hall of fame, next vote...

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 remember people pointing fingers on the basis of some drastic offseason weight loss a few years ago ...

I was looking at his B-R player page and was wondering

1) he had a negative dWAR for three straight years from 2002-4. I don't get it ... he was great defensively, then bad for three years, then great again?

2) he had a 67 career WAR, which barely puts him in the top 100 all-time. I don't know, doesn't that seem a bit low for one of the best catchers ever (and probably the best ever defensively). It would suggest that either a) catchers aren't all that valuable (because they usually aren't among the league's best hitters) or b) a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics.

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

BB-Ref ranks his 67 WAR at...67th place, coincidentally. That definitely doesn't seem too low to me.

and #2 among catchers, #11 among catcher WAR/game

10th if you eliminate Jack Clements since he was pre-modern

tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using

One exception:

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/68455/495a38266a0b5_68455n.jpg

Refused to take anything stronger than Flinstones vitamins.

"a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics"

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things. All the traditional catcher stats are really hard to isolate as individual achievements (SB, CS, PB/WP) and those are the things that a catcher does that actually appear on a stat sheet.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate. (When Piazza lost those close MVP votes, the Dodgers would always be at or near the league lead in team ERA. But they were good staffs pitching in Dodger Stadium--how do you quantify Piazza's role in that? Seeing as he's catching the bulk of the games, comparing him to second- and third-string Dodger catchers doesn't seem to get you anywhere.)

I don't think Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Blylevyn were Hall of Famers. Morris, Sandberg, Sutter and Goosage have much better arguments in their favor...Morris was a monster and at his best (which he was for a large part of 80s) he was one of the best pitchers in baseball...

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:50 PM (7 years ago)

Wow--in view of some of the arguments I've had with Alex the last couple of years, the assessments of Blyleven and Morris there are surprising, to put it mildly. Where I was around the same time (far as I can tell, I posted this in the spring of 2002).

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

This is what I'm getting at -- if you are going by career WAR, then only two out of the top one hundred best players were catchers. That doesn't seem right. Maybe 1000 games at catcher are equivalent to 1500 games at first base? If you could choose between having a star catcher for ten years or a star first baseman for ten years, you'd probably choose the catcher because good players at that position are much harder to come by.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate.

The ability to call a game exists, but I don't think it's all that important today. In 1910 when pitchers grew up on farms and had 7th grade educations, a guy with his head in the game at all times who could micromanage the other players was important. Now, I'm sure that the best pitchers know the hitters every bit as well as heir catchers do.

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things.

Yeah, it's accepted that Pudge shut down the opposing team's running game based on reputation alone. How much was that worth to his teams on average?

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

We got ballot

https://baseballhall.org/2025-bbwaa-hall-of-fame-ballot

Carlos González
Curtis Granderson
Félix Hernández
Adam Jones
Ian Kinsler
Russell Martin
Brian McCann
Dustin Pedroia
Hanley Ramírez
Fernando Rodney
CC Sabathia
Ichiro Suzuki
Troy Tulowitzki
Ben Zobrist

New ^

Will be curious if Ichiro gets 100%. Probably not. Otherwise, it's CC and Felix who'll be the ones to watch. CC will go in, though maybe not first ballot; Felix, I don't know. I'll be personally paying a visit to each and every writer who votes for Troy "I'd much rather be in Colorado, I just want to be clear" Tulowitzki.

Closer look, and Felix is a no. Great peak, right on track till he's 30, but that's basically it.

For carry-overs, Wagner should be a cinch (73.8% last time), but this is his last shot. Andruw is at ~60% with two years to go.

without looking, i would have though King Felix would have had a better shot and never really though of CC as a HoFer, but he def has a better case

CC was a much better pitcher for sure

i'm sure CC will get in -- 3093 strikeouts is a lot -- but honestly he's kinda marginal stats-wise

his run with the brewers in 2008 was incredible tho, and i appreciate that

This is a really interesting crop of first ballot players. Obviously Ichiro is a no-brainer, but at least half of them had legitimate 4-5 year HOF peaks. Pedroia would have cleared the bar easily if he hadn't gotten injured. CC wasn't an elite pitcher after his age 31 season and was a compiler after that, but a lot of people argue for Andy Pettitte and he was far, far better than Pettitte with similar career numbers. Felix was unquestionably a HOFer in his 20's and then fell off a cliff, but so did Andruw Jones and he's probably going to get in soon.

he was far, far better than Pettitte with similar career numbers

Far better at his peak, that is.

Ian Kinsler is a guy who might not deserve to make the Hall of Fame but when you look at his career, playing 14 seasons and putting up 4.6 bWAR per 162 games is pretty impressive.

Pedroia was even better obv, i’m a bit more pro when it comes to his case, he had a great career that was cut short by injury, I think one could argue he belongs in based on what he accomplished, kind of like Kirby Puckett.

Sabathia is a weird case, I don’t actually think he’s that much better than Andy Pettitte, I think they both wind up in the realm of guys who had very good careers with several Hall-worthy seasons apiece.

in within first few years: Ichiro Suzuki, CC Sabathia

catchers who will have to wait a while: Russell Martin, Brian McCann

hall of famers who were destroyed by injuries in their 30s: Felix Hernández, Hanley Ramirez, Troy Tulowitzki

King Felix might make it anyway

for the catchers a lot depends on what you think about catching stats and "value" and all that shit

God help me RM seemed HOF worthy to me at the time whereas McCann the Tiger did not