain PLUS Roy Oswalt.

Bert Blyleven had more shutouts in 1973 than Johan Santana has in his career.

Let’s put it this way: Since 1920 — the beginning of the lively ball era — Bert Blyleven ranks fourth in shutouts. Only Warren Spahn, Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver have thrown more shutouts. Spahn has three more. Ryan and Seaver each have one more. They are all in the Hall of Fame, first-ballot, never a doubt. I’m just not sure what we are waiting for.

Don’t make me do this same exercise with strikeouts. Because I will.

* * *

Lee Smith (240 votes, 43.3%): Five more votes than in 2008. But he still has not matched his career-high percentage in 2006. I suspect that Lee Smith may tread water for a while and might not be viewed seriously by the voters until, like Jim Rice, his time on the ballot is about to run out.

* * *

Jack Morris (237 votes, 44.0%): Up four votes from 2008, so not a lot of movement there. I cannot tell if Morris is sort of topping out now or if he will have one more major push — this was his 10th year on the ballot, so time is running out. Morris does seem to have the right kind of mythology around him, but the fact he has not yet broken the magical 50% mark is probably a bad sign. Jim Rice broke the 50% barrier in his seventh year on the ballot*.

*When for some reason Rice picked up 111 votes and went from 29.4% all the way to 51.5%. That’s a HUGE jump. he must have had a really good 1999 season.

* * *

Tommy John (171 votes, 31.7%): This was his final year on the ballot … he always had reasonable support, but he never quite got any real voting momentum going. It’s a shame — he does have 288 wins, a better ERA+ than Morris, an impressive 46 shutouts, and he missed the entire 1975 season because of the surgery that bears his name.

I have, in the past, poked fun at the idea that he should get Hall of Fame bonus points for the surgery — after all he didn’t PERFORM it — but that was probably unfair. He risked everything having the surgery, and he came back from it, and he showed the way for pitchers the last 30-plus years. I think he’s a pivotal character in baseball history. I voted for him, and I’m glad I did.

* * *

Tim Raines (122 votes, 22.6%): My biggest disappointment in the voting this year is that Tim Raines actually went BACKWARD. I can’t for the life of me figure this out. Maybe it’s because Rickey Henderson was on the ballot and a few people felt like they could only vote for one great leadoff hitter at a time. I don’t know. Raines was a great player on so many different levels. I hope that he starts to gain some Hall of Fame traction next year.

* * *

Mark McGwire (118 votes, 21.9%): He went backward too … lost 10 votes (more than 10 because I voted for him for the first time this year) … I was entirely wrong about him. I thought that as time went on and we all gained a little bit better perspective of baseball in the 1990s, McGwire would look better and would get more support. But the opposite seems to be happening, feelings about McGwire and the steroid era seem to be hardening. I am becoming more and more convinced that Barry Bonds will absolutely NOT make it to the Hall of Fame first ballot. In fact, I’m wondering if he will even get close.

* * *

Alan Trammell (94 votes, 18.2%): He’s five votes down from 2008, and I fear he will take a terrible tumble in 2010 when superior middle infielders Barry Larkin and Roberto Alomar are added to the ballot. It’s a shame: The Tigers had some REALLY good teams in the 1980s, and there has been almost no Hall of Fame support for the two players who were most responsible — Trammell and Lou Whitaker. Meanwhile, plenty of people talk about how Jack Morris was a winner.

* * *

Dave Parker (81 votes, 15%)

Don Mattingly (64 votes, 11.9%)

Dale Murphy (62 votes, 11.5%)

Jim Rice’s first ballot he received 137 votes. On Don Mattingly’s first ballot, he got 145. On Dave Parker’s second ballot, he got 116. On Dale Murphy’s second ballot he got 116.

Somehow, Rice emerged the winner. And the rest have gone backward.

* * *

Harold Baines (32 votes, 5.9%): Professional hitter.

Mark Grace (22 votes, 4.1%): Most hits in the 1990s … by seven over Rafael Palmeiro.

David Cone (21 votes, 3.9%): From 1988-1998, only Maddux, Clemens and Glavine won more, and only Clemens and Unit struck out more. If he had gotten a chance when he was 23, if he could have kept his arm together after he turned 36 …

Matt Williams (7 votes, 1.3%): What if there had not been a strike in 1994 and he had broken Maris’ record?

Mo Vaughn (6 votes, 1.1%): His MVP year of 1995 was probably the worst year he had in the five years between 1994 and 1998. Albert Belle should have won that MVP anyway … or Edgar Martinez.

Jay Bell (2 votes): Come on. One vote, OK, that’s a good joke. But TWO Jay Bell votes?

Jesse Orosco (1 vote): He could have gotten more support. The guy pitched in 1,252 games and had a 125 career ERA+.

* * *

Ron Gant (0 votes)

Greg Vaughn (0 votes)

Dan Plesac (0 votes)

Fine players … each of them at their best was better than Jay Bell.

* * *

OK, here are your quiz answers. AFLAC. Ask about it at work. I’m sure you guessed them all.

Contestant No. 1: Bobby Bonds.
Contestant No. 2: Dwight Evans
Contestant No. 3: Lou Whitaker
Contestant No. 4: Dave Concepcion
Contestant No. 5: Duane Kuiper, of course.
Contestant No. 6: Dick Allen

164 Comments on “The Hall of Fame Roundup”

  1. 1: odessa steps magazine said at 1:17 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Can someone make “INTERNET GEEK FOR BLYLEVEN” bumper stickers?

  2. 2: wcw said at 2:06 am on January 13th, 2009:

    If Bonds does not make it into the Hall Of Whatever on the first ballot, then I think I won’t be the only one to ignore it. Blyleven (It was gorgeous, and it was terrible, and I wasn’t sure I had seen it correctly) is bad enough.

    But The Barry.. even at his worst, he was the best hitter I ever saw in person.

    Sheesh.

  3. 3: John R said at 2:28 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Matt Williams (7 votes, 1.3%): What if there had not been a strike in 1994 and he had broken Maris’ record?

    He would have been called to testify before Congress about his steroid use. He would be ostracized now.

  4. 4: Greg said at 3:38 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Blyleven depresses the hell out of me. I love the shutout argument. He pretty much needs an Obama-esque campaign to get in though.

    However, I am certain Raines will eventually get in. Pretty sure Bert’s out.

    Also, 5 fingers and some sandpaper Don Sutton actually got an out loud chuckle from me. Very well played.

  5. 5: AlbaNate said at 5:24 am on January 13th, 2009:

    I don’t think Maddux will do as well as you think. I think that in the eyes of some voters, all those years at the end of his career where he was essentially a mediocre jourrneyman bouncing from team to team will hurt him.

  6. 6: AlbaNate said at 6:02 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Here’s my proposed contestant #7: Won one MVP award and came in top ten three other times (coming in second once.) Five all-star teams. Two silver sluggers. Eleven consecutive gold gloves. Led league in batting once and finished in the top ten six more times. Led league in OBP once and finished in top seven seven more times. Was on the winning side for two World Series and had .349 OBP in them. He is:

    Keith Hernandez

  7. 7: map said at 7:01 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Your comment about Barry Larkin being a superior middle infielder sums up why Trammell will probably never be voted in.
    To me the two players are interchangable, but the perception is that Larkin was better. If Larkin is a no-brainer, than so is Trammell.

  8. 8: Bobby A said at 7:07 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Good Edgar Martinez argument. His OBP’s were out of sight.

    And, his Silver Slugger at Age 40 was awesome.

    He didn’t have the number of hits to be automatic, but he was a hall of fame hitter. Right? I mean, look at the numbers from 1995 to 2003.
    (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martied01.shtml)

    He had Hall of Fame seasons, but his first great season wasn’t until 29 years old. He got hurt in the next 2 seasons, switched to DH, and had his peak from ages 32 to 40.

    Joe, you may know someone who could tell us why Edgar didn’t get a chance earlier in his career. I don’t trust Wikipedia because anyone can make up a story and put it up there.

  9. 9: per14 said at 7:09 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Map, Larkin was clearly better than Trammell—not a lot better, but clearly slightly better.

    That said, Trammell is getting hosed and Larkin probably will as well.

  10. 10: The Oriole Way said at 7:28 am on January 13th, 2009:

    You forgot Fred McGriff’s greatest accomplishment! How could you, who loves infomercials, leave off his Hall of Fame performance in the Tom Emanski video commercials???

    http://www.tom-emanski-baseball-videos.com/

  11. 11: map said at 7:41 am on January 13th, 2009:

    per14:

    The stats show that Larkin was slightly better than Trammell, but the perception is that he was clearly better. There is a disconnect there that I don’t understand. Baseball Reference lists them as the most comparable hitters to each other and their fielding was a wash. They were both institutions with their teams. Larkin won an MVP, but Trammell probably should have in 1987. But people are still going to insist that Larkin is a no-brainer and Trammell is borderline.

  12. 12: VoiceOfUnreason said at 7:50 am on January 13th, 2009:

    “You know how many players in baseball history have 8,000 or more plate appearances and an OPS+ of 147?”

    Does it make any sense at all to group a hitter with 8600 PA and 147 OPS+ with Henry Aaron ( 13940 @ 155 ) or Ted Williams (9791 @ 191)?

    9791 @ 191 Ted Williams
    8672 @ 147 Edgar Martinez
    9864 @ 139 Reggie Jackson

  13. 13: Jimmy said at 7:51 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Seriously, do people really find these H-O-F arguments fun? To me they are silly and tedious and this whole process seems to exist only to spark arguments/discussions. It is all so arbitrary. Why not use the H-O-F to honor ALL players. With technology today it is easy to display information (plaque-style) for all of baseball’s “greats”. Please, I don’t need the votes of grudge-holding sportswriters to define legends for me.

  14. 14: mojo nixon said at 7:59 am on January 13th, 2009:

    The HOF is a joke until Pete Rose is in.

  15. 15: Fray said at 8:30 am on January 13th, 2009:

    ^^ And how awesome is it that the person that references Pete Rose is post #14?!?!? That’s karma right there man.

  16. 16: Nate P. said at 8:38 am on January 13th, 2009:

    I like attaching the phrase “Best Curveball Ever” to Blyleven, but the shutout argument — attachable as it is to whatever joke you may have about him being constantly shut out of the Hall himself — works just as well.

    And just to engage in a bit of Posnanskian mystery stat comparison, here’s seven pitchers of comparable skill, with their most important stats (i.e. not W-L) listed:

    1) 3192:997 K:BB ratio in 4500 IP; 3.34 ERA; 1.142 WHIP; 115 ERA+
    2) 3701:1322 K:BB ratio in 4970 IP; 3.31 ERA; 1.198 WHIP; 115 ERA+
    3) 3574:1343 K:BB ratio in 5282 IP; 3.26 ERA; 1.142 WHIP; 108 ERA+
    4) 3342:1809 K:BB ratio in 5404 IP; 3.35 ERA; 1.268 WHIP; 115 ERA+
    5) 2855:1000 K:BB ratio in 3760 IP; 3.27 ERA; 1.179 WHIP; 114 ERA+
    6) 3534:1379 K:BB ratio in 5350 IP; 3.11 ERA; 1.181 WHIP; 117 ERA+
    7) 2357:902 K:BB ratio in 4688 IP; 3.41 ERA; 1.170 WHIP; 113 ERA+

    Guess which one of these players is not in the Hall of Fame. Also guess which one of these players won at least one World Series ring. (NOTE: It’s the same player.)

  17. 17: Ryan said at 8:43 am on January 13th, 2009:

    If Alomar doesn’t get in on his first ballot in 2010, the 2011 ballot with him and Biggio could create a great debate (for those who can only vote for one second baseman at a time).

  18. 18: Bellweather Johnson said at 8:47 am on January 13th, 2009:

    I’ve got another idea based on a request from a fellow commenter a few posts back. I say that we officially ban any commenters from posting “FIRST!!” if they post the first comment. They are hereby forced to, if they are the first to comment, write:

    “CIRCLE ME, BERT!!”

    This will garner Bly 15 votes next year, AT LEAST. If we all pull together and do this, I don’t see how are man doesn’t get elected.

  19. 19: Pete said at 8:50 am on January 13th, 2009:

    A few interesting cases:

    Matt Williams: That dude was fricking mashing the ball in 1994. I was relatively young at the time, but I clearly remember thinking he was the most amazing hitter in baseball at the time. He clearly wasn’t…he had a .319 OBP which was not good at all, even though his slugging % was a whopping .607. But 43 bombs in 112 games? That’s some kind of mashing-role. He had a very good four year peak where OPS’ed .886, .926, 1.046, and .877. That’s a great peak however you look at it.

    Edgar Martinez: Test case for DH’s…perhaps. He was a brilliant hitter and made it look thoroughly effortless. He was a line-drive hitter with HR power. He took a bit of a hit because he missed a lot of games most seasons, but he plainly and simply raked from 1995-2003 as a 32-40 year old hitter. OBP’s of .479, .464, .456, .429, .447…and so on. NINE STRAIGHT .400 OBP’s. Amazing. However…ZERO defensive contributions to his team over his entire career. I dunno…I think he’s in because that kind of hitting is just insane.

  20. 20: Pete said at 8:54 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Oh…and I can’t wait for Rickey’s speech. What a character. He was like one of those larger-than-life characters of sport from “yesteryear…when everyone walked through simultaneous snow blizzards and boiling sun just to get to school, walking 10 miles uphill both ways all the while.”

  21. 21: Geoffrey said at 8:54 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Any chance of the Veternas comittee putting Bobby Bonds in the HoF in around 4 years or so perhaps? Theres probably no chance of that happening, but every time I look at his numbers it just seems obsurd he isn’t in the hall fo fame.

  22. 22: Brent said at 9:15 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe, I hope you appreciate your chance to vote for these guys, but I have a feeling that it is soon to end.

    I think there will be a watershed moment for the BBWAA and the HOF about 5 years from now. When Barry and Roger hit the ballot, a lot of the current members who disdainedly dismiss voting for Mark McGwire will be left with a difficult choice. Continue to refuse to vote for McGwire and, being consistent, also refuse to vote for Barry and Roger; or realize that their voting against McGwire was silly and vote them all in; or look extremely hypocritical and vote Barry and Roger in and not vote McGwire in.

    Unless the second choice, the change of heart, comes to pass, I think the HOF will be forced to analyze its relationship with the BBWAA and, I believe, as a result of the voting on steroid era players for the HOF, the BBWAA’s voting rights will be stripped and voting for the HOF will be revamped.

    A HOF without the best pitcher and hitter of the 2nd half of the 20th century isn’t a true HOF. I don’t see how the HOF Board of Directors would allow the current system to go forward if the writers were to refuse to honor those players.

    Anyway, that’s how I see it going down by 2015.

  23. 23: Devon Young said at 9:26 am on January 13th, 2009:

    You know Joe, you’re really turning me into a Blyleven supporter. But here’s what still gets me about Bert…

    5.40 ERA in losses. Did he even give his team a chance in those 250 games?)

    3.90 ERA in No Decisions. I can’t help but wonder how many of those games were lost due to the offense being poor and not Bly’s pitching. If it was at least 13 (of those 155 games), then he would’ve won 300. Therefore, his pitching would be clearly good enough for the 300-win-HOF-standard. And that’s the important point – his pitching was good enough in a TEAM sport. Can’t fault the pitcher for what his offense does (especially when the pitcher played a lot of time in a DH league)

    1.60 ERA in 287 wins/starts. That’s impressive. But part of me wonders…who did he beat? Bottom feeding teams? What was he like against teams over .500? Maybe he beat weak teams in his day, thus causing people to remember him as “not quite great”?

    Normally I don’t have such deep questions about a player… but I don’t really remember Bly much and so I have to go by what he was like among his peers…and since he never won a Cy or anything, I have to ask deeper questions to get to the bottom of this. But in the past few months, I’ve gone from a “Bly should never get in” to a “Bly looks like an overlooked great by the unreasonable voters”.

  24. 24: Nate P. said at 9:35 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Devon: I seem to remember multiple writers finding enough games that Blyleven lost by 1-0 or 2-1 to put him over the 300-win mark.

    As far as whether he made most of his rep beating substandard teams, well, his total postseason record is 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA. (The one loss was in the ‘87 World Series.)

  25. 25: Brent said at 9:52 am on January 13th, 2009:

    I never worry that much about Unanimous. Just isn’t going to happen with this many voters. Heck, the Illinois State House of Representatives didn’t unanimously vote to impeach our idiot governor (it was 114-1) this week. Over 95% is basically the same as unanimous in this case. If you look at the inductees with over 95% of the vote, you get a picture that includes the greatest of the greats:

    Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Hank Aaron, Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt, Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn. That’s the list of near unanimous.

    Looking at the totals over the years, clearly the voters have been more willing to overwhelmingly vote someone in now than in the past. Between the first election in 1936 and Hank Aaron’s in 1982, no one, not icons like Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe Dimaggio, Bob Feller, reached the near unanimous plateau.

    If we lower the near unanimous plateau to 90%, we add quite a few of the greatest, while only adding in a couple of names of players who I wouldn’t say were the greatest of the greats (of course, I wouldn’t put Tony Gwynn in that category either):

    Christy Mathewson, Bob Feller, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Brooks Robinson, Carl Yastrzemski, Jim Palmer, Rod Carew, Reggie Jackson, Ozzie Smith, Wade Boggs, THE Rickey.

    So, with a few exceptions, most of which can be explained by the backlog of great players when the Hall first opened (W. Johnson, T. Speaker, C. Young, G. Alexander), the greatest players get 90% of the vote. (yes, Mantle, Spahn and a couple others inexplicably didn’t get 90%, while I question Gwynn, O. Smith and B. Robinson being there, at the very least)

    And 90% is pretty darned close to unanimous. Close enough for me.

  26. 26: JI said at 10:05 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Randy Johnson has a 5.95 career ERA in losess, Greg Maddux has a 5.66. Seems like a pretty silly standard to judge someone by.

  27. 27: Scotty said at 10:14 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Bert’s campaign slogan usurped from Berman:

    Bert “Be Hall” Bly- ‘11″

    It sure beats Palin ‘12.

  28. 28: Edward OP said at 10:20 am on January 13th, 2009:

    The scary part of the Alan Trammell – Lou Whitaker debacle is that Whitaker spent one year on the HOF ballot. ONE. He garnered only 15 votes and was swept away.

  29. 29: Johnny said at 10:27 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Oh, and Bert owned Jim Rice.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/b-pvb.cgi?n1=riceji01&year=0#choice=&throws=&minPA2=0&minPA=0&orderbydir=DESC&orderbydirb=ASC&n1=riceji01&as=batter&year_game=career&opp_id=&orderby=PA&orderbyb=Name

  30. 30: Justin said at 10:31 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Devon Young,

    Blyleven’s ERA splits weren’t exactly uncommon among pitchers.

    A few others…

    Maddux: 1.83 ERA in wins, 5.66 in losses, 3.16 in no-decisions

    Pedro: 1.53 in wins, 5.55 in losses, 3.71 in no-decisions

    Clemens: 1.73 in wins, 5.80 in losses, 3.74 in no-decisions

    Koufax: 1.36 in wins, 5.14 in losses, 4.86 in no-decisions

    Gibson: 1.59 in wins, 4.69 in losses, 4.38 in no-decisions

    Jack Morris: 2.29 in wins, 6.18 in losses, 4.74 in no-decisions

    So his splits are similar to those shown by a bunch of guys considered among the greatest ever, plus one old-school-writers’ favourite. And those are the first few pitchers I bothered to look up. Bert’s hardly alone in struggling in losses – it’s just common sense that a starter will have a ton of say in terms of how well his team does and that his ERA in a given set of games will sway overall team performance. The fact is that his numbers stack up.

  31. 31: Rob said at 10:50 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe,

    Never made a comment before but I love your stuff. I do disagree with you though in that we should find out who didnt vote for Ricky just to embarras them. How can they take their job as voters seriously and not vote for Ricky? These people need to be leaked to the public and have their “logic” explained for us all to hear

  32. 32: chuck said at 10:50 am on January 13th, 2009:

    I have lost all interest in and respect for the Baseball HOF.

    It is not the inclusion of Jim Rice into the hall or the exclusion of Bert Blyleven from the hall that has led me to cease following or caring …..but they help in my conclusion.

    The issue that drives my disinterest and disrespect is the wanton hypocrisy surrounding the principles of those in power who assign a profoundly different standard to those who competed. For 15 years the commissioners office, the owners and the sportwriters turned a collective blind eye to the now obviously wanton use of performance enhancing drugs, yet now the sports writers refuse to consider those whom they SUSPECT of having used them.

    That Mark McGwire received fewer votes yesterday than he did a year ago is as insane as Shoeless Joe’s continued exclusion from the hall. We now know that unless attitudes and “voting rules” change dramatically, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa and many, many more well qualified ballplayers will never be allowed to be fairly considered for their on field accomplishments. I find that reality far more reflective of the management and sportswriters having their collective heads stuck in the sand for 15 years than I do of the ballplayers cheating to put up numbers.

    Just think of the reality here: If Jose Canseco never writes a book the entire makeup of a generation of hall members would be significantly different!!

    That bloggers and Joe, is the most absurd reality in my sixty year old baseball fan’s life. It’s as though the most guilty of all becomes the control factor for a generation of athletes who likely did more to enhance a great sport than any previous generation. Where would baseball be today were it not for the exploits of Sammy and Mark a decade ago? While I do not hold the answer to that curio, I do know with absolute certainty that the sport would be far less prosperous, less healthy than it is today.

    It is time for those like Joe, who have a voice in this thing, to aggressively speak to the absurdities of blind arrogance displayed my mangement, ownership and sportwriters. Clear the air of assigning blame and move on. Bring credibility back to the sport and those who run it. PLEASE! PLEASE!

  33. 33: Mark Daniel said at 10:52 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe, you wonder why Rice gained votes since his first year while others like Parker and Murphy lost votes. There are several reasons. One, Bill James said he was the most overrated player of the last 30 years, and that Roy White was better. Sabermetricians continually bashed Rice (as you have done yet again), which led less sabermetically-inclined folks to think, “Was he really that bad?” When they looked at the stats, they said, “He wasn’t that bad.” And when they looked at Roy White’s stats, they said, “He was better than him.”

    Then there was the big steroid scandal, which made a power hitter like Rice look just a tad better. The same year as the 1st congressional hearing on steroids, Dick Bresciani of the Red Sox sent out his information packet on why Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame. It was a carefully researched and well-presented argument, and the numbers put forth by Bresciani were impressive and easy to understand. There was nothing perplexing about it, like ranking Roy White ahead of him for example. Bresciani sent out this packet every year since 2005, and Rice gained votes every year since 2005. This year, there was only one mortal HOF lock on the ballot, which gave Rice just enough room to squeeze in. If there was a 2nd mortal lock on the ballot, Rice would still be waiting.

    Ironically, it was actually THE NUMBERS which got Rice in. Not his mystique or his ability to induce fear. The numbers put forth by sabermetricians were compelling, but so were Dick Bresciani’s. In the end, Bresciani’s numbers won out.

  34. 34: Spud said at 10:54 am on January 13th, 2009:

    “I think the HOF will be forced to analyze its relationship with the BBWAA and, I believe, as a result of the voting on steroid era players for the HOF, the BBWAA’s voting rights will be stripped and voting for the HOF will be revamped.”

    Another thing to consider is the changes going through the newspaper industry. Who knows what the electorate will look like five years from now?

  35. 35: Marco said at 11:05 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Jimbo better make it. He’ll finish with 550+ HR and a 400+ OBP over a long career.

  36. 36: Brian said at 11:09 am on January 13th, 2009:

    What happens if a few too many writers decide that Barry Bonds doesn’t deserve to be elected first ballot and he manages to fall off the ballot? I doubt it would happen, but there’s no way the writers or Hall of Fame lives that down, right?

  37. 37: Brent said at 11:17 am on January 13th, 2009:

    On the subject of Davey Concepcion, I have always been of two minds.

    On the one hand, who is clearly the best NL shortstop between Ernie Banks and Ozzie Smith? Obviously, it is Concepcion. If you are the best of your era at your position, then shouldn’t you be strongly considered a HOFer?

    On the other hand, 3 of his infield teammates are already HOFers and a 4th would be except he gambled on baseball. Assuming all 4 of them are better than he is (and admittedly, in my mind, in the case of T. Perez, that is a big assumption), then he is the 5th best player on his team (and in Foster’s big years, the 6th best player or maybe even 7th best, behind Griffey, Sr.) Can the 5th best player on any baseball team be a HOFer? I call this the L.C. Greenwood question. Can half a starting team be HOFers? If they were, how did the Steelers ever lose? Same question for the Reds and Davey Concepcion.

  38. 38: Curtis said at 11:21 am on January 13th, 2009:

    Here is why the splits in ERA between wins and losses is important: the primary argument against Bert is that he didn’t notch enough wins. His supporters, like me, say that he was on a whole lot of really mediocre teams and that affect’s a guy’s win-loss record, which is why it is critical when evaluating a pitcher to look at deeper statistics.

    But if it is the team that is holding him down, shouldn’t he have a significantly better ERA in all three categories than the comparable pitcher? After all, he had to pitch that much better to get a win. Lots of those good games that other pitchers turned into wins are in his no decision or loss categories.

    So the fact that his ERA’s in those categories are similar to other pitchers is bad news because it lends credence to the idea that his win-loss record is a reasonable proxy for his performance over the course of his career, which has been judged to be just shy of HOF-worthy.

  39. 39: Alejandro said at 11:25 am on January 13th, 2009:

    “Sigh. I fear what Blyleven is missing is a solid theme, a slogan, a new campaign, something to rival “Most fearsome hitter of his time.” I’m not going to lie: I don’t think, “Guy whose numbers impress a lot of Internet Geeks” is getting it done for us.”

    I (heart) TO FART

  40. 40: EdB said at 11:31 am on January 13th, 2009:

    A shame Blyleven has to wait, again.
    In addition to Joe’s list, here’s another factoid:

    Blyleven has more shutouts than Greg Maddux (35)…. and more shutouts than Tom Glavine (56 CGs) and John Smoltz (53 CGs) have COMPLETE GAMES.

    And both Glavine and Smoltz pitched for dominant teams, and will be escorted into Cooperstown — and that’s fine. But they weren’t better than Blyleven.

  41. 41: Brent said at 11:38 am on January 13th, 2009:

    So can some Indian fan tell me about Bert B’s lost 3 seasons in Cleveland in the early 1980s. From 1981-1983 he was 30-32 years old and he went from a guy who put in anywhere from 34-40 starts a year to a guy who started 20, 4 and 24 games. In 1981, at least some of that can be attributed to the strike and I presume he must have had arm problems in 1982. What were they? Actually, his 1978-1983 seasons with the Pirates and the Indians are what kept him from the 300 win plateau. His innings are down quite a bit in those years. With the Pirates, I presume Chuck Tanner was a bit of a bullpen guy (like Sparky Anderson), and, of course, being in the NL with no DH would have cut down on his innings, but what happened with the Indians? He has a weird career arc, because his best years are when he is really young (19-26) and he comes back and pitches really well when he should have been over the hill (ages 33-38). So it is his “prime” that keeps him from the Hall.

    Anyone remember what the arm problems were with the Indians?

  42. 42: Matt said at 11:50 am on January 13th, 2009:

    AlbaNate … don’t forget that Keith Hernandez can spit a “magic loogie”.

    With regards to Blyleven and his losses: A reader a while back pointed out that Bert had 36 losses in which he allowed 2 or less runs. If he won half of those with a better offense behind him, he’s over 300 wins and we’ve never had these discussions. It’s not uncommon to see a bad ERA in losses, but I understand the point of Curtis.

    I am eagerly awaiting the entry of Bonds, Sosa and Clemens onto the ballot. Interestingly enough, their presence may result in Mike Piazza getting a larger percentage of votes because he’s not necessarily lumped in with them regarding PEDs. I think Piazza should be a slam-dunk HoF’er anyway because of his power as a catcher, but there will be some voters who don’t vote for him.

    I agree with Joe in wanting to see the reasoning behind the voting. I am curous to see WHY some voters neglected to vote for Henderson and, as unfortunate and ineveitable as it will be, why they won’t vote for Maddux. An earlier poster hit the nail on the head in my opinion, with his statement that some jerk writer won’t vote for Maddux because of his last few years where he was average. It’s insane and shouldn’t be questioned -Greg Maddux should be a unanimous selection for the Hall.

    … and I would buy a Blyleven in 2010 bumper sticker.

  43. 43: ceolaf said at 11:54 am on January 13th, 2009:

    It’s especially hard to project future ballots because of steroids.

    Look at what has happened with McGwire. Only 30%?

    What happens with Bagwell? What happens with other players for whom there is reasonable suspicion or actual accusation (e.g. the Mitchell Report or Canseco’s books)?

    What happens with other players who voters think were too good to believe they didn’t juice?

    And then, what happens when almost all of the serious hall of fame candidates are somehow questionable because of the steroids thing?

    Will older candidates get more votes, in protest? I can see that happening. Will peple submit blank ballots, in protest? I can see that, too.

    We are just a year or two into a 10 year run where it gets very very hard to forecast.

    ****************************

    I think that the only reasonable argument will be to ignore the steroids things and simply judge the players compared to their peers. OPS+ and ERA+ do that, for example. Counting stats, generally, do not.

  44. 44: Gate said at 12:00 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    I can’t wait to read the following paragraph in a Dan Shaughnessy/Murray Chass column next year:

    “…but for our friends too busy staring at computers in their mother’s basements to actually watch and enjoy the game, here are some of your beloved statistics to show the difference between Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven: In Bert Blyleven’s 250 losses he was worse than John Wasdin, with a putrid 5.40 era. Jack Morris, on the other hand, was positively Pedro-esque in his 254 wins with a microscopic 2.29 era. I don’t care what Bill James says, the Hall of Fame is for Pedro Martinez, not John Wasdin and that’s why I’m voting for Jack Morris.”

  45. 45: Tampa Mike said at 12:10 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    There is no way you can refuse to vote for McGwire and then vote for Barry and Rocket. The writers need to get overthemselves (I’m glad Joe finally did) and vote in Mac. He took Andro which was legal at the time. You can’t shame someone for taking a legal drug.

    There is no HOF without Pete Rose.

  46. 46: Mikey said at 12:30 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Good points raised by Chuck (32). I’m also put off by the hypocrisy of writers and broadcasters who did nothing to question the numbers put up during the steroid era.

    Look at George Vescey’s column today, in which he rips McGwire. Now, I generally respect and enjoy Vescey’s stuff, but I would wager that if you did a Lexis search of his columns from 1993-2001 you could count on one hand the number that called attention to possible steroid use in anything more than a passing, snarky way.

    Will the standards being applied to players of that era also be applied to writers and broadcasters who did nothing to investigate the matter? Can we close the writers and broadcasters wings of the Hall to anyone who was prominent during the 90s?

  47. 47: Brent said at 12:41 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    A couple of little things about Bert Blyleven.

    First, his teams weren’t as bad as currently advertised. The total record of the teams he pitched for over the years was 1752-1740. So, overall, his teams were average teams. By record, the worst teams he played for were the Indians in the early 80s (no surprise), whose total record while he played there was 307-382. Every other team he played for (the Twins in two stints, the Pirates, the Angels and even the Rangers) had at least a .500 record when Bert pitched for them.

    Now comparing his winning % (.534) to his teams’ winning % (.502) shows that he definitely pitched better than the teams he played on. Certainly, we would expect that from even a borderline HOFer (although I expect that there are a few pitchers in the Hall who cannot say that, admittedly it is easier to be better than a .500 team than a .600 team)

    I know people are down on wins as a standard for excellence for pitchers, and whereas I agree that it is true that wins tell you very little on a game by game basis and not much more even on a seasonal basis, I do think they are instructive on a career basis. Clearly, only good pitchers with few injuries can even approach the 300 win plateau. If they aren’t good enough, they won’t get the opportunity and if they get hurt too often, they won’t get the chance. Furthermore, the vagaries of chance that can make one pitcher 19-10 and another 10-19 with similar ERAs and WHIPS on a yearly basis, even out over the course of careers. My point here is that Blyleven’s career wins are instructive. Whether they are a point for him or against is probably determined by where you draw the line as to how many wins determine greatness.

  48. 48: Marino Eccher said at 12:44 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe, I knew I could count on you not to blow steam out your ears because Henderson wasn’t unanimous. I’m of the opinion that people didn’t leave Rickey off their ballots because they don’t want him in — they left him off because they didn’t want him to be honored as the greatest player of all time when he clearly was not.

  49. 49: Michael said at 12:58 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Re post #32,
    Shoeless Joe Jackson was a star player who conspired with gamblers to intentionally lose a World Series, causing an enormous amount of damange to the game. Perhaps you don’t agree that he should be excluded from the Hall of Fame but to call those who believe he should continue to be excluded “insane” strikes me as overblown rhetoric. There’s a very good reason why he is not in the Hall of Fame.

  50. 50: David in Toledo said at 1:07 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Here, once again, is a simple concise brief for Blyleven. Nine pitchers and eight of them got in the Hall “no question.”
    http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/5672

  51. 51: David in Toledo said at 1:07 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Whoops! Well, Roger Clemens hasn’t gotten in “no question.”

  52. 52: Rose before Roids said at 1:27 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    In a perfect world, I’d love to see a push to get voters to write in Charlie Hustle for the class of 2012 – and NOT vote for Clemens or Bonds. That could be an act of wiping the slate clean, and Clemens and Bonds could have their day in the sun the following year. Besides, won’t the hall start losing some of it’s charm if Bruce Sutter and Jim Rice are in, but Pete Rose, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are not?

  53. 53: Josh in DC said at 1:42 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    I really like the writers who explain themselves. Honestly, it seems like an easy column to write. And I think it’s important that people who voted for Jay Bell should be outed, as should those who voted against Cal Ripken or Rickey Henderson.

    And if any racial patterns emerge, the BBWAA ought to be interested, as should their employers.

  54. 54: Brent said at 1:42 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Someone already mentioned Blyleven’s good track record in the post season. I wonder how he did in pennant races.

    In 1970, as a 19 year old rookie, he was brought up on 6/5 and stayed with the Twins for the rest of the Season. On the day he was brought up the Twins led the AL West by 2 games. They eventually won 98 games and won the division by 9 games. Their 2 closest pursuers were the A’s and the Angels. He wasn’t particularly effective against them, pitching 9 innings in 2 starts and giving up 5 runs. He did pitch OK in his start against the AL East winning Orioles, 6 innngs, 2 runs.

    In 1977, he pitched for the 2nd place Texas Rangers, who won 94 games and finished 8 games behind the Royals. Of course, that was the year that the Royals went like 35-4 between the beginning of August and mid September to blow away the rest of the division. What people don’t remember is that the Rangers got super hot too, going 59-29 from July 1 on. Bert pitched pretty well down the stretch for the Rangers, pitching 98 2/3 innings from 7/1 on and giving up 40 runs, with an ERA of 3.28 and going 8-4 in that period. He only pitched once against the Royals during that stretch (on 7/5) and got shelled, giving up 6 runs in 6 innings. He did pitch well against the Royals early in the year, giving up 3 earned runs in 25+ innings in 3 starts, shutting them out once.

    In 1978, the Pirates finished 1.5 games out of first. Bert again pitched pretty well down the stretch, from July 1 on his ERA was 2.59, but his record was “only” 7-5. He didn’t fare very well against the Phillies, who won the division, going 0-3 against them with a 5.19 ERA.

    In 1979, the Pirates won the division, finishing 2 games ahead of the Expos. Bert pitched well down the stretch again, going 7-2 from 7/1 on and had a 3.34 ERA. Against the Expos, he was 3-1 with a 2.48 ERA. On September 24th, with the Pirates a half game behind the Expos, he pitched 6 innings and gave up 2 runs, getting the win and putting the Pirates briefly in first place (they lost the 2nd game of a DH that day and fell back into second).

    In 1987, the Twins won the division over the Royals by 2 games. Blyleven went 8-6 from 7/1 on with a 4.24 ERA. On 9/27 he pitched a complete game against the Royals to clinch a tie for the division, winning 8-1.

    In 1988, the Twins won 91 games, but finished 13 games behind the A’s. Blyleven was pretty horrible in the 2nd half of the year, going 3-11 with a 6.62 ERA. This certainly helped the A’s pull away from the Twins.

    In 1989, the Angels won 91 games, finishing in 3rd, 8 games behind the A’s, one game behind the 2nd place Royals. Blyleven was 10-3 with a 3.08 ERA in the 2nd half of the season. He was 2-1 with a 2.62 ERA against the A’s in 24 innings and 3-0 with a 1.12 ERA against the Royals in 32 innings.

    Except for 1988, he certainly was a plus pitcher for his teams in pennant races. Shouldn’t that help him in the HOF voting (along with a good post season record)

  55. 55: Josh in DC said at 1:49 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Rose bet on baseball. He can go to Hell, not Cooperstown.

  56. 56: Josh in DC said at 1:55 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Funny how the people who were proclaiming Rose’s innocence — and the unfairness of the Dowd Report — changed their tune when Rose admitted he bet on baseball. Now, he should be let in because he admitted his guilt! (Incidentally, he admitted his guilt when he signed the damn report in the first place.)

    It’s pathetic. Charlie Hustle, indeed:

    http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Pete-Rose-1973-MVP-Signed–Autographed-Baseball—Inscibed-Im-sorry-I-bet-on-baseball__ABBS0881.aspx

  57. 57: Bill C. said at 2:10 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    To Brent (and in general):

    I don’t think Bonds’ presence on the ballot will necessarily complicate things vis-a-vis McGwire. I think it’s possilbe to remain consistent while voting for Bonds but not for McGwire. The reason, simply, is that if we accept the standard tale of Bonds commencing to use steroids in response to the adoration heaped on McGwire and Sosa in 1998, well, if Bonds’ career ended on the last day of the 1998 season, he was already hall-worthy. Steroids took Bonds from HOFer to “one of the 5 greatest of all time” levels. But he would have been a worthy HOFer had he never touched any “flaxseed oil.”

    In contrast, it seems equally clear that Mark McGwire would not merit HOF consideration without steroids. In his case, the steroids made the difference between having HOF numbers and not. They did not make that difference in Bonds’ case.

  58. 58: Carl said at 2:48 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    No one can match this Edgar Martinez credential — At one point he was 9 for 11 against Mariano Rivera. A scary great hitter!

  59. 59: Rose before Roids said at 3:12 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Josh in DC, curious where you stand on Clemens/Bonds for HOF? Surely you don’t believe one player betting on baseball is a greater scar on the sport than an entire generation of players on steroids?

    I don’t like it but I guess for the sake of the HOF, we need to just ignore the steroid issue for the next 15 or so years. Otherwise we’ll be introducing Sid Bream and Jon Olerud to the hall by 2015.

  60. 60: Bellweather Johnson said at 3:12 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    I’m officially changing the name of my Neo-Post-Punk-Emo, Semi-Ironic Tongue-In-Cheek, Early-Nineties, Alt-Radio College Rock band.

    From:

    “The Circle Me Berts”

    To:

    “I Got Pioli”

  61. 61: Seth Bromley said at 3:19 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    As others have said, adverse reactions to a)sabermetrics and b)steroid allegations, clearly contributed to Rice’s support. As he himself said, his numbers didn’t change over the last 15 years.

    Here’s a question: Is Jim Rice the first Hall of Famer elected primarily out of spite? Maybe the Veterans Committee waiting to elect Leo Durocher until after he was dead qualifies, but I think Rice’s honor may be unique.

  62. 62: Dave E. said at 3:23 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Brent (re: Concepcion)

    I have often thought that Concepcion was a little overlooked for the reasons you mentioned (i.e., he was the 4th or 5th or 6th best player on his team, how can he be a HOFer), but always come back to the “he was clearly the best player at his position in his league between Banks and Ozzie” argument, too.

    He might get in as a Vet. Committee choice, but is off the ballot now. I spoke with him briefly last year (his last year on) and you could tell he really wanted it, but felt that he never had the “campaign”-like effort that, say, Rice had. (He did not say it, but I felt that in Cincinnati Perez always got the support).

    Concepcion was hurt also by not speaking English well (much worse than Perez) and will forever be hurt by his no-longer-look-that-good offensive numbers. But the single worst thing is that, as his career was winding down, he was competing for GGs against the best player at SS, all-time, from a fielding standpoint.

    Oh, and you can get into the Hall if you are the 5th best player in your lineup, provided that lineup has its own nickname, is considered the best 8 of all time, and “9/9/09.”

  63. 63: Dave E said at 3:32 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Even if Blyleven didn’t “deserve” to win another handful of games to get to 300…so what? There are plenty of pitchers in the Hall without 300 wins, that only recently became the arbitrary benchmark.

  64. 64: ManuelT said at 3:37 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    My best ten seasons in OPS+ and Hrs beats each one of the best ten season of Jim Rice in OPS+ and HRS. Who I Am:

    ……Rice………./…..Who I am?…./
    1.- 157 OPS+ 46 Hrs 1.-178 OPS+ 48 Hrs
    2.- 154 OPS+ 39 Hrs 2.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
    3.- 147 OPS+ 39 Hrs 3.-170 OPS+ 44 Hrs
    4.- 136 OPS+ 20 Hrs 4.-153 OPS+ 36 Hrs
    5.- 130 OPS+ 24 Hrs 5.-149 OPS+ 28 Hrs
    6.- 127 OPS+ 22 Hrs 6.-147 OPS+ 31 Hrs
    7.- 123 OPS+ 27 Hrs 7.-144 OPS+ 26 Hrs
    8.- 122 OPS+ 24 Hrs 8.-138 OPS+ 21 Hrs
    9.- 120 OPS+ 25 Hrs 9.-127 OPS+ 18 Hrs
    10.-116 OPS+ 17 Hrs 10.-119 OPS+ 15 Hrs

  65. 65: Brent said at 3:40 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Dave E:

    One other thing about Davey, and I think this is underplayed, his candidacy was hurt considerably by the 1981 strike. He finally was the best player on the team (or at least close to the best player, Foster was still a better hitter, but Davey was a SS and a darned good one) and the Reds were still quite good (the best record in baseball, in fact). Yet no one remembers because it was the strike year and the Reds, because of the screwy playoff system, didn’t even make the playoffs. He actually batted third for the Reds the entire year. A far cry from his 7th spot on the Big Red Machine.

  66. 66: astorian said at 3:45 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    I’m betting Manuel is referring to Frank Howard… who is DEFINITELY a better choice for the Hall of Fame than Jim Rice.

  67. 67: Steve from Cleve said at 3:49 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    ManuelT:

    You’re Frank Howard, and I apologize that you aren’t in the Hall while Jim Rice is.

  68. 68: Tom said at 4:19 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Comment #33 by Mark Daniel exactly sums up the stupidity of the writers argument for Jim Rice (and against Bert Blyleven). On one hand it’s the “us vs. them” mentality of the writers against everyone else. I think that’s completely understandable (why else would we listen to the writers if we didn’t think they had some unique perspective that the average blogger doesn’t have that just looks at the numbers?).

    The second thing he brings up, and this relates more to Bonds, McGwire, Clemns, etc., is this idea that Jim Rice “deserves” to be in the Hall Of Fame because his numbers are more impressive because he didn’t take steroids. Says who? If you ask Jim Rice if he used steroids, you get the same answer that pretty much everyone else gives, “no.” Why exactly is Jim Rice more believable than Barry Bonds? I suspect it’s because we want the answer to be negative more than we do for the current players.

  69. 69: Creston said at 4:21 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Is Schilling eligible in 2013? I know he didn’t play this year, but he did sign a contract? What’s the deciding factor there?

  70. 70: RYAN said at 4:31 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    The way it looks right now, McGwire is gonna be on the ballot for 15 years and then be left in the hands of the Veterans Committee. And I imagine there will be past steroid users voting(cough,IVAN RODRIGUEZ,cough). Would they have the balls to turn down McGwire?

  71. 71: Tank Garbonzo said at 5:03 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Chuck, baseball was not changed by Sosa and McGwire. It would be exactly the same now if they had not hit those home runs.

  72. 72: Monkeyhawk said at 5:05 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    I’ve always wondered about the Baseball Writers of America who decided Ted Williams didn’t quite have what it took to be in the Hall of Fame.

    What game were these people watching?!

    Okay, it was probably a Boston writer with a grudge or a New York writer who had five or six papers to compete with and needed a hook for a column. So they vote against Williams. But c’mon.

    Somebody in 1936 voted against Babe Ruth.

    Somebody thought Willy Mays just didn’t have the chops to be in Cooperstown.

    Joe, you’re a member of this group of people who vote on the Hall of Fame.

    Do you know who they are?

    Don’t you have a convention or a golf tournament or a confab somewhere once a year to tell lies and slap backs and knock down drinks from the open bar and get a clue as to the Baseball Writers of America who couldn’t bring themselves to realize Rickey Henderson probably earned his way into the Hall?

    And if not, just what makes you Baseball Writers of America worthy of the term “journalist?” And just how does one get invited into that esteemed fraternity?

    I can almost accept a Baseball Writer of America in the 1930s not appreciating Walter Johnson because the writer was old, remembered Cy Young when he was young, and/or the writer’s drool cup spilled on the ballot and he couldn’t complete it. Maybe.

    And Rickey Henderson stole a lot of cheap bases and was pretty arrogant when he broke Cobb’s lifetime record for steals. Meh.

    Did some writer get a blow-off from Henderson in 1981 and carry a grudge to this year’s balloting? Were five percent of the Baseball Writers of America comatose between 1979 and 2003 and just didn’t notice Henderson’s play? Are those five-percenters capable of inhaling and exhaling without a breathing coach nearby?

    And if the coots from the 1938 pool of voters — who didn’t think Ruth or Cobb or Matthewson had what it took — died off, who decided which new Baseball Writer of America deserved a ballot if for no other reason than he (are there any female voters?) could be counted upon to prevent a unanimous election to the Hall?

    There’s enough baseball left in the universe that someday there’ll be a guy who, for 20 years in a row, hits .453, averages 106 home runs a season, never strikes out, comes in from center field every night to pitch the final inning (except for every 5th day when he starts and throws a perfect game), donates a kidney to save a bat boy’s life (during a rain delay), loves fluffy kittens and cute puppies, always gives autographs for free, gives part of his salary so Special Olympics kids can sit in the bleachers and their parents can drink free beer… and an old crotchety Joe Posnanski — oldest Baseball Writer of America in history — will wake up in his nuclear-powered HoveRound power chair and vote, “Nope… not good enough.”

  73. 73: David in NYC said at 5:07 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Matt #42 –

    Actually, the “magic loogie” came from the mouth of Roger “The Second Spitter” McDowell, hiding behind the bushes.

    “Back, and to the left.”

  74. 74: TOM M said at 5:07 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Regarding Chuck and post #32. How is it insane that Shoeless Joe is not in the HOF? The guy took money to lose World Series games on purpose! This is not disputed. And don’t tell me he played great anyway, look at his numbers in the games they lost.

  75. 75: Kris M said at 5:29 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    1 short answer: B in BLOG stands for Blyleven.

    Seconds:
    1. Bill James has made the term “Secondary Avg.” common
    2. In “Whatever Happened to HOF” he illustrates the Hall is mostly made up of 2nd Rate HOFR’s.
    3. Being 2nd Rate is fine if you are being compared to Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson etc.

    Thirds: BB HOF guys that everyone gets mad about fall generally into 3 categories – a. John McGraw Bobos, b. Special Needs HOFR’s, and 3. Mistakes of History or “Where have you gone Chester Arthur.

  76. 76: Joe said at 5:55 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    On the matter of Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose, baseball will never admit them in to the Hall, because it would be admitting a faulty system. When was the last time MLB cared about integrity on the field? They are plenty happy to take moral stands off of it.

    They are two different cases. While certainly wishing someone to hell for betting on baseball is ridiculous, Pete Rose would have been much better had he been honest, as would McGwire. It’s not the “Hall of Respectable Gentleman, Who Just So Happened to Play Baseball”. Ty Cobb once went into the stands and punched a heckler Artest-style. When you have the hits record (even though you padded it by putting yourself in while managing), you are a hall of famer.

    “Shoeless” on the other hand was stupid, not for fixing a series, just generally unintelligent. Put it this way: If O.J. were that dumb(debatable???), he would have stood up and shouted during his trial, “Hey, you guys found my gloves!” Rob Neyer, perhaps the most miserly person on the planet, states that his splits from the wins to the losses are bad. Batting .250 in the losses to .545 in the three wins. .250? The Yankees would pay to have A-Rod throw playoff games in such fashion. Also, that no one should care since he is dead. Well, some people care about the history of the sport, probably more than the MLB.

    None of us are without our problems, and these men aren’t getting the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re being included into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Which unless the writer’s start to acknowledge their flaws(except Joe, who frequently does on here), the Hall will also soon be without the greatest player of my life, the man who saved baseball from itself, and the most dominant pitcher not named Pedro of my life.

  77. 77: Dave S said at 6:08 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    My first instinct is to go along with the theory that Rice’s career ended just as steroid use was apparently ramping up, deflating how his power production was being perceived (until now). But then I wonder if that is true, why so little support for Murphy, Parker, Trammell? Not that I would vote those guys in necessarily, but if Rice gets a rise in support why wouldn’t those guys? Maybe it helps being with the Red Sox, not sure.

    One guy that really needs to get in is Tim Raines. The number of steals is impressive, but the success rate is astounding. If Rickey Henderson is a sure thing (and he is) then Raines should be able to get 75%. He’s not Henderson, but he’s in the neighborhood.

  78. 78: AK said at 6:10 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe, I’m patiently awaiting your thoughts on Pioli, either here or on the Star (preferably here since there’s no pesky word limit)…

  79. 79: Kris M said at 6:16 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    If the poll question was this: “Who was Chick Hafey?”

    The corresponding majority demographic answers might be:

    Over Age 65 – Wasn’t that the gal in the Bible with 7 veils? (ans: Salome)

    Ages 45 -65 – Wasn’t that the gal who flew solo and fatally crashed on some island in the 30’s or late 20’s? (ans: Amelia Earhart)

    Ages 35-45 – A Carter Cabinet appointee?

    Under Age 35 – “Oh yeah, she was the quiet cute one from the band Dixie Chicks!”

  80. 80: Kris M said at 6:33 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Why did some voters did not put Rickey on their ballot -

    Some possible explanations:

    1. “Greatest Leadoff Hitter Ever” bats .279″ ?
    2. “Greatest Leadoff Hitter Ever” with 25 yrs.in MLB, ONLY 10 All-star appearances? (really this is GOOD but not GREAT)
    3. “Greatest Leadoff Hitter Ever” teams went to WS but a few times?

  81. 81: Kris M said at 6:46 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Brent (#41)Anyone remember what the arm problems were with the Indians?

    I lived in Cleveland then. If memory serves me correctly, he fell off of his roof while he was watering it down, in California, to prevent brush fires from burning it down. Ironically, a few yrs. before, Toby Harrah (who then played for the Tribe) fell off of his roof also.

    Blyleven asked to be traded the yr. he went 19-8 with Tribe. It was in the beginning of the yr, and he was something like 3-4. Of course, anyone playing for those Tribe teams wanted to be traded. Anyhow, he went to the press with his demand(s). Phil Seghi (or one of the mgmt. team) responded to the press with something like this “Bert Blyleven has not done anything for the team since we acquired him. Instead of asking for a trade, he should be trying to help the Indians”. (not a quote).

  82. 82: Marco said at 7:00 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Joe-

    I’d love to hear your take on Omar Vizquel’s candidacy. It seems like the SABR community has generally come out against Omar, but he has some friends in high places (Gammons), and his non-advanced stats stack up well against the wiz.

    Omar: 2657 hits, 77HR, 892RBI, .273BA, .338OBP, .355SLG, 83OPS+, 11 Gold Gloves
    Ozzie: 2460 hits, 28HR, 793RBI, .262BA, .337OBP, .328SLG, 87OPS+, 13 Gold Gloves

    Thoughts are welcome.

  83. 83: paul said at 7:17 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Blyleven for HOF? I say no.

    The best, simplest argument I’ve ever heard for determining if a guy should get into the HOF is: if there is a debate, then the guy shouldn’t be in. Mantle, Williams, Mays, Seaver. No debate. Blyleven, D Murphy, Dawson. Debate. Shouldn’t be in.

    And there is plenty to debate about Blyleven. He was the quintessential 17-14 pitcher. He hung around 5-6 extra years and padded his wins and innings pitched totals during that time. Durable, heck yeah. Dominant, no way. He never led his team to a World Series. He never won a Cy Young. He was never regarded as a top-tier pitcher. Back in the day, if someone said “Palmer’s pitching tonight,” or “Seaver’s going this afternoon,” or “Gibson’s got the start tonight,” you said “oh-oh” and hung on for dear life. No one thought that about Blyleven, and for good reason. He was a fine, fine pitcher. Tough, even, on many days (as evidenced by his impressive shutout total). But he wasn’t — and isn’t now — HOF worthy.

    If there is ever a wing in the HOF for “Long, productive but generally unremarkable careers,” then I’m in favor of this guy. But until that time, no way, even though a couple of other guys (read: T Perez) have somehow made it in through this door.

  84. 84: David Wintheiser said at 8:24 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    He [Blyleven] never led his team to a World Series.

    Minnesota Twins fans who experienced the 1987 season will beg to differ with this comment. Frank Viola may have had better numbers, but Blyleven was the ace.

  85. 85: Joel A said at 8:45 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Hi Joe–

    Well you made a case for my childhood hero — Rocky Colavito, so it was only right you make a case for Duane also. I always enjoyed watching him play.
    How much of a hero was Rocky to me. All my life, sandlot baseball and then 30 years of softball, I always played outfield and always hit my glove right before the catch. Just like Rocky. I also did the bat behind the back stretch before batting. Just like Rocky.

    Like many I wonder why Trammell is not in the Hall and why Whitaker and Dewey Evans got no consideration. Whitaker belongs in the Hall. Evans might.

    Sure do enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good writing.

    Joel A

  86. 86: Mikey said at 8:54 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    “1. Bill James has made the term “Secondary Avg.” common”

    With all respect to Bill James, no he hasn’t.

    Go to any big-league ballpark and ask 100 fans to define secondary average, or VORP, or OPS+. I’d put the over-under on correct definitions at 3 out of 100.

    Joe’s original point was correct. “Stat freaks love this guy” only goes so far to getting a guy into the HoF.

    The poster who suggested “greatest curveball in history” as a hook may be on to something. While obviously subjective and unprovable, it’s an easier point of entry for most fans into a conversation about Blyleven’s credentials.

  87. 87: Curtis said at 9:36 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Paul,

    There is always a debate. Noone, except Gehrig under special circumstances, has been unanimous. If there were only undebatable people, then it would be empty.

    The rules for election are vague and intentionally so, and the electors are baseball writers, who will debate anything. The whole point of the hall is the debate.

  88. 88: Tom said at 9:48 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    Don’t you dare vote for Jim Thome. The guy was a joke against lefties while with Cleveland. Too one-dimensional. Nice guy but no HOFer.

    I agree that Roberto Alomar should be a slam dunk HOFer!!!!

  89. 89: VoiceOfUnreason said at 10:48 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    “Too one-dimensional.”

    One-dimensional players are acceptable HOFer’s when that dimension is “awesome”.

  90. 90: Justyo said at 10:51 pm on January 13th, 2009:

    There are 28 people out there who really have no right to vote for the ML baseball Hall of Fame.

    I agree 100% the voting ought to be transparent to the public. Even still, there would be some prima donna writer in this hyper media age who sees a book called “Yeah, I’m the guy” out of his abstention. Rickey Henderson NOT a HOF baseball player? The guy would STILL be playing if someone would give him an at-bat. This isn’t the hall of the sane – this is the ML BASEBALL Hall of Fame. Rickey played the game like no other. A true original. An absolute stud. A winner. Crazy? Whatever. The guy was a freak. What is the point of the game but to get on base and to score? Who has EVER done that better? Who? Name one person…. Still waiting.

    Protest vote? Protest what? A perceived slight of Lou Brock? A penchant for speaking in the third person? Un-freeekin believable.

    (end rant)

  91. 91: Pat said at 12:02 am on January 14th, 2009:

    There is one thing I know for certain about the McGwire/Bonds/Sosa HoF debate…it’s not fun.

    I love these hall of fame columns and all the fun debates in the comments section. I have a feeling once the discussion turns towards the steroid era players in a few years that the discussion is going to suck. We’re all going to be arguing ethics, the impact of steroid use on certain players who we THINK were using, and presumption of guilt/innocence. It’s probably the lousiest aspect of the whole steroids era.

  92. 92: knifewrench said at 2:01 am on January 14th, 2009:

    I literally can’t read this blog much as I’d like because I don’t have the time. Between the blogger (loved the shutout argument, Joe) and the commenters, I could spend all day here. Awesome stuff.

    To the point:

    * Barry Bonds will get in the HOF no problem. The Official Narrative is that he didn’t start with the PEDs till ‘99 or ‘00. You’ll hear a lot of sportswriters say that the numbers Bonds put up before that are clearly HOF-worthy by themselves. And they’ll actually be correct.

    * We know Mark McGwire did andro (and that baseball allowed it at the time), but we don’t know if he did anything else. Judging by his performance before Congress, I’m guessing he did. I also think McGwire’s frosty relations with the press (from his playing days), as well as some years where his average hovered around .200 factors into his low support so far.

    * I consider Edgar Martinez a HOFer, but I’ll be surprised if he comes close to enshrinement. DHing will be played up, which is a joke when you consider that the Hall has people like Reggie Jackson (and will, some years from now, have Manny Ramirez). It’s funny that for great hitters, being a DH makes you half a player, but poor fielding is never a consideration.

    * Jim Rice? I’ll go with the cliche: east coast media bias. Delayed action.

    I liked the comment from the reader who listed the HOFs voted in with 90 percent or better. I wish this was the entirety of the Hall. You set the bar that high, you for the most part remove the sports writers and their petty grudge-holding from the equation.

    My other fave comment was from the reader who astutely suggested that the demise of newspapers should change the HOF selection process. Indeed, inside of a decade, things should be very different with HOF voting. Not problem-free, but very different…

  93. 93: Jon Morse said at 2:25 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Blyleven, the simple argument:

    3000 hits is still an automatic ticket to the hall, barring misconduct. Indeed, every eligible hitter with 3000 hits has been enshrined; within the last decade, we’ve seen hitters enshrined pretty much simply BECAUSE they have 3000 hits.

    For as long as I can remember, the 3000 hits/strikeouts milestones were deemed essentially equal in importance — this, despite the fact that there are fewer pitchers with 3000 strikeouts (16, 6 not yet eligible) than there are hitters with 3000 hits (27, two not yet eligible, one banned). Indeed, until recently 3000 hits was twice as common as 3000 Ks.

    And it’s not like Bert Blyleven barely had 3000 strikeouts. He has over 20% MORE than that. A hitter with 3700 hits would get in first-ballot. Every eligible pitcher with even 2850 strikeouts is in the hall — a number Blyleven surpassed by nearly 30%.

    If Blyleven had retired with 3029 strikeouts or something, I could see arguing that “reaching a milestone in one statistical category isn’t necessarily Hall-worthy.” But this? This is like claiming that a player who wasn’t on steroids and who hit 600 home runs — 600, not 500 — doesn’t belong in the Hall.

  94. 94: Principal said at 6:57 am on January 14th, 2009:

    #83

    Paul, what you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on your soul.

  95. 95: gogiggs said at 7:33 am on January 14th, 2009:

    The idea that Jim Thome isn’t a HoFer is mind-boggling to me; career OBP of .406, career SLG. of .566, 541 HRs, always classy in public, never a hint of scandal and those moonshots… Man, when he gets ahold of one, it’s a beautiful sight.

  96. 96: Josh in DC said at 8:09 am on January 14th, 2009:

    [Josh in DC, curious where you stand on Clemens/Bonds for HOF? Surely you don’t believe one player betting on baseball is a greater scar on the sport than an entire generation of players on steroids?]

    …

    I’d vote for Bonds and Clemens because of (what appears to be) their pre-steroid accomplishments. And, man, do I hate Clemens! (Hell hath no fury like a Red Sox fan scorned.) And I brought asterisks to RFK to help my section boo Bonds. For that reason, I wouldn’t vote for McGwire or Palmeiro, because — as best as I can tell — they wouldn’t have made it without steroids.

    Tough calls, I know. Innocent until proven guilty in court? Sure. Hall of Fame ballots aren’t held to that same standard.

    …

    I can’t understand ruling out an entire generation of players. Ruth and Cobb never played against African-Americans, which diminishes their achievements. Did they cheat? No, just played the cards they were dealt. That’s the standard I’d judge players against. (Man, what to do with spitballers/emery boarders Don Sutton and Phil Neikro and Gaylord Perry under my standards? Yikes, this is tough.)

    …

    Incidentally, assuming that Pedro never took steroids (and given his fragile injury history, I think that’s a safe bet), how great do those 1997-2003 seasons look?

  97. 97: chuck said at 8:27 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Jon Morse……thank you for the simple, unarguable (sp) fact which screams for Blyleven’s inclusion: the strikeout threshold.

    I appreciate those who have contested my Shoeless Joe position for inclusion. Having read virtually every published report, book and article on the subject over the last 40 years or so I personally believe that he played absolutely no role in the Black Sox scandal…..but, indeed it is still only my opinion.

    But that aside, my posit regarding the absurdity of Canseco’s book being the governor for consideration in the “steroid era” remains. The responsibility for managing the sport and setting the standards for eligibility to PLAY rests with ownership and their designate, the Commissioner. I take the position (which I believe to be logical) that if they played, then the correct method for evaluation should be the numbers they put up. Since the sportswriters were complicit in turning a blind eye to the reality, they should be directed to exclude any consideration other than what transpired between the lines and the character issues that affected the team and the community.

    To those who suggest that Baseball would be as it is today absent the McGwire/Sosa ‘98 barrage: you have forgotten the lingering effects of the then 4 year old strike season. Attendance was significantly down for 3 years running prior to the ignition of ‘98. I believe that alone suggests that ‘98 had a profound impact on baseball’s huge renaissance.

  98. 98: Josh in DC said at 8:31 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Shoeless Joe knew exactly what he was doing. It wasn’t complex. And, Chuck, as you read every scrap of paper about him, check what he did in the losses, not his average in the Series. He was paid to throw games, and that’s what he did. He was paid handsomely for it.

  99. 99: Oddibe Kerfeld said at 8:33 am on January 14th, 2009:

    I wanted to vote for the Obama Victory Plate on your poll, but it didn’t make the ballot. Why not? Don’t tell me you haven’t seen this ad all over television. How about the Obama Victory Coin?

  100. 100: chuck said at 9:34 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Josh in DC

    Though I am reasonably certain that I have researched Jackson far more than you ever will, I would urge that you simply read the wikipedia entry before spouting certainties. Quite simply, you are wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson

  101. 101: Fezzik said at 10:01 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Since when has Wikipedia become the authoritative source on ANYTHING?

  102. 102: ManuelT said at 10:30 am on January 14th, 2009:

    The problem at the end is not those 28 who didn`t vote by Henderson; the problem are those 422 who didn´t vote by Raines but sure were among the 98% of voters by Tony Gwynn in 2007.
    probably some people will say that Raines never won a batting tittle when really that is the point: Raines never need to win a batting tittle to have the same ofensive value of Gwynn.
    I would like to know what thinks those 78% of voters is the great difference in value as players among Raines and Gwynn or Lou Brock (80% in his first ballot in 1985).
    PD. Yes, is Frank Howard, and yes if Rice is now in the HOF why Howard is not there or at least considered by the Veterans Comitte.

  103. 103: David in NYC said at 10:33 am on January 14th, 2009:

    The “McGwire/Sosa saved baseball” meme certainly gets a lot of air time. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of concrete evidence for it.

    Attendance change over previous year:

    NL AL MLB
    1996 +21% +14% +17%
    1997 +4% +5% +5%
    1998 +22% +3% +12%
    1999 +0% -1% -0%

    McGwire/Sosa significantly increased NL attendance ONLY in 1998. There was (less than) zero affect in 1999, so you can hardly claim that 1998 was some kind of watershed year. Actually, the largest percentage change in MLB attendance came in 1996 — so should we say that Ken Caminiti and Juan Gonzalez saved baseball?

  104. 104: chuck said at 10:35 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Fezzik

    It is decidedly not the authoritative source ….on anything ….but it is a quick, broad stroke source for those who choose not to do real, honest to goodness research.

  105. 105: David in NYC said at 10:35 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Forgot to mention (though it is obvious in the statistics) that MLB attendance was actually increasing in the years prior to 1998, NOT decreasing.

  106. 106: Mike Bagnall said at 10:38 am on January 14th, 2009:

    The responsibility for managing the sport and setting the standards for eligibility to PLAY rests with ownership and their designate, the Commissioner. I take the position (which I believe to be logical) that if they played, then the correct method for evaluation should be the numbers they put up. Since the sportswriters were complicit in turning a blind eye to the reality, they should be directed to exclude any consideration other than what transpired between the lines and the character issues that affected the team and the community.

    I love this. Anybody who manages to figure out a hitherto unused method of theft deserves not only to keep what he stole, but be knighted for it? I realize that is what has happened throughout history in every line of endeavor, but I certainly never considered it logical or in any way admirable. What is right and what is legal are not always the same thing and the law prevents post ipso facto legislation. Sometimes that’s a pity.

  107. 107: Josh in DC said at 10:52 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Game One: White Sox lose, 9-1. Jackson goes 0-4 (reached base on an error, scores in the second inning to tie the game at 1)

    Game Two: White Sox lose, 4-2. Jackson goes 3-4. In the second inning, standing on 3rd, he fails to score on a groundout to the shortstop. Top sixth, with a runner at second, he strikes out looking.

    Game Three: White Sox win, 3-0. Winning pitcher? Dickie Kerr, who was not part of the fix, pitching a 3-hit shutout. Jackson goes 2-3, scoring an unearned run on an error.

    Game Four: White Sox lose, 2-0. Jackson goes 1-4, reaching on an error. (Anyone get the feeling the 1919 Reds were a poor defensive team?)

    Game Five: White Sox lose, 5-0. Jackson goes 0-5.

    Game Six: White Sox win, 6-5. Jackson goes 2-4 with a walk.

    Game Seven: White Sox win, 4-1. Jackson goes 2-4 with a couple RBI.

    Game Eight: White Sox lose, 10-5. Bottom of the first, runners on 2nd and 3rd, one out, Jackson pops to short. Third inning, Sox down 5-0, Jackson hits a solo homer. Down 10-1 in the eighth, Jackson hits a 2-run double, closing the gap to 10-3. Bottom of the ninth, Jackson makes the final out of the World Series.

    …

    As long as we’re using wikipedia as a source …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_scandal

    “Jackson, generally considered a strong defensive player, was unable to prevent a critical two-run triple to left during the series. (In fact, during the series three triples were hit to left where Jackson was playing, despite the fact that most triples get hit to right or right-center.) Jackson told sportswriter Westbrook Pegler that he had “only poked at the ball” during many World Series at-bats. Most damningly, Jackson admitted under oath to accepting $5,000 from the gamblers. One play in particular has been subjected to much scrutiny. In the fifth inning of game 4, with a Cincinnati player on second, Jackson fielded a single hit to left field and threw home. The run scored and the White Sox lost the game 2-0. Chick Gandil, another leader of the fix, later admitted to yelling at Cicotte to intercept the throw. Cicotte, whose guilt is undisputed, made three errors in that fifth inning alone.”

  108. 108: Rose before Roids said at 10:54 am on January 14th, 2009:

    First time I’ve ever seen the words “research” and “wikipedia” in the same sentence. Good luck with that.

  109. 109: chuck said at 11:01 am on January 14th, 2009:

    David in NYC

    Yes, baseball attendance increased for the years immediately prior to ‘98. That statement in a vacuum is a textbook example of how statistics can distort the truth.

    1993: 70 million + (first ever)
    1994: (strike shortened season) 50 million +
    1995: (full season) 50 million +
    1996: 60 million +
    1997: 63 million +
    1998: 70 million +

    A rational conclusion would be that ‘98 returned baseball to the levels that they had finally reached prior to the strike. The three years immediately prior to ‘98 were, on a per game basis, decidedly below the 93 and 94 seasons….in spite of the “fact” that they were, indeed, increasing. I am sorry that I did not better articulate my post.

  110. 110: Mikey said at 11:02 am on January 14th, 2009:

    I can’t be the only one here who will be eager to see how Joe gets along with Scott Pioli.

    Pioli seems like a smart football writer’s dream. Smart, dedicated, articulate.

    At the same time, he doesn’t seem like one to suffer fools gladly. If you’re covering the Chiefs in the future, you better know your stuff and ask good questions.

    What a great hire for the Chiefs. With their draft position, cap room, and Pioli in place, who would bet against this team being back in the Playoffs in three years if not sooner?

  111. 111: Mikey said at 11:04 am on January 14th, 2009:

    “A rational conclusion would be that ‘98 returned baseball to the levels that they had finally reached prior to the strike”

    Agree, and in fact I think that’s what many rational observers said at the time. The “saved baseball” stuff was just overheated hype.

  112. 112: Gate said at 11:35 am on January 14th, 2009:

    Re: Pioli:

    Especially because Mike Reiss’ column in the Globe today highlights Pioli’s love of Springsteen.

  113. 113: Josh in DC said at 11:39 am on January 14th, 2009:

    http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/CrosleyField.html
    (Make sure you roll over “1912.” There’s no tricky caroms in left with that arrangement, but there is a slope out there.)

    Here’s what I can tell from the box scores, via baseballreference.com:

    In Game One, the Reds starting pitcher (a career .260 hitter) hit a triple to left-center with 2 out in the 4th, turning a 2-1 game into a 4-1 game. Next batter doubles to left, scoring the pitcher. It’s 5-1, bottom of the fourth.

    Game Two is when the Reds shortstop (a career .250 hitter) miraculously ALSO hit a triple to left, also in bottom of the fourth in a 1-0 run game, becoming a 3-0 game.

    Game Four, the Reds’ left fielder scores from second on a single to left.

    Game Eight, a double to left scores 2 runs in the first inning, changing 1-0 to 3-0. (Anyone else, I wouldn’t be suspicious of this. Except that in) The second, a double to left scores another run. Top fifth, a single to left scores another run. Top eighth, a single to left scores another run.

  114. 114: Josh in DC said at 11:49 am on January 14th, 2009:

    http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1232950.html

    Neyer doesn’t link to a transcript, but he does quote it. I’ll trust him.

    Q: How much did [Chick Gandil] promise you?
    A: Twenty thousand dollars if I would take part.

    Q: And you said you would?
    A: Yes sir.

  115. 115: Nate Tubbs Rules said at 11:59 am on January 14th, 2009:

    I threw this out last week, but I believe I’ve revamped it a tad and moved some people around. My HOF of players since Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier:

    30 players from each 20 year period spread fairly evenly between upthemiddle defenders, corner defenders, and pitchers-1 closer per 20 year period (50/60, 70/80, 90/00). 90 total players. Mussina, Bagwell, and Vlad currently hold the last 3 spots from the 90s/00s but they could get bumped by Ichiro, Santana or somebody like that with more work on their resume. Dawson sits at 91 just below the cut line. I downgraded some for roids but not too much(Bonds and Clemens from top4 to 5 and 7 respectively, McGwire from 30something to 46, Palmeiro and Sheffield from lower tier HOFers to below the cut line, Sosa and Pudge down about 5-10 spots each).

    Rank Player Years PA/IP OPS+/ERA+ HR/W AVG/ERA AS MVP WinSh WARP3
    1 Mays 22 12493 156 660 0.302 20 6.06 642 220.1
    2 Musial 22 12712 159 475 0.331 20 6.96 604 191.5
    3 Aaron 23 13940 155 755 0.305 21 5.45 643 217.6
    4 TWilliams 19 9791 191 521 0.344 17 6.43 555 156.8
    5 Bonds 22 12606 182 762 0.298 14 9.30 707 236.4
    6 Mantle 18 9909 172 536 0.298 16 5.79 565 155.3
    7 Clemens 24 4916 143 354 3.12 11 2.20 437 209
    8 Maddux 23 5008 132 355 3.16 8 1.13 392 171.8
    9 FRobinson 21 11743 154 586 0.294 12 4.83 519 167.6
    10 Spahn 21 5243 118 363 3.09 14 2.44 412 143.8
    11 Seaver 20 4782 127 311 2.86 12 1.39 388 146.6
    12 Rickey 25 13346 127 297 0.279 10 2.46 535 189.8
    13 Schmidt 18 10062 147 548 0.267 12 4.96 467 157
    14 Griffey Jr 20 10742 138 611 0.288 13 3.20 388 139.5
    15 Morgan 22 11329 132 268 0.271 10 3.04 512 165.3
    16 Carlton 24 5217 115 329 3.22 10 1.36 366 138.7
    17 Matthews 17 10101 143 512 0.271 9 1.61 450 146.6
    18 Brett 21 11624 135 317 0.305 13 3.30 432 137.7
    19 Arod 15 9076 147 553 0.306 12 5.13 394 141.4
    20 Clemente 18 10212 130 240 0.317 12 2.80 377 127.8
    21 Yastremski 23 13991 129 452 0.285 18 2.23 488 131.7
    22 Jackson 21 11416 139 563 0.262 14 3.28 444 131
    23 Ripken 21 12883 112 431 0.276 19 2.31 427 173.1
    24 Thomas 19 10074 156 521 0.301 5 4.79 404 134.2
    25 Bench 17 8669 126 389 0.267 14 2.77 356 120.5
    26 Berra 19 8364 125 358 0.285 15 3.98 375 108.8
    27 ManRam 16 9006 155 527 0.314 12 3.06 383 116.9
    28 Banks 19 10395 122 512 0.274 10 2.81 332 119.9
    29 Kaline 22 11597 134 399 0.297 15 2.92 443 122.9
    30 Gwynn 20 10232 132 135 0.338 15 1.93 398 122.1
    31 Ryan 27 5386 111 324 3.19 8 0.23 334 135.5
    32 Carew 19 10550 131 92 0.328 18 1.80 384 122.9
    33 Winfield 22 12358 130 465 0.283 12 2.20 415 125.2
    34 Murray 21 12187 129 504 0.287 8 3.33 437 134.4
    35 Mccovey 22 9686 147 521 0.270 6 1.63 408 112.7
    36 Unit 21 4039 137 295 3.26 10 0.80 321 154.8
    37 Boggs 18 10740 130 118 0.328 12 1.20 394 139.2
    38 Gibson 17 3884 127 251 2.91 8 1.24 317 118.6
    39 Pedro 17 2782 154 214 2.91 8 0.91 251 116.4
    40 Yount 20 12249 115 251 0.285 3 1.80 423 132
    41 Killebrew 22 9831 143 573 0.256 11 3.22 374 94.5
    42 Stargell 21 9026 147 475 0.282 7 3.30 370 105.6
    43 Molitor 21 12160 122 234 0.306 7 1.43 414 131.7
    44 Pudge 18 9264 110 295 0.301 14 1.04 312 140.4
    45 Fisk 24 9853 117 376 0.269 11 1.27 368 115.7
    46 McGwire 16 7660 162 583 0.263 12 1.94 342 109.8
    47 Fergie 19 4500 115 284 3.34 3 0.69 323 128.5
    48 Perry 22 5350 117 314 3.11 5 0.55 369 130.9
    49 Roberts 19 4688 113 286 3.41 7 1.93 339 126
    50 Alomar 17 10400 116 210 0.300 12 1.91 375 132.6
    51 JRobinson 10 5802 132 137 0.311 6 1.74 257 91.5
    52 Sandberg 16 9282 114 282 0.285 10 1.98 346 108.7
    53 Biggio 20 12503 111 291 0.281 7 1.02 428 123
    54 Snider 18 8237 140 407 0.295 8 1.97 352 93.9
    55 Pujols 8 5382 170 319 0.334 7 4.89 286 89.8
    56 Ozzie 19 10778 87 28 0.262 15 0.65 325 132.5
    57 BRobinson 23 11782 104 268 0.267 15 3.69 356 119.3
    58 Piazza 16 7745 142 427 0.308 12 3.15 325 98.3
    59 Palmer 19 3948 126 268 2.86 6 1.00 312 99.6
    60 Marichial 16 3507 123 243 2.89 9 0.87 263 82.7
    61 Drysdale 14 3432 121 209 2.95 8 0.61 258 97.1
    62 Koufax 12 2324 131 165 2.76 6 2.27 194 68.3
    63 Rivera 14 1023 199 68 2.29 9 0.50 207 102.6
    64 Eckersley 24 3285 116 197 3.50 6 1.78 301 128.4
    65 Blyleven 22 4970 118 287 3.31 2 0.09 339 147.7
    66 Ford 16 3170 133 236 2.75 8 1.06 261 88.1
    67 Smoltz 20 3395 127 210 3.26 8 0.39 288 121.1
    68 Niekro 24 5404 115 318 3.35 5 0.19 374 132.9
    69 Schilling 20 3261 127 216 3.46 6 0.23 254 113.9
    70 Carter 19 9019 115 324 0.262 11 1.93 337 115.9
    71 Puckett 12 7831 124 207 0.318 10 2.56 281 87.1
    72 Jeter 14 9093 120 206 0.316 9 2.08 319 103.5
    73 Thome 18 9029 148 541 0.279 5 1.21 346 111
    74 BWilliams 18 10519 133 426 0.290 6 1.61 374 113.1
    75 Larkin 19 9057 116 198 0.295 12 1.10 347 121.8
    76 Raines 23 10359 123 170 0.294 7 0.99 390 131.1
    77 Sosa 18 9896 128 609 0.273 7 2.46 325 108.5
    78 Glavine 22 4413 118 305 3.54 10 0.12 315 129.1
    79 Chipper 15 8677 145 408 0.310 6 2.41 351 100.9
    80 Santo 15 9396 125 342 0.277 9 1.23 324 112.8
    81 Wilhelm 21 2254 146 143 2.52 5 0.48 256 90.9
    82 Brock 19 11235 109 149 0.293 6 1.60 348 89.9
    83 Trammell 20 9375 110 185 0.285 6 1.22 318 127.1
    84 Wynn 23 4564 107 300 3.54 6 1.14 309 107.4
    85 Aparacio 18 11230 82 83 0.311 10 1.24 293 91.2
    86 Doby 13 6302 136 253 0.283 7 0.94 268 73.6
    87 Campanella 10 4816 124 242 0.276 8 2.52 207 67.8
    88 Mussina 18 3562 123 270 3.68 5 0.04 274 132.4
    89 Bagwell 15 9431 149 449 0.297 4 2.89 388 127.2
    90 Vlad 13 7419 147 392 0.323 8 2.88 302 84.4
    ————————————————————-
    91 Dawson 21 10769 119 438 0.279 8 2.36 340 107.5
    92 Sutton 23 5282 108 324 3.26 4 0.02 319 106.9
    93 Allen 15 7314 156 351 0.292 7 1.62 342 99.2
    94 Ashburn 15 9736 111 29 0.308 5 0.62 329 107.2
    95 Palmeiro 20 12046 132 569 0.288 4 1.20 387 130.1
    96 Bunning 17 3760 114 224 3.270 7 0.28 257 94.1
    97 Gossage 22 1809 126 124 3.01 9 0.95 223 90.5
    98 Fingers 17 1701 119 114 2.90 7 1.42 188 78.1
    99 Rice 16 9058 128 382 0.298 8 3.15 282 80.2
    100 Perez 23 10861 122 379 0.279 7 0.93 349 106.4
    101 McGriff 21 10174 134 493 0.284 5 1.41 326 106.6
    102 Sheffield 21 10635 141 499 0.292 9 2.48 424 123.4
    103 Smith 18 1289 131 71 3.03 7 0.34 198 85.5
    104 Hunter 15 3449 104 224 3.26 8 0.72 206 67.8
    105 Sutter 12 1042 136 68 2.83 6 1.20 168 59.8

  116. 116: David in NYC said at 12:03 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    Chuck –

    One may reasonably state, as you have, that attendance in 1998 returned to pre-strike “normal” levels. Certainly not much of an argument there.

    However, as I was indicating, attendance was already increasing, not decreasing as you stated, to “equilibrium” (sorry for the jargon — I have degrees in economics, but not a job in the field, so this is my chance to use my economist-speak) levels, and apparently stayed at “equilibrium” in 1999.

    One would assume that if McGwire/Sosa had any “saving baseball” effect at all, it would have at least increased attendance somewhat in 1999, or have had any effect at all on AL attendance in 1998 or 1999, and it didn’t do either one.

  117. 117: Gate said at 12:36 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    Could’t McGwire and Sosa simply have helped baseball to reach its equilibrium point much more quickly than otherwise would have been the case?

  118. 118: Ted C said at 1:16 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    When crunching those attendence numbers, don’t forget that there were two more teams in 1998 than there were in 1993-97.

  119. 119: Craig said at 1:40 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    Regarding attendance. Levels in 95 were so low, they had no place to go but up in 96. They stagnated for 97, then the year of the home run race they increased greatly, and stayed at that high level in 99. Did they save baseball? I don’t know, but they definitely increased interest.

    As for the ten year peaks that are often quoted in support of certain players leading stats in different categories. They are relevant, but are used out of context. Picking one player’s best ten years and saying he led the league in this or that category is misleading. For example, say one player had great stats from 82-92, it ignores the players who had great stats from 79-89, 83-93, etc. It makes the player sound better than he is, just like the Mark Grace most hits in the 90s argument.

  120. 120: Ernie said at 1:44 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    Imagine my pleasant surprise, when I was working today, and Dale and Holley announced that you were coming on with them at the top of the hour. Great job, Joe. I only wish you would have been able to talk more baseball. They are definately one of the more classier hosts on WEEI, and I hope you have more interviews schedueled with them. For anyone that is interested, go to weei.com, click on audio on demand for the dale and holley show, and you can listen to Joes interview.

  121. 121: Phil Gurnee said at 6:06 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    #115
    Great list. All the players I’d vote for are accounted.

  122. 122: Mike S said at 7:30 pm on January 14th, 2009:

    “I’d vote for Bonds and Clemens because of (what appears to be) their pre-steroid accomplishments. And, man, do I hate Clemens! (Hell hath no fury like a Red Sox fan scorned.) And I brought asterisks to RFK to help my section boo Bonds. For that reason, I wouldn’t vote for McGwire or Palmeiro, because — as best as I can tell — they wouldn’t have made it without steroids.”

    I’ve heard this line of thought so often from the media/morality police and don’t understand it. Why does it matter when the players used steroids? If you deem it an unethical act, shouldn’t all players nailed/heavily suspected be barred? Despite the fact that both Bonds and Clemens had already posted excellent careers, they both chose to “cheat” to get ahead which seems to me to be as unethical as McGwire, Palmeiro, and the lesser players who also juiced. If you are going to keep guys out for having used steroids, it should not matter how good/bad they were before they supposedly used. Personally, I’m willing to include the roiders while indicating that they used/were suspected of using.

  123. 123: Jake (other San Diego) said at 2:04 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Frank Jobe for the hall of fame. If Candy Cummings is a pioneer, then Frank Jobe is the Pony Express multiplied with the Oregon Trail. Frank has revolutionized sports medicine, and he should definitely get a plaque (maybe over Bowie Kuhn’s??? same era and all!) and perhaps even an award named after him like the Frink and Spick awards…

  124. 124: Jake (other San Diego) said at 2:10 am on January 15th, 2009:

    The Barry.. even at his worst, he was the best hitter I ever saw in person.

    absolutely. I saw him when his OBP entering the season was .619. Freaky. (2004 – he finished with .609) Anyone who can hit the round ball with the round bat … squarely … and get on base (by crack or by eye) over half the time is a Hall of Famer in my book.

    Screw the steroids. Screw the fact that he was a Major League Jerk. Screw that Hank Aaron and Bud Selig snubbed him… while I still think that Aaron should gain the most respect and admiration of any career home run record holder (over Ruth and Bonds)… the fact remains, Bonds was the greatest player of the steroids era. To deny him from the Hall of Fame would be to deny the entire 1990s.

    (that said, if Roger is not voted in, I won’t lose any sleep, because … 15 year olds … ewww!!!)

  125. 125: Jake (other San Diego) said at 2:16 am on January 15th, 2009:

    The HOF is a joke until Pete Rose is in.

    yep.

    honestly, I’d rather go to Hell for being inconsistent in my bets on my own team, than for beating up a guy with no hands, or contracting a venereal disease in the 1925 offseason, or for getting a gentleman’s agreement passed by which no black players were allowed to take the field for 60 years.

  126. 126: buckweaver said at 4:20 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Josh in DC,

    Have you read Gene Carney’s book, “Burying the Black Sox”? Those “triples to left” are a common myth that has been long debunked.

    And I can assure you, using spotty PBP — which differs greatly depending on which source you use; Cincy or Chicago or N.Y. or Washington or TSN or Spalding or anywhere else — of the 1919 World Series to decide guilt or innocence of the seven players alleged to have thrown the Series is hardly solid evidence. Just sayin’.

  127. 127: EdB said at 7:58 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Rickey Henderson should not feel bad…. as I write this, 19 voters did not choose Abraham Lincoln as a top-5 member of the Presidents’ HOF in Joe’s poll.

  128. 128: RON C said at 8:07 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Much like HOF votes for the likes of Jay Bell, the fact that 11 people voted for George W Bush as a HOF President should disqualify them from voting for ANYTHING … EVER.

  129. 129: Gate said at 8:14 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Tenuous Presidential – Baseball analogy that no one cares about:
    I think Bill Clinton is kind of like the Palmeiro/McGwire/Clemens of Presidents. The whole extramarital stuff really struck a chord with people and many think that it permanently (trying to look for word that won’t be a double entendre) besmirched the Office and so all his other accomplishments don’t matter.

  130. 130: Josh in DC said at 8:32 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Jackson confessed. In court.

    I can’t understand why people defend him. Forgive him? Perhaps. But he did it.

  131. 131: Josh in DC said at 8:45 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Mike S. (#122) … yeah. That’s the other side of the argument. It’s not an easy position to be in. But as soon as I say, “Ban all cheaters” then everyone from this era has to be excluded because I can’t tell if they did or not. And if I say, “I can’t decide, therefore, it shouldn’t be a factor,” it ignores the fact that some people — via circumstantial evidence, at minimum — are clearly guilty of padding their stats by cheating. (Like I mentioned in another comment, so did Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry.)

    Man, this is tough. Which is all the more reason why it’s preposterous that some people didn’t vote for Rickey Henderson, whose blemishes (being something of a jerk, low batting average) are so minor compared to betting on baseball, cheating with steroids, using an emery board, being a lousy fielder, choking in the clutch, having never won a Cy Young or MVP, etc.

    I’ll say this: I wish I weren’t so vitriolic via my “Pete Rose can go to Hell” comment.

  132. 132: Andrew T. said at 9:33 am on January 15th, 2009:

    I think the fact that Polk is on the list and has 11 votes is even more galling than the George W. Bush votes — Polk was basically the W of the 19th century.

  133. 133: David in Toledo said at 10:19 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Buchanan was the W of the 19th century. Polk got Congress to enact tariff reduction and an independent treasury. He saw to our successful expansion to the Pacific (mission actually accomplished, whatever Los Ninos Heroes’s eventual revenge). He had the sense to limit himself to one term.

    Voting for W instead of Woodrow Wilson is like voting for Plesac instead of Blyleven.

  134. 134: David in Toledo said at 10:26 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Voting for Reagan instead of for Andrew Jackson is like voting for Jim Rice instead of for Barry Bonds. Reagan was all about make-believe, that by msking us “feared” he had won the Cold War. When you actually study the stats, Reagan just napped while his underlings set us on the road to rule of the rich, national bankruptcy, and endless war in Afghanistan.

  135. 135: Gate said at 10:27 am on January 15th, 2009:

    I think of Wilson more like Murray. Started strong, but then (after the stroke and all) was really a shell of his former self at the end.

    Murphy hung around to try to get 400 hrs
    Wilson hung around to try to get Congress to ratify the Treat of Versailles.

    Both fell tragically short.

    Also, they both knew Darren Daulton (Murphy when he played for the Phils, Wilson when Daulton traveled back in time).

  136. 136: Gate said at 10:32 am on January 15th, 2009:

    umm…I meant Murphy not Murray.

    Man, that may have ruined the otherwise unmistakable parallels between Woodrow Wilson and Dale Murphy.

  137. 137: Zeke said at 11:05 am on January 15th, 2009:

    I would like to take this moment to lift my morning coffee in honor of Jessie Orosco. Had I been able to cast a vote, I would have added one to Jessie’s column, tying him with the ridiculous two votes received by Jay Bell. While I am not saying that Jessie is hallworthy, I do believe that there is nothing wrong with sportswriters casting “homer” votes for someone like him with the full knowledge that it quickly becomes a footnote in voting history and that his appearance on the ballot will only be one season.

    Jessie pitched in more games than anyone in major league history. That in itself is worthy of a small plaque along a garden path somewhere in Cooperstown. And it shows a profound love of the game. If Rickey firmly believes that he could successfully play again for the A’s in 2009 if they would only let him, I’m pretty sure that Jessie feels the same way. After a few years of resting the ole’ rubber arm, I bet that Jessie would somehow string together enough effective 1/3 inning appearances to be a more valuable player to the Royals than Willie Bloomquist.

    At his prime in the early -mid 1980s with the Mets, Jessie was one of the best pitchers in baseball. Third in Cy Young voting in 2003. Two all star appearances. And that famous photo from the 86 World Series. But Jessie was a working man, first and foremost. What interested me the most when reviewing his stats was that he basically made the same exact salary for nearly 20 years! Year in, year out, he averaged $900,000 a year. I don’t think there’s anyone out there with that type of consistent salary record.

    Here’s to Jessie. I’m thrilled that someone out there cast a single vote for him, so he wouldn’t be grouped with the Greg Vaughns of the world. Thank you. His career was so much more meaningful than that.

  138. 138: Zeke said at 11:12 am on January 15th, 2009:

    And of course, I spelled JESSE Orosco’s name wrong throughout my little essay.
    And he finished third in Cy Young voting in 1983, not 2003, which was the year he finally stopped pitching (as opposed to retiring. Jesse wasn’t the type of guy to retire, he simply couldn’t find a job in 2004). My bad. But here’s to Jesse Orosco

  139. 139: 3rd Period Points said at 11:48 am on January 15th, 2009:

    Gate, please do not sully the reputation of Dale Murphy by comparing him to Woodrow Wilson. I find it difficult to ignore that Wilson betrayed the constitution and the American people as a whole by supporting and signing into law the Federal Reserve Act. I’m sure you know that Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. Thanks to Wilson, The Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation registered in the State of Delaware, unconstitutionally controls monetary policy.

    Wilson’s significant contributions to the worker’s rights movement (I assume that this is the “strong start” you’re referring to) took place after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and prior to Wilson’s despicable war policies. Wilson supported the American Protective League, a gestapo-like civilian mob that was allowed to ignore 4th amendment rights while conducting warrantless searches and illegally detaining American citizens, particularly members of the I.W.W. People were arrested for voicing non-violent political dissent in their own homes!

    Somehow the U.S.A. had survived for nearly 150 years prior to Woodrow Wilson without imposing an income tax. Indeed, the constitution provided no such power for Federal taxation of private income until the 16th amendment was passed.

    Then there’s the passing of the George W. Bushian Espionage and Sedition Acts and Wilson’s Hitleresque support of eugenics. I’m going to stop writing now. I’m beginning to lose my cool…

  140. 140: Wally said at 11:50 am on January 15th, 2009:

    David:

    >Actually, the largest percentage change in MLB attendance came in 1996 — so should we say that Ken Caminiti and Juan Gonzalez saved baseball?<

    1995 was shortened by the strike (12% of games were lost). Are you looking at total numbers or game averages? Plus 4 years is hardly a good sample to get a trend. If that 12% from 1998 never left (as it didn’t in 1999), I would think that the HR chase did add at least some of that attendence.

  141. 141: chuck said at 12:09 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Defending Joe Jackson: (before I do please recognize that I have never stated my beliefs as “factual”….only that they were reached after a great amount of research and indeed, a zealot like passion for the issue ….I actually spent 3 days in Greenville SC (in the 70’s)talking with people who knew the man personally)

    esteemed writer Chuck Hirshberg says the following regarding Landis (who he believes should be expunged from hall….he really was a wretched racist amoral prick) and the Joe Jackson case:

    “The truth is, Kenesaw Mountain Landis (his father lost a leg at the Battle of Kinnesaw Mountain, and was a poor speller) had about as much as INTEGRITY as Manuel Noriega. And had he never been born, the American people’s esteem for baseball could not possibly have suffered.”

    “By far the most scandalous aspect of the Black Sox scandal was not the fix, but the legal proceedings that followed it. Three players confessed and eight were indicted, but before the case went to trial, the grand jury records, complete with confessions, went a-missin’. They turned up four years later in the possession of one George Hudnall, who just happened to be Charles Comiskey’s lawyer. Apparently, someone, or several someones, had decided that a public trial would be bad for the baseball business. So the players were acquitted; but Landis, in a final insult to American justice, banned them from baseball for life, as he put it, “regardless of the verdict of juries.”

    Further,In recent years evidence has come to light that casts doubt on Jackson’s role in the fix. For instance, Jackson initially refused to take a payment of $5,000, only to have Lefty Williams throw it on the floor of his hotel room. Jackson then tried to tell White Sox owner, the notedly miserly Charles Comiskey about the fix, but Comiskey refused to meet with him. Also, before Jackson’s grand jury testimony, team attorney Alfred Austrian coached Jackson’s testimony in a manner that would be considered highly unethical even by the standards of the time, and would be considered criminal by today’s standards. For instance, Austrian got Jackson to admit a role in the fix by pouring a large amount of whiskey down Jackson’s throat. He also got the nearly illiterate Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity. Years later, the other seven players implicated in the scandal confirmed that Jackson was never at any of the meetings. Williams, for example, said that they only mentioned Jackson’s name to give their plot more credibility.

  142. 142: Gate said at 12:11 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    3rd Period Points –

    To be honest, I just kind of worked backwards from the stroke and Dale Murphy’s outspoken support for an independent Poland with free and secure access to the sea. After that, it all just kind of fell into place.

  143. 143: Jeff said at 1:28 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Little past date but help get Joe on the front page of Digg

    http://digg.com/television/Hillarious_Snuggies_Infomercials_Recap

  144. 144: Josh in DC said at 1:43 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    I don’t care what Joe Jackson’s friends and admirers have to say about him. I care about what the facts say.

  145. 145: 3rd Period Points said at 2:00 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Gate-

    Fair Enough. Dale does deserve proper credit for his pro-Poland activism. It seems that they did, in fact, have even more in common than just their love for Poland. To add to the eerie parallels, Wilson was raised in Georgia, he was a center fielder in college, he was an outspoken opponent of illegal doping, and he was the 4th cousin of Brigham Young. Who knew?

  146. 146: gogiggs said at 3:09 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    26% for Reagan. The crazification factor holds.

  147. 147: Josh in DC said at 3:30 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Re: No. 141.

    I’m done arguing with someone who (a) claims to have read more about Joe Jackson than anyone alive and then (b) plagiarizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson to make his case.

    Take care, Chuck.

  148. 148: buckweaver said at 5:25 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Josh in DC,

    Please explain what the “facts” are about Jackson’s so-called confession. In that same “confession,” he said he played to win at all times. Was that false? If so, what else about his “confession” was false and how are we to determine the truth? Earlier, you used PBP as conclusive proof that Jackson helped throw the games on the field — but which PBP is the truth? Is it the PBP in the Spalding Guide of 1920, which does not match the PBP in the New York Times of October 1919, which does not match the PBP in the Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune or Cincinnati Post, and none of which say anything about those fabled “triples to left”? And how is Jackson’s 0-4 in Game 1 evidence of his throwing the Series but Eddie Collins’ 0-3 in Game 2 not evidence of that at all?

    We can always manipulate the stats to see what we want to see. And the truth is, we just don’t know for sure. The “facts” contradict themselves too much to take them for granted, just as Jackson’s testimony in 1920 and again in 1924 contradicts itself too much to take it at face value, either.

  149. 149: Richard Aronson said at 5:57 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Pete Rose is not in the HOF because he bet on baseball, the one rule that cannot be broken. Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the HOF because he supposedly helped lose a World Series. Mind you, there was no evidence he actually agreed to throw the Series, accepted any money, or even tried to throw the Series (he batted .375 that Series, although his defense wasn’t up to snuff). But mere suspicion overcomes a .375 batting average, and that’s why Joe’s not in the HOF.

    I am fine with Barry Bonds being in the HOF because before he went on the juice, he established a HOF level career with gold gloves, power speed numbers, and MVPs. Look at his career; 1999 seems like he might have been entering the decline phase, with the worst OPS+ (155) in a decade. By that time he had three MVPs (and five other top ten finishes), 445 homers, 462 stolen bases, a career OPS+ over 160, 8 gold gloves. And he was only 34 years old. If you give him 2000, when he was 35, he did set a new career high in homers by three (46 to 49), but that’s not unheard of; hitting home runs is considered an older player’s skill (until clearly in the decline phase). He did *not* set new highs in OBP, BA, or OPS+. And that would put him at 494 untainted home runs. So I have no doubt that without steroids, Barry Bonds was a HOF caliber performer; not one of the half a dozen best players of all time, as he became thanks to steroids, but still clearly going into the HOF. Mark McGwire, without steroids, is probably off the HOF ballot after his first year of eligibility. He had zero MVPs, one gold glove, no speed. He seems to have had only 267 homers before starting using steroids, and there were plenty of rumors that he was using in 1996, which was part of why the A’s traded him to the Cardinals. All of McGwire’s HOF credentials came because of steroids. Bonds had HOF credentials if he had retired at age 34. So no, it won’t bother me in the least if Barry Bonds goes into the HOF and Mark McGwire doesn’t. And it won’t even bother me if Sammy Sosa goes in and McGwire doesn’t, for the same reasons: without steroids, McGwire couldn’t stay healthy enough to build a legitimate HOF resume.

  150. 150: Josh in DC said at 6:25 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    148: I appreciate the passions are high here, but I’ve said everything I’m going to say about Jackson.

  151. 151: Richard Aronson said at 6:29 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    As for Blyleven, it’s just insane that he’s not in the HOF. But it’s all the press’s fault. Not the idiot press of today, who won’t vote for him (okay, not *just* those idiots) but the true idiots who refused to give a small market star any ink to get him some All Star, Cy Young, and even MVP consideration while Blyleven was active. Aside from his last three seasons, playing for Anaheim (now called part of Los Angeles), he played his entire career for small market teams: Minnesota (twice), Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, so he never got the recognition that comes from having lots and lots of baseball fans and writers. He was a great postseason pitcher in those few times he was on the national stage (5-1, 2.47 ERA). He was a better pitcher when the pennant was on the line; his two best months (by ERA) were August and September. Of course, coming on strong in September doesn’t get you selected to All-Star games.

    Blyleven had eight seasons where he was in the top six in his league in ERA, nine seasons where he was in the top seven in WHIP, 15 seasons where he was in the top eight in strikeouts, but only two seasons where he was on the All Star team and four where he got Cy Young consideration. Do you think it could be because he didn’t get enough press? He led the league in WHIP in 1977, but didn’t get any All Star or CYA votes. He had *six* seasons where his ERA was more than a full run better than the league average, but only four seasons with CYA votes and two with All Star selection. Bob Feller (for one HOF example, and a top tier example) only had three such seasons, and in all three he not only was an All Star, but was also high in the MVP rankings. Think Feller’s too old, that it was harder to beat the league ERA by a run back when there were fewer runs scored? Okay. Steve Carlton, a Blyleven HOF contemporary, had only five seasons with an ERA more than a run better than the league average, and he has *FOUR* Cy Young Awards. See, media really matters, and Blyleven never pitched in the big Atlantic seaboard cities and never got the press he deserved. Carlton won a Cy Young award with an ERA+ of 119. Blyleven had *SEVEN* seasons with an ERA+ better than 119 (123 – 151) without even getting a single CYA vote or making the All Star team (and four more seasons with ERA+ of 134 or better where he did get CYA votes, only two of which got him an All Star selection). In three of those seasons Blyleven also was in the top ten in innings pitched. Lots of innings pitched very well; shouldn’t that get you a Cy Young vote or two? Tom Seaver, whose career mostly overlaps Blyleven and is one of the highest HOF percentage vote getters of all time, improved the league ERA by a full run or more eight times. Tom Terrific, helped by New York’s media, was chosen to the All Star team seven of the eight, had a high CYA ranking seven of the eight, even got MVP consideration seven of the eight. The one season Seaver didn’t was the last, when he’d left New York and the NL and had a surprising career resurrection when it looked like he should have retired. Blyleven just didn’t get ink.

    The same idiot writers who couldn’t be bothered to write about small market pitchers when Blyleven was active now cite Blyleven’s lack of media attention as the reason he doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF. They are putting their own failure to recognize Blyleven’s skills as the reason he doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF now. And they are stuck, committed to a bad idea lest they admit their own shortcomings. To vote Blyleven into the HOF now is to admit that perhaps they didn’t do a very good job of covering Blyleven back when he was active. Ya think?

    Baseball and Blyleven both deserve better. I’m not invested in Blyleven. He was never a Dodger; I was no fan of the teams he played for; I’m not related, I never met him, I have no Blyleven memorabilia or baseball cards. But as a baseball fan, Blyleven’s absence from the HOF is a travesty far worse than the absence of a gambler or a juicer.

  152. 152: chuck said at 6:33 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    RE #147

    a) I made no such claim. I claimed to have spent a significant amount of time reading and researching Jackson(much in the 70’s), which I indeed have. In the process I have discovered others who have spent more than I have. By the way, The Joe Jackson museum just opened in the last couple of years in Greenville and I will be returning to that once quiet town again this summer for a look see.

    b) my lack of dilligence in citing my source does not make me anything other than careless….for that I apologize.

    RE # 107 & 113

    From carney’s book referenced by buckweaver @ post #126

    “Another statement often heard goes like this: ‘Jackson was not charged with any errors in the Series, but he played out of position, let balls fall in for hits, and three of the Reds’ triples went to left field, where triples are rare.’

    I thank Jim Sandoval for sharing part of his collection of play-by-play description from the 1919 World Series. Here are the descriptions of the seven triples hit by the Reds:

    The accounts are from these sources (see abbreviations):

    Neft and Cohen World Series (N&C); The Sporting News (TSN); Cincinnati Times-Star (CTS); Cincinnati Enquirer (CE); Reach Guide 1920 (RG); Spalding Guide 1920 (SG); NY Tribune (NYT);
    Boston Evening Globe (BG).

    Game 1 at Cincinnati

    Ruether 4th inning: Triple to fence in left center (N&C); Ruether tripled to center (TSN); Ruether’s mighty blows caromed off the short, temporary fence in left center and the centerfield fence. (CE); Ruether’s a tremendous drive to left center that bounced back off the temporary wire fence into Felsch’s hands. (CE); Ruether hit over short into the crowd in left center for three bases (SG); His long left-handed swing met the ball solidly and sent it out to centre (sic) field. The pellet rolled to the edge of the crowd for three bases. (NYT)

    Daubert 7th inning: Ground rule triple into crowd in right (N&C); tripled to right field (TSN); Daubert hit into crowd (CE); Daubert opened up with a powerful smash into the right field seats (bounded into seats) for a triple (CE); Daubert caught one on the end of his bat and hit it so far to right field that it hopped into the crowd on the first bound. This was a ground rule triple. (SG); Jake picked on Williamson and drove the ball into loving hands in the right field bleachers. This, according to ground rules, went for a three-bagger. (NYT)

    Ruether 8th inning: Tripled to deep center (N&C); triple to left center (TSN); Ruether slugged a wonderful drive far over Felsch’s head, which rolled clear to the concrete wall in deepest center (CE); Ruether smashed to the center field fence for another triple (SG); His concluding performance was another three-bagger right through centre field, a long hit in any ballpark. (NYT)

    Game 2 at Cincinnati

    Kopf 4th inning: Tripled to fence in left (N&C); Kopf tripled into the crowd in left center (TSN); Kopf to left center, bounded back from wire fence for three bases (CE); Kopf hammered the first ball for a clean three-bagger to left center (SG); Kopf’s hit was a triple that rolled to the temporary inside fence at centre filed. (NYT)

    Game 5 at Chicago

    Roush 6th inning: Tripled to deep center (N&C); Roush followed with a high fly that Felsch could not hold, though he touched it on the run and it went for a three base hit. (TSN); Roush whaled the ball over Felsch’s head for three bases. Hap misjudged the ball, then let the ball trickle off his left hand (CE); Felsch played Roush’s fly badly and finally muffed it, but the scorers were liberal and called it a three-base hit (SG)

    Game 6 at Cincinnati

    Neale 4th inning: Tripled to deep right (N&C); Neale tripled to right, a tremendous blow to right center (TSN); Neale tripled mightily to right field. John Collins dashed over and came near blocking it down but the ball took a band (sic) bound away from him. (CE); Neale sent one to right, which took an eccentric bound (RG); J. Collins overran Neale’s safe hit to right field and the ball rolled far enough to give the batter a triple (SG)

    Game 8 at Chicago

    Kopf 5th inning: Tripled to right center field fence (N&C); Kopf tripled along the right field foul line (TSN); Kopf smashed a triple to right field, the ball eluding Gandil. (CE); Kopf bounced one past Gandil and way down on the safe side of the foul line for a triple. (RG); Kopf hit along the right field line for three bases (SG); Kopf tripled to right, the ball going over first base and reaching the extreme right field corner before Felsch retrieved it (NYT).

    This exercise points to the difficulty of eyewitness accounts. Take the last triple — was it along the right field line or did it go to the fence in right-center? Probably it hugged the line (Gandil played first base), but if you used the Neft & Cohen account, Gandil never had a chance at the ball.

    In any case, Jackson’s name is nowhere mentioned in any of the accounts of any of the triples.”

    You may conclude, Josh that your position is correct and justified. That’s fine. I would urge you explore the the Jackson devotee’s web site http://www.blackbetsy.com/.

    As I said in my first post I am a believer that the man was unfairly villified. BTW, I agree with your position on Rose.

  153. 153: Richard Aronson said at 7:38 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Brent, you wrote: The total record of the teams he pitched for over the years was 1752-1740. So, overall, his teams were average teams. So in other words, without Blyleven pitching, his teams were 25 games under .500 for his career. So Blyleven was able to achieve a record 37 games over .500 while pitching for teams that were an aggregate of 25 games under .500 without him. That’s a big part of why Tim Lincecum won the Cy Young last year, overcoming a weak team to still win games.

    And Paul, He never led his team to a World Series. You’re just plain wrong. Blyleven led the 1979 Pirates to the World Series title while throwing 30 more innings than any other pitcher on the staff. He won his only start in the NLCS, throwing a complete game, giving up only one earned run. He also was 1-0 in the World Series. In 1987, Blyleven again led the Twins in innings pitched (by 15 1/3) when the Twins won the Series. In that ALCS, Blyleven won both his starts, including notably outdueling so-called Mr. Clutch Jack Morris in game 2, then clinching in game 5, and he went 1-1 in winning the World Series. So I’d say that Blyleven was a huge part of why he has two World Series rings. Blyleven never got any press because he toiled for mostly average teams (at best) in small market cities. Thus, even when he clearly deserved CYA or All Star consideration, he wasn’t given it. That’s not Blyleven’s fault, that’s the media’s fault for being in love with all things Gotham.

    Heck, Paul, do you even *LOOK* at a guy’s career before making stuff up about him? He did *not* pad his stats by hanging on 5-6 seasons after he should have retired. Blyleven’s third from last season, 1989, he went 17-5, had eight complete games, five shutouts (leading the league), finished 7th in IP and 4th in ERA, finished 4th in the Cy Young voting (as voters belatedly realized how badly they had ignored him the rest of his career), finished 13th in MVP voting, and still didn’t make the All Star team. Should he have retired following that season? Was that season just “padding his career”? Blyleven played two seasons after 1989, and those two seasons were mostly injured, under 135 innings pitched each, and if anything hurt rather than helped his HOF credentials. So he certainly didn’t hang on 5-6 seasons. ERA+ of 140, 17-5, 7th in the league in innings, is *not* hanging on to pad your stats; off the top of my head the only pitcher who ever retired (alive) with a better season than that was Sandy Koufax. And five of the six seasons before 1989 Blyleven had a better ERA than the league average and an ERA+ of 107 or higher. He wasn’t an old ineffective pitcher trying to pad his stats; he was pitching very well six years out of seven, then had one bad year, rehabbed one season to see if he could come back healthy, couldn’t, and then hung them up.

    And that 1989 season was only the *FIFTH* best of Blyleven’s career by ERA+, 16th best by strikeouts, 12th best by innings pitched. You *really* think Blyleven got the press he deserved if that was only his fifth best season? Don’t complain about Blyleven’s numbers; complain about the lack of press he got. Heck, look at Nolan Ryan. Retired all time best in strikeouts, Blyleven was 3rd when he retired, so they’re at least somewhat comparable. Both pitched a ton of innings. Ryan’s career ERA+ was 111, Blyleven’s 118. Ryan had four seasons with an ERA a run or more better than his league’s average, Blyleven had six such seasons. Ryan pitched 2 1/3 innings for the Miracle Mets in the World Series and had a postseason ERA of 3.07 with only one World Series ring; Blyleven’s postseason ERA was more than half a run better and he was 2-1 in four World Series starts. Ryan’s first 13 seasons were spent in the two biggest cities in the country, and he was rewarded over his career with 7 high MVP finishes, 8 high CYA finishes, 8 All Star selections, even though Blyleven was a much more effective pitcher at preventing runs from scoring and keeping men off base. Okay, Ryan has one more shutout, is the all time leader in no hitters, and is also the all time leader in walks and wild pitches. Ryan went straight into the HOF. Blyleven remains ignored.

    It’s media and media markets that drive HOF consideration, not necessarily the quality on the field. Jim Rice got to play in Boston. Frank Howard’s best seasons were all with the Washington Senators nee Texas Rangers. Bert Blyleven toiled in relative obscurity. I’m not saying that Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, or Feller don’t belong in the HOF because I can cherry pick some stats. But Blyleven also belongs in the HOF, deserved a *lot* more Cy Young consideration, and was unappreciated in his time.

  154. 154: Richard Aronson said at 8:08 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    Chuck, thank you for your citations. I note that in two of the three triples to left (as well as some of the triples to right) the phrase “into the crowd” was used in some of the sources. There was also reference to ground rule triples and a new temporary fence being erected in some of the citations. Is it possible that a ball that went through or bounced over the fence into the crowd was called a ground rule triple, and that two of the triples blamed on Shoeless Joe would have been doubles with better fencing?

    Regardless of which part of what testimony to believe or not to believe, I find the testimony of the seven confessors to be rather pertinent. What reason did any of them have to lie about Jackson not being part of the conspiracy? They were already confessing and knew their punishments would be severe. If anything, they’d catch more flack for defending Jackson than for protecting him, since prosecutors love to convict big names. We’ll never know for sure (some of us may think they know, but they’re still working on past assumptions) bit I think it likely that Jackson was innocent. When dealing with a poorly educated man with at best indifferent legal representation and understanding of the charges, it’s hard to know what he was thinking. But .375 is .375. To claim that Jackson’s hits only happened when they didn’t matter is to attribute to him superhero status, the ability to bat over .500 when the at bat was unimportant. Jackson was good, but not *that* good.

  155. 155: Norman Shatkin said at 11:56 pm on January 15th, 2009:

    1. Re the steroid era HOF votes — Bonds, OK, there are credible accusations. Same with McGwire. Palmeiro, we absolutely know. But Sosa? Not even Canseco named him, and other than issuing a less than solid denial at a Congressional hearing, I haven’t heard anyone actually say, as they did about Andy Pettitte, for example, that he was using. What people DO say is he must have been using because he hit all those HRs?

    So if you’re going to say that you must have been cheating because you were successful, and since we don’t absolutely KNOW who was and wasn’t using, then nobody can be voted into the HOF who played in that era. Maddux? Gwynn? On what basis do you decide they were clean? Because “suspicion never touched them”? Since when do we make judgments based upon suspicion, or lack of it, without facts? And we will never, thanks to Bud Selig and the union colluding on testing, never have that for the period in question.

    It is reasonable to reduce the stature of a player for which there exists credible evidence. Palmeiro has an HOF resume if you don’t, and we KNOW about Palmeiro. Reduce his numbers accordingly and he’s a borderline case, plus there’s the character issue that he lied under oath. On such a basis, McGwire still has around 500 HRs, but he doesn’t have the monster years and his case gets a lot weaker. Bonds was in the HOF long before, according to his worst accusers, he juiced. The only thing he loses is the right to stand next to Ruth and Williams. Clemens? I think you have to assume his career after he left Boston was steroid fueled, because his last two years look for all the world like the start of a decline phase and then suddenly he gets young again. His case is borderline if you assume that but not out of the question.

    Sosa? On what basis can you keep Sosa out of the HOF? On the basis of guilt by association only? Come on! Then let’s keep out Maddux and Gwynn and Johnson and Ripken (how do you THINK he was able to play all those games?) Otherwise, you’re handing out free passes based upon nothing, and that is just plain un-American.

    2. Kenesaw Landis was a racist pig but he did the right thing in suspending the Black Sox. Funny things happen in Illinois courtrooms but Joe Jackson positively KNEW that a fix was going on, just as Buck Weaver did and Weaver never took a dime. And once they knew, it was incumbent upon them, according to baseball law, to tell somebody about it and especially to NOT take any money, which Jackson clearly did. And if Comiskey wouldn’t listen, there were others he could have gone to.

    Instead he took the money, and said nothing, exposing himself to being manipulated by gamblers through the 1920 season. You don’t think he threw any of those games? But you don’t know for sure, and you DO know for sure that the gamblers who fixed the 1919 Series were in a position to demand that he fix games in 1920 or they’d expose his guilty knowledge and the fact that he had received money. THAT is why baseball has the “guilty knowledge” rule.

    Jackson should have exposed the plot the moment it became real. One may argue as to when that moment was. You can say it was when Eddie Cicotte began tossing fat pitches in the fourth inning of game one, or when Lefty Williams, a control specialist, walked three men in the fifth inning of game two, or you can even, if you’re particularly stubborn, say it was when Lefty Williams gave him $5,000 after game five. But whenever it was, Jackson’s career was over at that point unless he IMMEDIATELY exposed the fix. If Comiskey wouldn’t listen, then Jackson had to find somebody who would — his manager, Kid Gleason, would have been enough. But only in the event that the fix somehow never came to light could Jackson have been treated other than as he was treated, “regardless of the verdict of jurors.”

    If you want to get mad about something in all of this, get mad that Comiskey was not only not thrown out of baseball along with the fixers, but actually elected to the HOF in spite of the fact that Jackson apparently DID try to squeal to him and Comiskey avoided him. The difference, of course, is that Landis didn’t have the stones to take on an OWNER without rock solid proof, and Comiskey could argue that nobody had credibly told him to his face that the Series was being fixed. That’s Landis’s culpability, and Comiskey’s, and if you want to rant about that, I’m right there with you. Throw both the bastards out of the HOF — right now.

    But none of that mitigates JACKSON’S culpability. I think we all know WHY he didn’t scream the house down about the fix as it was going on — he was worried that he’d alienate his best friends on the team, possibly frightened about retribution from Gandil and/or the gamblers, and almost certainly too dumb to appreciate the position he was being put in. It simply did not matter to Landis, nor could it. He could not allow a player who kept silent about a fix — which Jackson did — to remain in the game.

    And as Bill James always says, great baseball players aren’t great because they pile up numbers. They’re great because they help their teams WIN. And a player who has guilty knowledge about a fix has hopelessly compromised his ability to do that, unless he immediately reports the fix.

  156. 156: YankeesVine » Blog Archive » Dave Parker (81 votes, 15%) Don Mattingly (64 votes, 11.9%) Dale Murphy (62 votes, 11.5%) Jim… said at 1:37 am on January 16th, 2009:

    [...] Joe Poz [...]

  157. 157: astorian said at 11:37 am on January 16th, 2009:

    Look, I AGREE that Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. But the idea that he’s beiung kept out because he played for “small market” teams is absurd.

    The New York Mets are a “big market” team, right? Since the Mets played their first game, in 1962, they’ve amassed four Cy Young awards. EXACTLY the same number won by the “small market” Minnesota Twins. Heck, the oronto Blue Jays have reaped as many Cy Young awards as the Mets- why doesn’t anybody accuse the writers of a bias in favor of Canadians teams?

    How many Cy Young Awards have gone to “big market” New York Yankees pitchers? Five. EXACTLY the same number the “small market” Oakland Athletics have collected.

    There is absolutely NO “big market” bias in baseball’s major awards, and there’s no “big market” bias in the Hall of Fame voting.

    Oh, there’s plenty of dumb, misguided voting, but that’s a completely different issue.

  158. 158: Wally said at 12:27 pm on January 16th, 2009:

    I the writer’s bias is more towards good teams. Great players on bad or average teams get ignored. For example, how often do we see the line of “how many HOFers can there be from a team that never won anything?” You here that from a lot of people when discussing Santo, for example. Then of course, certain types of players just end up ignored. If you can’t accumulate wins as a pitcher (often because of bad teams, but also because of bad luck with RS or the bullpen, look at the 2002 and 2003 AL Cy Young voting for example), you get ignored. Apparently if you are an infielder that does everything very good, but are not particularly GREAT at one thing, you get ignored (ie. Trammell, Santo again, Whitaker, Keith Hernandez). Writers need something to latch on to. Something catchy. Like most feared, or best leadoff hitter ever, lead the league in A, B and C for X years, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Or Rollins with being the second guy sense Mays to get 20-20-20-20. Its all combinations of this kind of thing. So, if you are someone like Santo who didn’t win MVPs, never reached 3000 hits, but played great D, had a very good bat, and weren’t on many good teams, you get ignored. Blyleven is just the latest perfect storm of these factors. He largely played for poor teams (people forget about those two WS teams for some reason), never reached 300 wins, didn’t win Cy Young or ever come close, 3000Ks for reason doesn’t matter, and he doesn’t have this “lead the league in A, B, and C for X years” thing building.

    So yes, in short, writers are stupid. They are like moths that fly to the flame of these catchy, but extremely simplistic arguments.

  159. 159: Wally said at 12:28 pm on January 16th, 2009:

    Wow, ok, insert “think” as the second word in my pervious post….sometimes….

  160. 160: Tom said at 1:53 pm on January 16th, 2009:

    The idea of Barry Larkin being a complete player baffles me, since he lacked the single most important ability of all for an athlete: durability. He played 150 games in a season just four times in his career, got 500 AB in a season just seven times. Not so good for a Hall-of-Famer.

    Larkin was great when he played. But Cincinnati always needed a Plan B at shortstop.

  161. 161: Wally said at 3:25 pm on January 16th, 2009:

    Tom, that 150 game cut off really misrepressents your point, particularly sense 2 of Larken’s prime years were cut short by the strike. In 1994 Larkin played 110 games, 4 less than the maximum. In 1995 Larkin played 131 games (and had 496 ABs, 4 less than your AB cut off), 13 games less than the maximum, which is still just over 90% of the baseball games. Larken also had 2 more seasons with 145 games, and one season with 140 games. That’s 9 seasons where he plays at least 85% of the games. And injuries really only seriously effected his playing time in 3 of his prime years. Late in his career he couldn’t stay on the field that well. I’ll give you that. But we really should consider what he did while he was on the field and weigh that considering his playing time. For example, Larkin played nearly exactly the same amount of games as Sandberg, it just took him an extra couple seasons to get there. Mean while, Larkin’s rate stats are better, though only slightly.

  162. 162: David in Toledo said at 7:51 pm on January 16th, 2009:

    Tom and Wally, further in Larkin’s favor (re Sandberg, whom I think deserving) is that shortstop is tougher to play than 2nd. And the stupid artificial turf in Cincinnati had to have taken a toll on Larkin, just as the argument is always made about Andre Dawson and his concrete-field knees. And plate appearances are a better metric than at-bats.

  163. 163: mike said at 7:26 am on January 18th, 2009:

    Comparing pre and post 1993 numbers is a joke and this is where sabremetrics have completely failed. It was a completely different game before questec, PED’s, lively balls, expansion diluted pitching, smaller parks, battle armour that hitters are allowed to wear now, new rules about beanballs, improvements in technology (maple bats), improvements in medicine (Lasic surgery, contacts, tommy John surgery) and increased emphasis on OBP (just look at the top 25% of OBP seasons for each year from 1965-2008 and it’s quite striking).

    Here’s Goose Gossage on the point:

    “I was so happy [Jim Rice was elected to the Hall of Fame],” said Gossage. “We were rivals. I wasn’t scared of anyone, but he came the closest of any hitter I ever faced. I respected him so much as a player. I know we had looked forward to going in together last year, but he’s one of us now. The game was different when we played because pitchers owned the inside part of the plate. If Jim played in this era, he’d be Manny Ramírez.”

    Here’s hoping that Blyleven, the Hawk and Raines get in. Love Tommy John but he needs to go commiserate with Jim Kaat. Concepcion was a fine player, but take him off the turf and his defense suffers. He’d water down the HOF far more than Tony Perez ever did. Trammell belongs in the Hall of Very Good alongside Dwight Evans. Both very good all around consistent players who had fleeting periods of greatness (how many 30+ HR seasons did Dewey have)? In Dewey’s case he had a 7-10 year period of offensive mediocrity to start his career. Think Dick Allen deserves in. Tired of the Bobby Bonds argument – his average numbers are good, but the guy was not the best of teammates and he struck out at rates equal to or worse than Adam Dunn.

    Jack Morris was a good pitcher, a consumate warrior whose numbers are watered down by the amount of pitches and innings he threw. But enough drooling over his postseason numbers – they’re not overwhelming and there are plenty of guys who missed the HOF who had better postseason numbers (Luis Tiant anyone?).

  164. 164: chuck said at 10:50 pm on January 21st, 2009:

    Norman Shatkin (#155)

    You make a compelling argument for Jackson’s expulsion from baseball as well his exclusion from the HOF…..if your presentation of facts is accurate. I do not share your views of the facts. It is also worthy of note that you predicate all your conclusions on “baseball law” at that time. I have spent a couple of hours searching for any citation of baseball laws as of 1919 without success ….advise if you are so inclined

    1) Fact: Jackson spent the last 26 years of his life in absolute denial of the following: any participation in any manner of “the fix”, any certain knowledge of “the fix” prior to or during the series, ever accepting any money for participation in “the fix”. Not one of the others involved, in any way, ever indicated otherwise after 1924.

    2) In support of Jackson’s character and propensity for truthfulness see legendary sportswriter Furman Bisher’s interview originally published in “Sport” magazine in 1949:http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtruth.htm It is worth noting that he, unlike Rose, though clearly lied to by Landis, never whined nor solicited baseball for reinstatement. He moved on with his life and lived it as the man of character that I believe he was.

    Regarding the HOF and steroid era considerations. Your presentation is very reasoned and logical. The GIANT FLAW is that as reasoned and logical as it is it allows for presumptions, conjecture and arbitrary conclusions about who did what when. That flaw is what will haunt the sportwriting community for decades, and I believe, mandates the culpable trio of management, labor, and the writers to come together and iron out an “agreement for consideration” for future HOF eligibility. Such an agreement would alleviate all the “I think he did XX” from the writers slate. Clearly, allowing the fox (canseco) to guard the henhouse is an embarrassment to the game.

    The alterative is to suspect all….As a comparison….While football players were notable abusers of PED’s, uppers, and all kinds of pain killers (as far back as the 60’s with absolute certainty) they never ran afoul in HOF issues because they reached a common ground of agreement which all could embrace. Baseball needs to follow that model

Leave a Reply