Yes Tim Raines was one of the best players in the 80s but was overshadowed playing at the same time as Henderson and in Montreal. He would be a much better choice than Rice or Dawson were the last 2 years. It's a shame he doesn't get in.

Anyway Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Edgar Martinez, McGwire, Raines and Trammell should all be in the HOF. I'm on the fence with both Palmeiro and Larry Walker. I'd probably pass on both of them.

The rest, no thanks.

 

I'd be shocked if Larkin got in. I think you'll see Alomar and Blylevan finally make it.

 

go grissom! and mc griff.

 

Hmm:

Lee Smith, Rafi Palmero, Jack Morris.

I'd vote for Morris just for a 10 inning shutout to win a WS championship, Rafi has numbers second to none, and Lee Smith has over 400 career saves, Rock Raines was Great but not as great as those three imo.

McGriff and Murph deserve some love as well, especially Dale Murphy..

 

If Morris went into the HOF he'd have the highest ERA of any pitcher. Obviously ERA isn't the only factor but he's just not a HOFer. 1 game doesn't make a career and the myth that he was this big game player is false too as his career playoff numbers are average at best. If so let's put in everyone that pitches a great game in the playoffs so come on in Jeff Suppan, Livan Hernandez, Orlando Hernandez, etc. His number are not HOF worthy.

No to Lee Smith too. The save stat is pointless. Take away that stat and his numbers aren't HOF worthy either.

Palmiero won't get in because of PED suspension but even without that besides his hit total and HR total (which voters love) he really was never a dominate player on his team or at his position. He would have been voted in without the PEDs but I never thought he was a HOF player watching him play. Give me Bagwell instead any day of the week, both had good gloves, Bagwell was a much better base runner and put up numbers in tough hitter park in the Astrodome while Palmiero got to hit in Texas and Baltimore for most of his career.

 

Edgar Martinez, Larkin, Alomar.

 

edgar needs to be in the HOF

 

Congrats to both Alomar and Blyleven who both deserve to be there. Also great to see Larkin get a lot of new votes (he should probably make it next year since the 2012 class is weak). It's a freaking crime Jeff Bagwell didn't make it, although I bet he does in a few years although there's no excuse that he shouldn't have been elected today except that some of the dinosaurs feel he 'might' have been a product of PEDs except there's no evidence anywhere that he used but continue with the witch hunts.

I'm also glad Jack Morris didn't get in (at least for now). Is there a more overrated pitcher than him right now? No one has any solid arguments that he belongs there except for 1 great game that he had. His numbers and career aren't Hall worthy.

 

I'm glad to see Alomar in there. He was the best 2nd baseman there was when he played.

 

It's all the old dinosaurs that still feel that way about PEDs. Most, if not all, of the younger writers/voters don't care about who took what etc so yes in time I think guys like Clemens, Bonds, Arod etc will get in. And they should be in. Personally I really don't care about PEDs, and tired of the subject.

And the problem with black balling people is it's dangerous. Yeah we know that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and Arod used PEDs but how can you have a HOF without Bonds, Clemens, Manny, McGwire or Arod?

The problem is who's to say that there aren't players in the HOF already that used PEDs but we don't know about it. People can't discredit Jeff Bagwell because he was a home run hitter yet let guys like let's say Jeter get in without questioning them too since he played in that era as well. I don't think Jeter ever used PEDs but who knows for sure. There's no evidence with Jeter much like there's no evidence with Bagwell. We have no clue who did or didn't use so to punish someone with no evidence is just criminal.

The HOF is a museum celebrating the greats of the game, so why not just vote in the guys and if you want have a note on their statue saying: Arod admitted to using PEDs in 2008 or Manny Ramirez failed a drug test in 2008 for PEDs. So people who go to Cooperstown sees the greats but also see that the player used. The problem too is we don't know how much PEDs helped these players too. Plus blackballing players for using PEDs but not players who used greenies or did other drugs is kind of hypocritical, no?

 

Actually someone could make a very strong case that Clemens would not have made the HOF if he never took PEDs (if you think he first started in his first year with Toronto). He had a good career up until that point but the last 2 to 3 years with Boston were bad and he didn't have the overall #s to have a strong case.

As far as concerns/uncertainly I don't think it's remotely fair to judge players as to whether or not they took any PEDs when there's zero evidence on that matter. The writers are trying to play God and picking and choosing based on no real evidence. It's not fair. If those writers want to keep someone out of the HOF because they are known users and there is proof, fine I don't agree with it but if that's their stance I can buy it. But to not vote for someone because they are suspious but have zero evidence is bull.

How are these players dirty cheats again? There was nothing in the rule book stating player's couldn't take this or that. Players are always looking for an edge, whether it's pretending to get hit by a pitch or pretending to make a catch or using a spit ball or corking a ball or gambling on the game (which are all illegal) etc. The best thing about the PED era is people in the game knew it was going on but didn't care because everyone was getting rich because of it, not that that makes it right but just shows you baseball's attitude towards PEDs in general back then.

The problem with PEDs (besides from the fact that we don't know who did or didn't use them) is we don't actually know how much they actually helped a player, especially since there have been more Manny Alexanders and Jay Gibbons type players of the world who took them and they did little to nothing for them than they are Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or Arods. Do we really know how PEDs helped Bonds hit those 71 HRs? Is it possible Bonds could have hit that many if he wasn't on PEDs? Do we really know for sure? I mean Roger Maris hit 61 HRs in 1961 but previously never hit more than 39 HRs before than and never hit more than 33 after that year. Maybe he was on something that year too? In fact Maris had only 3 seasons hitting over 30 HRs in his career. Besides from that 1 big spike year Bonds was pretty consistent in the power department throughout his whole career.

And no greenies is not the same as smelling salts, coffee or nicotine. To say something like that means you don't understand exactly what greenies did/do. I have heard numerous first hand stories about the abuse of greenies back in the day and what they did to players. I even had 1 former MLB player tell me that he took both PEDs and greenies and he felt that greenies by far did more for him than PEDs ever did. Not saying that what 1 player told me should be considered the end all be all but I think the lack of greenie reporting/stories compared to PED stories is hiding what was a bigger issue.

As far as HOF credibility or authenticity, what does that even mean? We have guys in the HOF that played in an era where there were no minorities or foreign players (not that it's their fault but their numbers might have looked different) in the league, we have guys in the HOF that kept those minority players out of the game, we have players that have cheated the game whether its because of a corked bat, spit ball, etc.

 

Blyleven has no business in the hall of fame. You gonna put Jim kaat and tommy john in too because they're more deserving. Longevity + being a good player doest equal Hof. The HOF is for the greats and having watched Blyleven I never considered him at any point dominant.

And no the steroids generation doesn't belong there. Cheating is cheating. No to rose, no to Joe Jackson and to mac, Sammy raffy etc.

 

Jim Kaat and Tommy John are more deserving than Blyleven based on what exactly?

Blyleven:
IP- 4970
CG- 242
Shut Outs- 60
K- 3701
ERA- 3.31
ERA+ - 118

John:
IP- 4710.1
CG- 162
Shut Outs- 42
K- 2245
ERA- 3.34
ERA+ - 111

Kaat:
IP- 4530.1
CG- 180
Shut Outs- 31
K- 2461
ERA- 3.45
ERA+ - 108

I do have to give credit to Kaat because he was an excellent fielding pitcher though.

But overall the numbers just don't add up. Also let's not forget that Blyleven is 5th all time in strike outs, 14th all time in innings pitched and 9th all time in shut outs. Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

And dude you're 32 years old so when did you really start to follow baseball well enough where you could really remember, when you were 8 or 9? That would be what 1986/87ish, by that time Blyleven was at his worst, plus seriously how many times did you actually see Blyleven pitch? At most what 6 or 7 times total (considering it was the 80s so it's not like people were able to watch teams play whenever they wanted)? You don't really have a large sample size there.

 

Just because my opinion is in the minority doesn't make me wrong (nor does it make me right). I still think it's completely insane to not vote for Bagwell based on what exactly? I think a lot of these voters love the idea of being able to play God so to speak and have certain stances or agendas at times. I mean really BJ Surhoff gets a vote, for what reason exactly? Alomar gets less than 75% of the votes last year but this year he gets 90%.

If those voters want to make a stance on the whole no players with PED ties that's fine it's their right even if I don't agree on it, however to discredit or not vote for someone based on zero evidence is wrong.

 

I watched blyleven enough to know he wasn't dominant. I know kaat and john weren't dominant but neither was blyleven. I guess I communicated that point wrong. What I was saying was that john and kaat are probably the most similar to.blyleven and none of them were dominant. If you're putting blyleven in why.not john and kaat when they're stats are extremely similar? Blyleven was a 14-12 pitcher on average with a slightly above average era. I just don't understand how that equals a hall of famer. The HOF is for great players and none of those players are great or dominant.
I mean there's a better case to be made for a guy like Guidry or mattingly who had a short spell of dominance rather than a long career being good not great.

 

Again though you saw Blyleven at the tail end of his career. There are probably 13 year old kids that really started to follow baseball in 2005 that probably say the same thing about Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux. You weren't even born during his best years.

Win/loss records are also meaningless/overrated for pitchers simply because there are only 3 things that a pitcher can control: strike outs, walks and home runs. Everything else he's at the mercy of his fielders behind him. A pitcher could be 0-35 on the year but have a 1.00 ERA while another pitcher could be 35-0 with a 5.00 ERA too. On the flip side a pitcher could throw a no hitter and still lose a game. Just look at Felix Hernandez this year who was the best pitcher in the AL and he had 13 wins (along with 12 losses), the year before he won 17 games but had a better 2010 season than 2009. Thus wins are overrated for pitchers.

Blyleven was much better than Kaat and John. 5th all time in strike outs, had more complete games and shut outs than either. Had a better ERA and ERA +, threw more innings. He was better. And he was much better than Guidry too, Guidry shouldn't even be in the debate. And no there's not a better case for Mattingly either, who fall off after his 28th birthday.

EDIT: By the way just looked at Blyleven's baseball-reference.com page and the pitchers most similar to Bert 8 out of 10 at in the Hall, the only 2 that aren't are Kaat and John but we already went over how Bert was better than those guys. I also looked at Roberto Alomar's page and Alomar has 5 HOFers he's most similar too, of course Derek Jeter and Barry Larkin (so that would make 7) are also on that list as is Johnny Damon, Julio Franco and Lou Whitaker. Not saying those lists should mean anything at all just thought it was interesting to pass along.

 

I agree as well. If you or Boik or anyone wants to take a no PED HOF stance that's fine. Do I like it that guys cheated? Of course not but I'm not about to simply discredit them entirely either. Guys like Clemens, Bonds, Arod, Ramirez belong in the HOF in my opinion and keeping them out because they did something that wasn't against the rules at the time is silly (minus Manny who got suspended in 2009 but can't you make the same arguement for why Bonds or Clemens should be in the Hall for Manny too?).

And I'm very interested to see what happens with Clemens, Bonds, Arod, Sosa, etc. I'll also be interested to see what happens with someone like Mike Piazza too, who's in the Bagwell boat where there's no evidence.

Good post, I agree completely. Blyleven wasn't Cy Young or Randy Johnson or Bob Gibson but the guy was a very good pitcher who is in the top all time in some of the most important pitching stats. It's not based on false logic like Jack Morris was a big game pitcher or the best in the 80s. Blyleven has the numbers to back it up.

 

Man if lenny harris can get on the HOF ballot, I wonder if I could get on there. :pointlol:

 

I could be wrong but I believe any player who played at least 10 years at the MLB level and who has been reitred for 5 years is named on the ballot and will keep being named on the ballot for 15 years unless his voting % falls below 5.

 

Good article by Rob Neyer on the whole steroids vs. amphetamines:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday

 

Blyleven is fifth all time in strikeouts because of how many innings he threw not because he was great or dominant.

The shutouts are plentiful but it was a different era and different things were expected of a starting pitcher.

Every single stat he has is because of his longevity not because he was great or dominant. There really isn't much that's going to change my stance on him. I always felt he was a good, not great pitcher who really wasnt HOF worthy and the fact he's basically campaigned for it during broadcasts makes me want to put him in the HOF less.

I have always felt the HOF is for the best players of a given era. Blyleven was not a top five pitcher in any of the generations his career stretched across. No hitter suddenly contracted "stomach viruses" when they saw blyleven was pitching that day like they did when they saw a randy Johnson or roger clemens. Dude didn't really scare anyone. Again, ill take a shorter period of dominance like a Guidry had over a long career of being good. Good doest cut it for the hall of fame. I completely agreement with you on what the hall is about which to me is all the more reason blyleven doesn't belong there.

 

I remember blylevens career as far back as 1985 which was one of his best seasons if not his very best. When you look at a HOF resume you expect to see all kinds of awards and achievements and with him you don't get that. You argue that the only things a pitcher can control are k's walks and homers but in that case there is nearly as much negative as there is positive. He once led the league in k's (1985) and 3 times lead in k to bb ratio. Twice he lead in homers allowed allowing 50 and 46 in back to back seasons in an era where 35 homers challenged for the home run crown. Those are not hall of fame credentials. Sorry.

Guys like Mattingly and Guidry couldn't maintain their dominance but they accomplished more in a shorter period of time then a player like blyleven did in my opinion. Like I said, I would take a player who is dominant for a 7-8 season run like a Guidry rather then a player who is good for 22 seasons when it comes to the hall of fame.

Felix Hernandez was dominant this year. His k's era whip innings and hits per 9 innings indicate as such. Blyleven never had one year that good in his 22. My argument was never win-loss, I just put his career numbers in perspective.