hall of fame, next vote...

This, and many other articles stating his HoF case are collected -- where else? -- on Blyleven's web page:

http://www.bertblyleven.com/hall_of_fame.shtml

xpost -- yeah, the Morris article is a bit of a numbers slog, but it's well done.

Enough, believe me. And I saw him compare him to two HOF pitchers, one of whom is IMO a mistake and the other who is basically in the Hall because he had a zillion strikeouts and a slew of no hitters. Compare him to Carlton or Seaver or Hunter or any of the really great pitchers from his era, if you want to make your point (that this guy is getting job) don't just claim he was "better than Don Sutton" cuz my response to that is so the fuck what.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.

See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)

Postseason Pitching

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2
1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9
WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4
1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9
WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20
2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16
5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.

Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.

Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.

Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"

Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)

The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.

Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm

The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.

Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.

While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.

My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.

(xpost)

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

Example #2: replace "Reggie Jackson" with "Barry Bonds" in the above paragraph.

Or consider the Yankees and Red Sox of the last few years. When the Yankees were winning, they were "professional" and "disciplined". Their lack of comaraderie was viewed as an asset, i.e. "they're all business when they take the field". OTOH, the Sox were drama queens who didn't know how to win when it counts.

Fast forward to this past year. The Yanks are up 3-0 and they're winning because they're the professionals who respect the game and know how to win. Five days later, the exact same guys are described as "cold" and "unemotional" and that's why they lost. In the meantime, Manny and Pedro's weird quirks and selfishness are ignored, and suddenly all the drama becomes an asset because the Sox are "loose", "having fun", and "relaxed", and that's why they won.

"So we're supposed to believe that Reggie was a poison when his team lost, and a leader when they won?"

I don't think anyone really said Reggie (or Barry or Albert Belle) was a leader at any point though (well maybe Reggie when he got older.) They just said when they won that they were very good players (which obv all three were) and at times very clutch players. That doesn't mean that they also didn't cause some problems in their respective clubhouses/franchises (which all three obv did.)

Great players are great players irrespective of their teams. You can be a great player on a good team or on a bad team. Similarly, if someone is a clubhouse cancer, then that should also be independent of the quality of the team. But it isn't. The same guy who is a cancer when the team loses is a leader when the team wins.

This doesn't mean that team chemistry doesn't count for anything. But it counts for a lot less than player performance.

Haha watch out conventional wisdom! Barry's coming after ya!

Next thing you know, I'll be claiming that there's no such thing as a clutch hitter!!

Reggie's championship teams in both Oakland and the Bronx were filled with hot heads, both on the team, the managers and owners. It was a crazy atmosphere, yet they won, mostly because they were freakin' loaded with talent top to bottom. One thing I find interesting about both of those clubs is that they both won titles with two managers, the A's with Dick Williams and Alvin Dark, the Yanks with Billy Martin and Bob Lemon. Both clubs had complete freak owners with big checkbooks with King George and Charlie Finley.

70s baseball was cool. You had both of these clubs and the Big Red Machine. KC, Baltimore, Philly, LA and Pittsburgh all also won their division more than once in 70s.

Yeah, for purpose of analyzing a player's career worth, it all should come down to stats, or as I prefer to call them, FACTS. We can all spin our own fantasies of who's a "clubhouse cancer" -- one of my first choices would be late-career Saint Cal Ripken -- and it doesn't prove a damn thing.

I agree Mr. Cal could be pretty detrimental to his team by that point too, but Mr. Morb WHY if everything is so easy to calculate based on the "facts" (haha) do we even bother having votes then? Why isn't there just a formula?

2. I'm not advocating a fucking formula, but INTERPRETING the record of the player's career.

Took me a second to figure this out--I thought he was still playing for somebody--but I-Rod's "officially" retiring:

http://cnnsi.com/2012/baseball/mlb/04/19/rodriguez.retires.ap/index.html#?sct=mlb_t11_a2

I guess he goes into the Bagwell group: automatic first-ballot if they vote on stats alone, some undetermined amount of time in limbo otherwise.

thought the same thing when i saw he's retiring. who else are you putting in this group?

Bret Boone...just kidding. Those are the first two that come to mind--let me think about it.

Thome, too. Got any others? The cloud-of-vague-suspicion group...

Piazza?

was Pudge on any sort of nefarious "list"? a coworker of mine seems to think so.

p sure he was named in the mitchell report but didn't have to testify?

came to camp 30 pounds lighter when they started testing

tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using (note: don't care)

Canseco said he used too (note: also don't care)

I said there was a case, and you made it well. He might also have sentiment on his side because of his Parkinson's--if he got voted in, I wouldn't expect to hear many complaints (except maybe to bring up other deserving players not in).

And hey, retired as a Jay.

thank you for agreeing that it would make me happy is a good argument <3

https://baseballcard.art/cdn/shop/products/Dave-Parker.jpg?v=1607630127&width=1445

being cool should def matter a little bit but the floor should probably be somewhere closer to like, david ortiz

fair

Luis Tiant, very cool. Dick Allen had the great Sports Illustrated juggling-and-smoking cover. Tommy John...most uncool from what I remember.

https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/the-legend-of-el-tiante-9223

Posnanski: "I kind of thought we were done with Garvey as a Hall of Fame candidate. This will be his TWENTIETH Hall of Fame ballot, and he has never received even 50% of the vote. I happen to know there are a couple of big Garvey boosters with a lot of sway who keep pushing his case, and I get it. Garvey was a fine player. He did a lot of things that we appreciated in the 1970s—played every day, knocked 200 hits annually, drove in 100 runs a bunch, had some postseason moments, appeared regularly on a variety of daytime game shows. But, at some point, you have to say: The Garvey vote has been taken. Let’s give somebody else a chance."

The often overlooked game-show factor.

Well, at least Garvey got trounced last night.

Good Posnanski piece today on how badly overlooked Chet Lemon has been by the Hall of Fame (1 vote the year he came up on the writer's ballot). Short version:

1) Dave Parker - 40.1 career bWAR
Chet Lemon - 55.7 career bWAR

2) "...there have been THREE centerfielders in baseball history with 90 or more fielding runs and a 120 OPS+. Two are gimmes:

Willie Mays, 185 fielding runs, 155 OPS+
Tris Speaker, 92 fielding runs, 158 OPS+

And the third you already know, but let me just say it’s not Andruw Jones (111 OPS+), and it’s not Kenny Lofton (107 OPS+), and it’s not Garry Maddox (101 OPS+), and it’s not Mickey Mantle (minus-37 fielding runs), and it’s not Duke Snider (minus-22 fielding runs), and it’s not Carlos Beltran (doesn’t qualify on either count).

Nope. It’s Chet Lemon."

never having seen him play - was he a flashy centerfielder or more of a position / ball-route expert that tends to perform under people's radars (especially back then)?

I wasn’t aware he was doing so poorly health wise

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/jeff-seidel/2024/08/29/chet-lemon-detroit-tigers-1984-team/74851096007/

I saw him during his Tigers heyday, but I'd be lying if I said I remember much--he was an integral part of the '84 team, along with Trammell/Whitaker/Gibson.

I don't even know that Posnanski's arguing Lemon should be in the HOF; he got so little attention in his day (as opposed to Parker, say), that it'd be kind of weird--especially when someone like Dwight Evans isn't in, who did have some measure of fame. But I'm glad he brought some awareness to what a good player he was.

Chet Lemon was memorable to me primarily as a guy who had a great name and was obviously a good player, but fame-wise as a casual fan he was as famous to me as Lloyd Moseby or Cecil Cooper or Tony Armas.

I really don’t know why Dwight Evans hasn’t come closer to making it, I feel like they reward pitchers with mustaches, but penalize hitters with any facial hair. It’s the only other explanation I have for Munson and Grich.

Barry Bonds shaved his off and they still kept him out ☹️

I feel like they reward pitchers with mustaches, but penalize hitters with any facial hair

Needs to be codified into Bill James's Hall of Fame Monitor immediately!

Assuming Tiant/Allen/John go in this time--all three may not--my list now starts with Evans/Whitaker/Lofton/Munson/Delgado. (Grich too has had advocates for decades.)

After aging off the BBWAA ballot, Garvey is now on his fifth Era Committee appearance in the past decade and a half.

five strikes and

I could have sworn Lemon's autograph was on the baseball I have autographed by most of the '80 (or '81) White Sox, but he's one of the missing names...

Are Fisk and Baines on there?

Neither of them. But I just realized this one squiggle is Orlando Cepeda's signature on there -- he was a coach in '80.

Lou would be my top pick for “get him in immediately”, his last two seasons combined into one nice swan song.

.298/.375/.503/4.0 bWAR

571 AB
103 hits
170 runs
35 doubles
2 triples
26 hr
87 rbi
6 sb
72 bb
88 so

The other thing about Whitaker is, it's bizarre to have Trammell in there without him. Have two teammates ever been so closely aligned? Ruth-Gehrig, obviously, and I suppose there are others, but it's amazing how closely their careers tracked each other--'77 to '95 with the same team (Trammell lasted one extra season). They're even high on each other's Similarity list, even though they played different positions. Whitaker's five games ahead in bWAR, 75 to 70. The only real edge I can see for Trammel is that he had one monster season ('87, should have won MVP) and Whitaker didn't.

Tinker to Evers to Chance?

Glavine and Smoltz come to mind, but Glavine has those swan song years with the Mets, plus psychologically their association is a bit diluted by being a trio with Maddux for some but not all of their reign. I think Trammell and Whitaker have as much claim to the closely-aligned crown as anyone

one thing I’ve gotta say about the tigers is for a solid decade starting with that World Series team they were one of the coolest squads, they had so many underrated players whose primary talent was they hammered the shit outta the ball. Whitaker, Trammell, Gibson, Lemon, Parrish, Evans, Nokes, Fryman, Tettleton, Phillips, Deer…they even had Incaviglia for a minute.

and Fielder obv

The three Atlanta starters are a good match. And even though Maddux was clearly superior to the other two, it would be silly if two of the three were in the HOF and the other guy still waiting.

FB reminded me today that Curt Flood's still not in the HOF, so let me amend my list to include him near the top (different thing, obviously, though he did exceed 40 bWAR in a career that ended after his age-31 season).

Whitaker is 84th all time in bWAR (tied with Johnny Bench). Everyone ahead of him is in the HOF, with the exception of a few 19th century players, still-active slam-dunk candidates (e.g. Kershaw, Verlander), recently retired slam-dunk candidates (Greinke, Pujols), PED-suspects (Clemens, A-Rod), and "extenuating circumstances" players (Schilling, Rose).

tl;dr version: Whitaker may very well be the very best player who is eligible but isn't in, with the exception of PED-suspects who have fallen off the regular ballot.

just a bit of fun, let's be cool, the current top 25 active players in bWAR, dropped here for easy reference. apologies to Soto and Acuna and Alvarez, who just haven't played enough to make the list.

Mike Trout (14, 32) 86.2
Justin Verlander (19, 41) 80.5
Clayton Kershaw (17, 36) 79.4
Max Scherzer (17, 39) 75.4
Mookie Betts (11, 31) 69.6
Paul Goldschmidt (14, 36) 62.8
Freddie Freeman (15, 34) 60.7
Manny Machado (13, 31) 57.9
Nolan Arenado (12, 33) 56.7
Chris Sale (14, 35) 53.3
Jose Altuve (14, 34) 52.8
José Ramírez (12, 31) 52.4
Aaron Judge (9, 32) 52.2
Bryce Harper (13, 31) 51.1
Francisco Lindor (10, 30) 49.7
Andrew McCutchen (16, 37) 49.3
Marcus Semien (12, 33) 45.8
Jacob deGrom (11, 36) 45.2
Giancarlo Stanton (15, 34) 44.7
Carlos Correa (10, 29) 44.4
Shohei Ohtani (7, 29) 43.8
Gerrit Cole (12, 33) 43.3
Christian Yelich (12, 32) 41.9
Jason Heyward (15, 34) 41.8
Xander Bogaerts (12, 31) 40.8

Wild to think that trout in an inner circle guy and how much longer the runway is for manny harper ohtani and judge