Blyleven & Alomar elected to HOF

#26
#26
This class gets a meh.

And baseball slips slowly closer toward the back of the upper echelon of American pro sports.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
Hopefully Larkin and Raines both go in next year. Bagwell will more than likely get in eventually as starting with 41 percent is pretty good for a first ballot guy.
 
#28
#28
hatvol96 said:
The 38% of the electorate who didn't vote for Barry Larkin should lose their ballot privileges. I feel almost as strongly about those who omitted Tim Raines. At least they broke out of their intellectual comas long enough to elect the best second baseman of the last quarter century.
Click to expand...

Agreed. To me, Larkin is right above Ozzie Smith (a small cut below defensively, a big cut above offensively) in the top ten or possibly the top five shortstops in history.

As for Raines, he's only the second-best leadoff man in history.

Vercingetorix said:
I can pretty much guarantee you that at no point during Blyleven's career did anybody watching him pitch think that they were watching a Hall of Famer out there. Blyleven deserves the Hall of Fame in the same way that the janitor at my kid's elementary school got a big party when he retired: by doing something forever rather than spectacularly.
Click to expand...

hatvol96 said:
Jack Morris not being voted in and Blyleven being elected is another sign that baseball's drug testing policy should be extended to the BWAA.
Click to expand...

This I don't agree with. Blyleven's biggest flaw in the eyes of the BBWAA to this point had to do with his won-lost record, which is negatively skewed by virtue of the teams that he played on. He tended to get wildly inconsistent run support that didn't come close to balancing out in the end.

Blyleven wasn't a compiler in the sense of someone who plays at an average level for a long period of time...he played well above-average for a long period of time with five or six legitimate Cy Young-caliber seasons (all undone by a superficially poor W-L record).

Jack Morris had the opposite. He had an inflated W-L record by playing on good teams, and his legendary postseason reputation had exactly one truly dominant series (1991 World Series). If you combine Blyleven's and Morris' careers, the best four seasons all belong to Blyleven and probably eight of the top ten.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
Ohio Vol said:
Blyleven wasn't a compiler in the sense of someone who plays at an average level for a long period of time...he played well above-average for a long period of time with five or six legitimate Cy Young-caliber seasons (all undone by a superficially poor W-L record).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I just don't think the HOF should be for "well above average" players. I think it should be for great players.

I'm too young to remember his time with the Twins, but I remember most of the rest of his career, and at no time while it was going on would I have believed you if you had told me he would end up in the HOF. He was really good, obviously, but is that the standard?
 
#30
#30
Vercingetorix said:
I don't disagree. I just don't think the HOF should be for "well above average" players. I think it should be for great players.

I'm too young to remember his time with the Twins, but I remember most of the rest of his career, and at no time while it was going on would I have believed you if you had told me he would end up in the HOF. He was really good, obviously, but is that the standard?
Click to expand...

Well, then we're getting into two different arguments, one of them involving paths to the HOF. To use an example, Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant have remarkably similar numbers, yet very few people would put them in the same class. Hunter had some seasons that look spectacular, Tiant had a lot of 14-11 and 16-12 seasons. Both ended up in same spot but took two different paths.

I also tend to believe that there's far too much emphasis placed on "aura" or perceptions of what makes a HOFer. I'd argue that most any player in the top-15 of his position in history is, at worst, a marginal HOFer, but most of the guys on the outside looking in are where they are based on that. Bill Freehan is a good example, Darrell Evans is a good example, Lou Whitaker is a good example.

And to the last point, there isn't a set HOF standard. The BBWAA has, by and large, done a very good job of determining who gets in while the Veterans Committee plays the part of Nero. Nearly every undeserving HOFer was a VC pick, which further muddies any attempt to determine a "standard".
 
#35
#35
Ohio Vol said:
Well, then we're getting into two different arguments, one of them involving paths to the HOF. To use an example, Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant have remarkably similar numbers, yet very few people would put them in the same class. Hunter had some seasons that look spectacular, Tiant had a lot of 14-11 and 16-12 seasons. Both ended up in same spot but took two different paths.

I also tend to believe that there's far too much emphasis placed on "aura" or perceptions of what makes a HOFer. I'd argue that most any player in the top-15 of his position in history is, at worst, a marginal HOFer, but most of the guys on the outside looking in are where they are based on that. Bill Freehan is a good example, Darrell Evans is a good example, Lou Whitaker is a good example.

And to the last point, there isn't a set HOF standard. The BBWAA has, by and large, done a very good job of determining who gets in while the Veterans Committee plays the part of Nero. Nearly every undeserving HOFer was a VC pick, which further muddies any attempt to determine a "standard".
Click to expand...

See, I don't see Hunter and Tiant as having similar numbers at all. Hunter's career totals are almost as beside the point as Koufax's or Pedro Martinez's. I'm not willing to discount longevity: cf. Mantle v. Mays, where Mantle was clearly the greater player at either player's peak, yet Mays was by far the better player over the course of his career. But obviously Mays was a genuinely great player. Luis Tiant -- and Blyleven, and Gaylord Perry, and Tommy John, and so on -- were just flat-out not great. If you want those guys in, then you have a different vision of the HOF than I do.

Maybe the test is somebody like Edgar Renteria. Guy has been an above-average shortstop for a thousand years. He got the game-winning hit in one WS and won the MVP in another one 13 years later. Do you want him in? I sure as hell don't. But if you like guys like Tiant and Blyleven.....Renteria's your kind of candidate.
 
#36
#36
Vercingetorix said:
See, I don't see Hunter and Tiant as having similar numbers at all. Hunter's career totals are almost as beside the point as Koufax's or Pedro Martinez's. I'm not willing to discount longevity: cf. Mantle v. Mays, where Mantle was clearly the greater player at either player's peak, yet Mays was by far the better player over the course of his career. But obviously Mays was a genuinely great player. Luis Tiant -- and Blyleven, and Gaylord Perry, and Tommy John, and so on -- were just flat-out not great. If you want those guys in, then you have a different vision of the HOF than I do.

Maybe the test is somebody like Edgar Renteria. Guy has been an above-average shortstop for a thousand years. He got the game-winning hit in one WS and won the MVP in another one 13 years later. Do you want him in? I sure as hell don't. But if you like guys like Tiant and Blyleven.....Renteria's your kind of candidate.
Click to expand...

Love it. Great post, Vercy. I'm a "Flash Test" HOF guy...you have 3 seconds to answer, if you can't, than he isn't. Personally I put Pedro in.
 
#38
#38
Vercingetorix said:
See, I don't see Hunter and Tiant as having similar numbers at all. Hunter's career totals are almost as beside the point as Koufax's or Pedro Martinez's. I'm not willing to discount longevity: cf. Mantle v. Mays, where Mantle was clearly the greater player at either player's peak, yet Mays was by far the better player over the course of his career. But obviously Mays was a genuinely great player. Luis Tiant -- and Blyleven, and Gaylord Perry, and Tommy John, and so on -- were just flat-out not great. If you want those guys in, then you have a different vision of the HOF than I do.
Click to expand...

Well, you're operating from the faulty premise that Hunter had a huge peak, which he really didn't. I think Tiant was a better pitcher, but I'm not saying that Tiant should be in Cooperstown...I'm saying that Hunter was someone who got a boost because of failure to understand numbers and another boost for playing on some pretty good teams. If you want to twist my arm, I'd say Hunter is out of place in Cooperstown.

Maybe the test is somebody like Edgar Renteria. Guy has been an above-average shortstop for a thousand years. He got the game-winning hit in one WS and won the MVP in another one 13 years later. Do you want him in? I sure as hell don't. But if you like guys like Tiant and Blyleven.....Renteria's your kind of candidate.
Click to expand...

If we're talking shortstops with longevity, I'd submit Omar Vizquel over Renteria. And even then, every candidate has to stand on their own. I don't go for the "Well, so and so is in and he wasn't as good as this guy, so this guy gets in." If we did that, the often-brutal Veterans Committee picks used as a benchmark would give us a HOF approaching 900 inductees.
 
#39
#39
JTrainDavis said:
Love it. Great post, Vercy. I'm a "Flash Test" HOF guy...you have 3 seconds to answer, if you can't, than he isn't. Personally I put Pedro in.
Click to expand...

I've heard the argument, but I still don't buy it. Quick: name the best defensive tackle in the NFL of the last 15 years. The first one that comes to mind is Warren Sapp, who I'd argue is inferior to both John Randle and Cortez Kennedy. Randle is better known for his bizarre eye black, and a lot of people couldn't tell you the first thing about Kennedy.

The problem with "the flash test" is that it places a premium on matters unrelated to what takes place on the field. Someone who dates a celebrity, someone who gets caught in some type of scandal, or someone who just never shuts up (especially if they play at a non-premier position) will rise to the front of public perception.
 
#43
#43
Ohio Vol said:
I've heard the argument, but I still don't buy it. Quick: name the best defensive tackle in the NFL of the last 15 years. The first one that comes to mind is Warren Sapp, who I'd argue is inferior to both John Randle and Cortez Kennedy. Randle is better known for his bizarre eye black, and a lot of people couldn't tell you the first thing about Kennedy.

The problem with "the flash test" is that it places a premium on matters unrelated to what takes place on the field. Someone who dates a celebrity, someone who gets caught in some type of scandal, or someone who just never shuts up (especially if they play at a non-premier position) will rise to the front of public perception.
Click to expand...
Baseball and football are a hell of a lot different in that regard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
While I think Alomar is a scumbag, he was a great 2nd baseman...and deserves to be in the HOF
 
#46
#46
Ohio Vol said:
Well, you're operating from the faulty premise that Hunter had a huge peak, which he really didn't. I think Tiant was a better pitcher, but I'm not saying that Tiant should be in Cooperstown...I'm saying that Hunter was someone who got a boost because of failure to understand numbers and another boost for playing on some pretty good teams. If you want to twist my arm, I'd say Hunter is out of place in Cooperstown.



If we're talking shortstops with longevity, I'd submit Omar Vizquel over Renteria. And even then, every candidate has to stand on their own. I don't go for the "Well, so and so is in and he wasn't as good as this guy, so this guy gets in." If we did that, the often-brutal Veterans Committee picks used as a benchmark would give us a HOF approaching 900 inductees.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly think Catfish Hunter ought to be in there either, but the man did have a five-year peak in which he won 20 games every year and finished in the top four of the Cy Young vote every time. Just looking at his numbers, he led the league in wins a couple of times, in win percentage a couple of DIFFERENT times, in ERA once, he threw 30 complete games one year....there's a whole lot of black ink concentrated there during his peak years. Tiant's got some black ink too, but it's a lot more widely scattered. He never had back-to-back years when he garnered any Cy Young votes. He led the league in losses one year, not wins. It's just a different sort of resume.

I remember the end of both their careers, and at the time Hunter was clearly regarded as somebody who had at one point been obviously one of the best pitchers in baseball. When I first saw him he was done, but the announcers still talked of him in the same kind of hushed tones that you hear guys talk about the young Fernando Valenzuela. Tiant was regarded as an institution, a really good player who had been around forever and become a legend that way. Sort of like a better version of Jimmy Key.

Maybe Fernando's a better example, because he's more recent. Baseball is a sport in which John Franco will probably make the Hall of Fame and Valenzuela won't. Maybe the consensus is that's the way it ought to be, but it's stupid. I want my kid to know one day about Fernando Valenzuela. I could give a crap if he ever learns anything about John Franco or Luis Tiant or Bert Blyleven.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top