Roberto Alomar Misses HOF election by 8 votes

[Dipre]

So BB should suffer from being on s***** teams most of the time?

 

Would you feel the same way if he had played on the Reds or Yankees in the 70's, and the Phillies in the 80's?

[rhet]

Alomar will get in, probably next year. Barry Larkin, who has very similar numbers and was an MVP and multi gold glove winner, will probably get in too. Much deserved, imo.

[Dipre]

Alomar will get in' date=' probably next year. Barry Larkin, who has very similar numbers and was an MVP and multi gold glove winner, will probably get in too. Much deserved, imo.[/quote']

 

We agree on something then, i think Larkin is a very deserving candidate.

[rhet]

So BB should suffer from being on s***** teams most of the time?

 

Would you feel the same way if he had played on the Reds or Yankees in the 70's, and the Phillies in the 80's?

 

Actually, Blyleven played on decent teams most of his career. Only in 8 of his 22 seasons did his team have a losing season and his teams' winning pct was .511 for his career. Compare that to Phil Neikro who played on some Braves teams that won only 60 some odd games a year.

[Dipre]

Actually' date=' Blyleven played on decent teams most of his career. Only in 8 of his 22 seasons did his team have a losing season and his teams's winning pct was .511 for his career. Compare that to Phil Neikro who played on some Braves teams that won only 60 some odd games a year.[/quote']

 

A .511 W% is nothing to write home about. And those eight outright losing season (which constitute 36% of his career, or over one third) weighed heavily on his chance for 300 wins, which would have made him automatic to the Hall.

 

And anyways, the main point i was trying to ascertain is that wins are out of a pitcher's control, which is why individual statistics, and not team-based like wins (or RBI) should be the base for a player's HOF case, but rather complimentary. I find it funny that had he won the extra 13 games to get to 300, he'd be in the hall of fame.

[rhet]

A .511 W% is nothing to write home about. And those eight outright losing season (which constitute 36% of his career, or over one third) weighed heavily on his chance for 300 wins, which would have made him automatic to the Hall.

 

And anyways, the main point i was trying to ascertain is that wins are out of a pitcher's control, which is why individual statistics, and not team-based like wins (or RBI) should be the base for a player's HOF case, but rather complimentary. I find it funny that had he won the extra 13 games to get to 300, he'd be in the hall of fame.

 

You were making an excuse for his lousy record. The excuse was not supported by the facts, as other pitchers with better records were on much worse teams than Blyleven.

 

Anyway, the traditional acumulative qualifiers for the HOF (300 wins, 500 HRs, 3000 hits) are no longer valid imo. While Blyleven might have garnered more votes if he had attained 300 wins, I still wouldn't have thought him Hall worthy. But that's just me.

[Dipre]

You were making an excuse for his lousy record. The excuse was not supported by the facts, as other pitchers with better records were on much worse teams than Blyleven.

 

Anyway, the traditional acumulative qualifiers for the HOF (300 wins, 500 HRs, 3000 hits) are no longer valid imo. While Blyleven might have garnered more votes if he had attained 300 wins, I still wouldn't have thought him Hall worthy. But that's just me.

 

Lousy record?

 

He won 287 games on teams with a career .511 win percentage. Not to mention win-loss records (like RBI's) are the worst gauge of a pitcher's (hitter's) worth because they rely on opportunity. The fact that pitchers with weaker statistical resumes than Blyleven have better records doesn't support your argument. It supports mine.

[Dipre]

Upon further research, i have uncovered the following points to further cement Blyleven's case (thanks to Craig Calcaterra at NBC sports and Rich Lederer of The Baseball Analysts) who each wrote the following pieces, one more serious than the other:

 

Craig Calcaterra's random facts:

 

* Oh noes! Blyleven led the league in losses once! Modern-era pitchers who lost more games than Bert Blyleven: Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton;

 

* Guys who didn't pitch as many innings as Bert Blyleven: Roger Clemens, Christy Mathewson, Tom Seaver, Tommy John, Greg Maddux;

 

* People use his wins against him (as in, why couldn't he get 300)? OK, here are guys who didn't win as many games as Bert Blyleven: Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Jack Morris, Juan Marichal. All but Morris pitched in eras of the four man rotation too;

 

* Guys who didn't pitch as many shutouts as Blyleven: Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, Whitey Ford, Robin Roberts. Actually, it would be easier to list the guys who had more shutouts than Blyleven. There are only eight;

 

* Guys who didn't win 10 games or more as many times as Blyleven: Robin Roberts, Carl Hubbell, Fergie Jenkins, Jack Morris, Lefty Grove;

 

* Guys who didn't hit as many batters as Blyleven (i.e. he was a badass!): Roger Clemens, Don Dysdale, Pedro Martinez;

 

* Guys who won more 1-0 games than Bert Blyleven: Walter Johnson, Grover Cleveland Alexander. That's it;

 

* What's with the Opening Day starts thing anyway? Heyman made a big deal out the fact that Jack Morris had been given the ball on Opening Day 14 times in his career, rendering him King Ace or something. Well, Blyleven got the honor 12 times. Is this really a distinction with a difference?

 

* And the dingers? Sure, Blyleven gave up a lot of homers. But it's worth noting that five of the seven guys who gave up more homers than Bert are Hall of Famers themselves: Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Neikro, Sutton and Spahn. Frank Tanana and Jamie Moyer are the other two. Steve Carlton gave up only sixteen less than Bert did. Jack Morris would have given up more than Bert if he had the four seasons under his belt that Bert had over him;

 

* I know Jack Morris' ten inning shutout was more important, but Bert Blyleven once pitched a ten-inning shutout, and it was one hitter to boot: June 21, 1976.

 

* Defense? Eh, not a big part of the discussion for a pitcher, but Bert did go the entire 1976 season without making an error, and that's pretty spiffy;

 

Rich Lederer's The Hall Of Fame Case for Bert Blyleven:

 

Beginning today, it's Bert Blyleven for Hall of Fame Week at the Baseball Analysts. We have a killer lineup, including Rob Neyer on Tuesday, Dayn Perry on Wednesday, and Jeff Peek on Thursday.

 

I'm going to be candid about the motive behind this special feature right from the outset. The purpose is none other than to raise the awareness of Blyleven's qualifications for the Hall of Fame prior to the time when most of the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America cast their ballots.

 

There are 29 eligible players on the ballot this year and nobody is more qualified than Bert Blyleven. His case is pretty simple and straightforward.

 

The good news is that Bert's vote total has increased every year since 1999, and it appears to be picking up steam. The bad news is that he is still well short of the 75% needed for enshrinement.

 

Year Votes Pct

1998 83 17.55

1999 70 14.08

2000 87 17.43

2001 121 23.50

2002 124 26.27

2003 145 29.23

2004 179 35.38

2005 211 40.89

 

This year marks the ninth time that Blyleven has been on the ballot. Fifteen players have been elected since Bert's first year. Twelve position players and three pitchers. In other words, only 20% of the honorees during the past eight years have been pitchers, despite the fact that pitching is widely considered to be about 35% of the game. Moreover, no starting pitcher has gained election since 1999 when Nolan Ryan was inducted with a near-record 98.8% of the votes.

 

The writers are instructed that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." I'm not the one to judge integrity, sportsmanship, and character, but the Hall of Fame case for Blyleven based on his playing record and the contributions to his teams is indisputable.

 

Now that I have made my way up to the top of the mountain and cupped my hands around my mouth, I will shout out the following:

 

Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.

 

There are only eight pitchers who rank in the top 20 in wins, shutouts, and strikeouts. Here is the list:

 

Wins SO SHO

Bert Blyleven 17th 5th 8th

Steve Carlton 6th 4th 13th

Ferguson Jenkins 19th 11th 17th

Walter Johnson 1st 9th 1st

Gaylord Perry 12th 8th 14th

Nolan Ryan 8th 1st 6th

Tom Seaver 13th 6th 6th

Don Sutton 8th 7th 9th

 

Ryan is the only pitcher who ranks higher than Blyleven in all three categories. That's right, there is only one pitcher in the history of baseball who has more wins, strikeouts, and shutouts than Blyleven. There are thousands of pitchers who rank below Blyleven in these three important measures, including tens of Hall of Famers and a half dozen -- Jim Bunning, Bob Gibson, Catfish Hunter, Ferguson Jenkins, Juan Marichal, and Jim Palmer -- who had overlapping careers.

 

Blyleven ranks in the middle of these six pitchers in ERA+ (the ratio of the league's ERA to that of the pitcher, adjusted for the effects of the home ballpark). The calculation is as follows: lgERA divided by ERA, where > 100 is above average and

 

ERA+

Bob Gibson 127

Jim Palmer 125

Juan Marichal 122

Bert Blyleven 118

Ferguson Jenkins 115

Jim Bunning 114

Catfish Hunter 104

 

As detailed, Blyleven's career totals exceed all of the pitchers in the table above and his Adjusted ERA is better than Jenkins, Bunning, and Hunter. But let's not stop with this group of pitchers. Bert's stats, in fact, are indistinguishable from the eight most similar pitchers who have already been given their day in upstate New York:

 

Don Sutton (914) *

Gaylord Perry (909) *

Fergie Jenkins (890) *

Robin Roberts (876) *

Tom Seaver (864) *

Early Wynn (844) *

Phil Niekro (844) *

Steve Carlton (840) *

 

* - Signifies Hall of Famer

Source: Baseball-Reference.com

 

IP H ER BB SO HR ERA ERA+

Blyleven 4970 4632 1830 1322 3701 430 3.31 118

Group Average 4974 4541 1800 1429 3263 434 3.26 115

 

Blyleven's counting stats and ERA/ERA+ are almost identical to the average of these eight pitchers across the board. However, his rate stats for the three areas most controlled by the pitcher are slightly better than this exclusive group.

 

BB/9 SO/9 HR/9

Blyleven 2.39 6.70 0.78

Group Average 2.59 5.90 0.79

 

As we have all been taught along the way, "with privileges come responsibilities." Those writers who have been entrusted to vote for the Hall of Fame need to take the time to examine Blyleven's credentials. I have read and heard many convincing cases over the years "FOR" Blyleven and am still waiting for someone to present a strong case "AGAINST" him. Oh, sure, I know about those critics who claim that "Blyleven didn't win a Cy Young Award or finish in the top ten often enough" or "Blyleven wasn't a dominant pitcher in his era" or "Blyleven was no better than Tommy John or Jim Kaat and neither of them are in the Hall of Fame."

 

Well, I've got responses for all three in Bert Blyleven For Hall of Fame: Answering the Naysayers. I urge all voters who have yet to mark an "x" next to Blyleven's name and those who are sitting on the fence to read that column as well as Only the Lonely: The Hall of Fame Trials and Tribulations of Bert Blyleven. If these articles don't do the job, I can only say that I wish you success in booting out of Cooperstown every player not named Aaron, Alexander, Cobb, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Grove, Hornsby, Johnson, Mantle, Mathewson, Mays, Musial, Schmidt, Speaker, Wagner, and Williams because your Hall of Fame is a lot smaller than mine.

[rhet]

Nobody disputes the fact that he accumulated a lot of stats over his 22 years. The question is what standard you set for the HOF. If it allows for a guy who only twice in 22 years was considered one of the seven best starters in his league, then your standards are a lot lower than mine.

[Dipre]

Nobody disputes the fact that he accumulated a lot of stats over his 22 years. The question is what standard you set for the HOF. If it allows for a guy who only twice in 22 years was considered one of the seven best starters in his league' date=' then your standards are a lot lower than mine.[/quote']

 

His ERA+ would beg to differ. He has a better ERA+ than many HOF members, meaning he was more dominant when adjusted to league average than them.

[rhet]

His ERA+ would beg to differ. He has a better ERA+ than many HOF members' date=' meaning he was more dominant when adjusted to league average than them.[/quote']

 

The fact of the matter is that he was never considered dominant during his time. (He made only two all star teams in 22 seasons.) He only looks good in acumulation, and still the best anyone can say is that he's as good as Phil freekin Neikro, who probably doesn't belong in the HOF.

[Dipre]

The fact of the matter is that he was never considered dominant during his time. (He made only two all star teams in 22 seasons.) He only looks good in acumulation' date=' and still the best anyone can say is that he's as good as Phil freekin Neikro, who probably doesn't belong in the HOF.[/quote']

 

All-star teams are of absolutely no consequence to the basis of the discussion. And he was better than Niekro, who's a borderline hall of famer, and what's above borderline?

[rhet]

All-starteams are of absolutely no consequence to the basis of the discussion. And he was better than Niekro' date=' who's a borderline hall of famer, and what's above borderline?[/quote']

 

The all star point is supportive of my contention that he wasn't viewed as one of the top pitchers in his league during his tenure. Managers and coaches pick the pitchers and they picked him only twice.

[Dipre]

The all star point is supportive of my contention that he wasn't viewed as one of the top pitchers in his league during his tenure. Managers and coaches pick the pitchers and they picked him only twice.

 

But the stats say otherwise.

 

Agree to disagree then.

[CanadianSox]

I don't think he missed the HOF by 8 votes' date=' but instead he missed, this time, by one loogy. He'll get in the next time around. The voters are very touchy about "1st ballot" inductees, and his lapse in behavior is likely the cause.[/quote']

 

This basically says what I wanted to, so yea I just quoted it. Also his time in NY isn't looked so well. I read/heard somewhere that is could have also factored into why he wasn't elected. The NY bias. I don't believe that but that is what I have heard/read.

Also I lol'd at the Sandy comment.

[yeszir]

Good

 

http://www.h-net.org/~arete/archives/threads/alomar.jpg

[CanadianSox]

Good

 

http://www.h-net.org/~arete/archives/threads/alomar.jpg

 

Yes playing for the Orioles does count against you for getting into the Hall.

[redsoxrules]

Yes playing for the Orioles does count against you for getting into the Hall.

 

that was the spitting incident

[CanadianSox]

that was the spitting incident

 

I was making a joke....

[yeszir]

that was the spitting incident

 

I was making a joke....

 

Hahahaha

[Dipre]

He'll get in easy next year. And i hope Larkin does as well.

[Keeper]

I love what Larkin said about McGwire.

[a700hitter]

Actually' date=' Blyleven played on decent teams most of his career. Only in 8 of his 22 seasons did his team have a losing season and his teams' winning pct was .511 for his career. Compare that to Phil Neikro who played on some Braves teams that won only 60 some odd games a year.[/quote']The teams for which he played were mediocre to bad for the most part. I count only 9 years (of 22) where his teams played more than 1 game above .500. There are 3 years his teams came in at exactly .500. He only played for a small handful of seasons where he was on contending teams (most notably 1979 Pirates and 1987 Twins).

[Emmz]

Even the '87 Twins were mediocre during the regular season. The weren't exactly considered to be the favorites. Same goes with 1991.

[rhet]

The teams for which he played were mediocre to bad for the most part. I count only 9 years (of 22) where his teams played more than 1 game above .500. There are 3 years his teams came in at exactly .500. He only played for a small handful of seasons where he was on contending teams (most notably 1979 Pirates and 1987 Twins).

 

Anything over .500 is better than average.

And a FAR cry from "s*****" teams his whole career.

[a700hitter]

Anything over .500 is better than average.

And a FAR cry from "s*****" teams his whole career.

Since Divisional play started in 1969, you don't hear the terms First Division Team or Second Division Team. Those terms were used to identify the teams that finished in the top half of the league or the bottom half. In Blyleven's 22 years, he played for 9 second division teams. He played for 9 years on teams that finished in the bottom half of their divisions. Second Division teams are the "have-nots." Most of the other years, he was on teams that were one position away from being in the second division. He played 5 years in Cleveland (right in the middle of his career) when Cleveland came in last or next to last every year. He did not play on good teams when compared to many other HOFers.

[Dipre]

Since Divisional play started in 1969' date=' you don't hear the terms First Division Team or Second Division Team. Those terms were used to identify the teams that finished in the top half of the league or the bottom half. In Blyleven's 22 years, he played for 9 second division teams. He played for 9 years on teams that finished in the bottom half of their divisions. Second Division teams are the "have-nots." Most of the other years, he was on teams that were one position away from being in the second division. He played 5 years in Cleveland (right in the middle of his career) when Cleveland came in last or next to last every year. He did not play on good teams when compared to many other HOFers.[/quote']

 

And even if he did......

 

Wins?

 

Really?

[Emmz]

Kinda like RBI's...

[rhet]

JD Drew will never make the HOF. Even though he will finish his career with a better OPS than many current members of the HOF, he won't even sniff it. Care to guess why?

[Dipre]

JD Drew will never make the HOF. Even though he will finish his career with a better OPS than many current members of the HOF' date=' he won't even sniff it. Care to guess why?[/quote']

 

Yeah because that applies perfectly to one of the most durable, controlled strikeout artists in the history of the game.