84 HOF voters have released their votes....

[Crash Davis]

I agree with leatherman, HOF to me, means no-brainer. I shouldn't have to hear explanations why you should be in the HOF. It's just unquestionable in everyone's mind.

So basically what you're saying is that YOUR opinion is all that should matter?

If one has to explain, then he's not a HOFer? Okay, Cal Ripken Jr. was a compiler. Nolan Ryan was a compiler. Please explain why they are HOFers.

Oh wait, now that someone has to explain, that means they're not HOFers right??
Fact is, there will ALWAYS be debates about who is and isn't a HOFer. I mean, considering no one has ever gotten 100%, by your logic, no one should be in the HOF, because someone has to explain to someone else why they should be a HOFer.

What I actually wrote in the post to which markakis8 is referencing is this: To me, a HOFer shouldn't have to convince anyone that he deserves enshrinement.

Nolan Ryan didn't have to convince anyone. 98.8% (491/497) of the voters thought he was a HOFer in his first year of eligibility.

Cal Ripken Jr didn't have to convince anyone either, as 98.5% (537/545) of the voters thought he was a HOFer in his first year of eligibility.

In 1998, Blyleven got just 83 of the the 473 voters to put him on the ballot. 355 were needed for enshrinement, so he fell 272 votes short. With over 500 ballots this year, he needs at least 300 more people to think he is a HOFer today that didn't think he was in 1998. That's just too big a gap, in my opinion. Here are the players who got a higher percentage of votes than Blyleven in 1998: Ron Santo 43.1%; Steve Garvey 41.2%; Jim Kaat 27.3%; Tommy John 27.3%; Dave Parker 24.5%. In the next three years, Dale Murphy (1999), Jack Morris (2000), and Don Mattingly (2001) all received more votes than Blyleven. None of these players are HOFers, although Santo will probably get voted in by the Veteran's Committee. If Blyleven wasn't deemed a better player than these guys for 5 straight years (at least, that's all I researched), then why is he a better player today? Dave Parker, Don Mattingly, and Dale Murphy were MUCH better players than Blyleven, and they will most likely never be enshrined.

d

I want to take a poll...if you had to start a team today, which pitcher would you build your rotation around?

1) Bert Blyleven
2) Bret Saberhagen
3) David Cone
4) David Wells

And don't let me get started about Vida Blue or even J.R. Richard, both of whom were far superior to Blyleven, yet their careers were cut short due to injury.

Shall I throw out some other names of pitchers who were better than Blyleven during the time he pitched?

 

[ChasHawk]

d - Do you consider Sandberg to be one of the best 2nd baseman of all time?

He didn't get in until the 3rd ballot. Who did he have to convince?

 

[steve-a-reno]

There is a big difference between compliers and guys that were dominate.

I can't judge Blyleven. I never saw him pitch for myself. Sure his final career numbers look nice, but one has to remember he did it in a 20 year career. He only led the league in K's once, yet has over 3700 strikeouts. That just screams compiler. Like I said, I can't say yes or no because I never go to watch him play, but his numbers don't say he was ever dominate.

I'm a firm believer that the Hall should be reserved for the elite of the elite. It's a shame that they feel like they did to put someone in every year.

NYCRulesU- Don't say anyone who doesn't think Blyleven should be in the Hall should find a new sport to follow because they obviously don't follow the game. You used that same argument when you said that Josh Hamilton was a better player than Joe Mauer... That really hurts your credibility.

For the record: Only guy I would vote in this year is Alomar if I had a vote.

:lol: You and your "credibility" arguement again? On a public message board? lol Save that stupidity for your friends at recess ok? Thanks.


Compiler and accumulator are the same thing. And anyone who uses those terms to talk about why a player shouldn't be in the HOF, is an idot.

Sure, Blyleven may have not been dominant. He still got the job done. He won what, 287 games? Off the top off my head without looking. I know it was 270-280 something. I wouldn't care if a player was blessed to play 30+ seasons. Get this little bity, STAT ARE STATS. Like I said, Ryan played 27 seasons and only had 324 wins. Does that make him any less of a HOF'er? Nope. Rickey played 25 seasons and practically begged for teams to sign him so he could get 3000 hits. Does that take away from the significance of actually reaching 3000 hits? Of course not. He did it and that means something. Regardless of whether or not a player gets 3000 K's, 3000 hits, 500 hrs' in 18 seasons, 22 seasons, or 27 seasons. It all comes down to the fact that they did it and should be recognized for their accomplishments.

How's that ice fishing coming along?

I have to agree with the others here. I think you accuse people of not knowing anything about baseball because you don't want them to find out you don't know anything about baseball! What does Rickey having 3000 hits have to do with anything? That's not the reason he is in the HOF. Did you know he scored more runs than anybody ever? To me, that's the point of baseball, scoring runs. You can't win without one. Rickey broke the all time SB record in about 11 seasons. The crowd in Oakland would chant "Run Rickey Run" and the pitcher would start getting nervous. Every at bat of every game you had to worry about Rickey. Bert Blyleven? I don't remember him striking fear into anybody like that.

And then there is Nolan Ryan, don't have to argue too much for him. Who do you think a team would rather face, Nolan Ryan or Bert Blyleven? The comparison between the two back on page 4 or 5 was pretty funny. To me it was something like this..


A VW Beetle is just like a Porsche

Beetle has 4 wheels (just like a Porsche)
Beetle has a front fender and a rear fender (just like a Porsche)
Beetle has no heater (only 1 less than a Porsche)

Other than the engine, they are basically the same thing.

Neither did Maddux. He might get in. :lol: Just saying.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Speaking of Maddux, the 2014 ballot will be NUTS. From ESPN:

Here are players who are likely to be on the 2014 ballot: McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Tim Raines, Jack Morris (his last year of eligibility), Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Frank Thomas (his first year of eligibility), Mike Piazza, Tom Glavine (first year), Greg Maddux (first year), Jeff Bagwell, Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent, Mike Mussina, Bernie Williams, Lee Smith and Craig Biggio (although Biggo probably will be elected in 2013).

Rules only allow voters to choose up to 10 candidates for induction.

Neither did Maddux. He might get in. :lol: Just saying.

 

[leatherman]

d - Do you consider Sandberg to be one of the best 2nd baseman of all time?

He didn't get in until the 3rd ballot. Who did he have to convince?

Valid point.

I don't think you necessarily have to be a first ballot HOFer to be a HOFer, but I think you should make a pretty big impact in your first year of voting. In Sandberg's first year, which was also Eddie Murray's first year (he was inducted), he received 49.2% of the vote, finishing behind Murray, Gary Carter (who was inducted), Bruce Sutter, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson (he had 4 votes less than Dawson). So basically, he finished behind HOFers.

In his 2nd year, he received 61.1% of the vote, but it was also Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley's first year of eligibility, and they were both voted in. Sandberg had the most votes of any other player.

So, I can understand why it took a few years for Sandberg. The guys that he was finishing behind all became HOFers (with the exception of Dawson, who is close). I don't think he had to convince anyone he was a HOFer, I think he just needed to wait for the backlog to ease up a little.

When I think of the best 2nd basemen of my generation (I was born in 1971), the names that come to mind are Sandberg, Biggio, and Alomar (I hope I'm not leaving an obvious one out). I would include Carew, but he switched to first base in 1976 before I started watching him. Of Sandberg, Biggio, and Alomar, I think Sandberg was the best.

David

 

[Big Mac McGwire]

[quote="Big Mac McGwire":3ss0ke4v]

The Hawk was one of the most overrated players of all time. Couldn't get on base, played on horrible teams, and honestly if it wasn't for that one fluke MVP season with the cubs he wouldn't get 50 percent of the vote. Blyleven shouldn't make it in either, never lead the league in anything.

You know, I could spend a lot of time typing out all his stats that show you he is top 50 all time in most offensive categories, tell you how the bolded actually helps his case, tell you he was ROY & MVP(the only one ever on a last place team, btw), tell you he won 8 gold gloves, had 8 all-star games, and 4 silver sluggers when those things actually meant something. I could also tell you that he had a cannon for an arm, is one of only 3 players in the history of baseball to hit 400+ HRs and steal 300+ bases in their career(one other is Willy Mays, and the 3rd is a cheater). I could also tell you that he is better statistically than most of the right fielders currently enshrined in Cooperstown.

I could do all that, but it's much easier to just tell you that you're wrong.

BARRY BONDS HAD 400 HR's and 300 SB's WAYYYYYY BEFORE HE STARTED JUICING. HE WAS AND IS A HOF'ER BEFORE HE USED JUICE. LOVE IT OR HATE BUT THAT IS THE TRUTH.

Why do some people freak out when someone calls a cheater a cheater.

Because when dealing with players in the steroid era, first he is called a cheater, then 2nd is he was not good enough to get in the hall of fame. There is a biased when discussing Bonds. You have to be fair. He was a LOCK before he used PED's. Along with Clemens it gets tricky after them. They had HOF numbers before they started using. The rest of them is harder to tell. You can not tell me that Robbie Alomar and Larkin deserve to be first ballot HOF'ers and Bonds is not. Yea he was a dick and he used to become Ruthian from 00-04, but from 87-99 he had a GREAT career.

Another gem!


Bernie Madoff should be in the investment HOF. He had a HOF career and HOF numbers way before he started cheating. I don't know why people don't like him, he made millions and millions of dollars. And no matter what, you can't take that away from him. Or wait...[/quote:3ss0ke4v]


what does "Another Gem" Mean? I think my point on Bonds was valid. Please explain your post

 

[NYCrulesU]

There is a big difference between compliers and guys that were dominate.

I can't judge Blyleven. I never saw him pitch for myself. Sure his final career numbers look nice, but one has to remember he did it in a 20 year career. He only led the league in K's once, yet has over 3700 strikeouts. That just screams compiler. Like I said, I can't say yes or no because I never go to watch him play, but his numbers don't say he was ever dominate.

I'm a firm believer that the Hall should be reserved for the elite of the elite. It's a shame that they feel like they did to put someone in every year.

NYCRulesU- Don't say anyone who doesn't think Blyleven should be in the Hall should find a new sport to follow because they obviously don't follow the game. You used that same argument when you said that Josh Hamilton was a better player than Joe Mauer... That really hurts your credibility.

For the record: Only guy I would vote in this year is Alomar if I had a vote.

:lol: You and your "credibility" arguement again? On a public message board? lol Save that stupidity for your friends at recess ok? Thanks.


Compiler and accumulator are the same thing. And anyone who uses those terms to talk about why a player shouldn't be in the HOF, is an idot.

Sure, Blyleven may have not been dominant. He still got the job done. He won what, 287 games? Off the top off my head without looking. I know it was 270-280 something. I wouldn't care if a player was blessed to play 30+ seasons. Get this little bity, STAT ARE STATS. Like I said, Ryan played 27 seasons and only had 324 wins. Does that make him any less of a HOF'er? Nope. Rickey played 25 seasons and practically begged for teams to sign him so he could get 3000 hits. Does that take away from the significance of actually reaching 3000 hits? Of course not. He did it and that means something. Regardless of whether or not a player gets 3000 K's, 3000 hits, 500 hrs' in 18 seasons, 22 seasons, or 27 seasons. It all comes down to the fact that they did it and should be recognized for their accomplishments.

How's that ice fishing coming along?

I have to agree with the others here. I think you accuse people of not knowing anything about baseball because you don't want them to find out you don't know anything about baseball! What does Rickey having 3000 hits have to do with anything? That's not the reason he is in the HOF. Did you know he scored more runs than anybody ever? To me, that's the point of baseball, scoring runs. You can't win without one. Rickey broke the all time SB record in about 11 seasons. The crowd in Oakland would chant "Run Rickey Run" and the pitcher would start getting nervous. Every at bat of every game you had to worry about Rickey. Bert Blyleven? I don't remember him striking fear into anybody like that.

And then there is Nolan Ryan, don't have to argue too much for him. Who do you think a team would rather face, Nolan Ryan or Bert Blyleven? The comparison between the two back on page 4 or 5 was pretty funny. To me it was something like this..


A VW Beetle is just like a Porsche

Beetle has 4 wheels (just like a Porsche)
Beetle has a front fender and a rear fender (just like a Porsche)
Beetle has no heater (only 1 less than a Porsche)

Other than the engine, they are basically the same thing.

Relax tough guy, I was using Rickey as an example. I wasn't knocking him. Learn to comprehend. I love Rickey. He's one of my all time favorite players and baseball personalities No need to get all up in arms because I used your fav. player as an example. Jesus, some of you collectors really act like complete asses when it comes to the players you like. I bet you're atleast in your 30's and still need to be told to grow up.

Have a great day friend

 

[sportscardtheory]

Relax tough guy, I was using Rickey as an example. I wasn't knocking him. Learn to comprehend. I love Rickey. He's one of my all time favorite players and baseball personalities No need to get all up in arms because I used your fav. player as an example. Jesus, some of you collectors really act like complete asses when it comes to the players you like. I bet you're atleast in your 30's and still need to be told to grow up.

Have a great day friend

Is this like your "thing" now? Constantly insulting people? My lord. You can't make one post without some know-it-all BS and insults aimed at anyone who questions one letter you type.

 

[bodiaz]

Other HOFers who were "Compilers"

Dave Winfield (DHd to get 3000 hits)
Eddie Murray (stayed to get the 3000/500 stat)
Paul Molitor (DHd to get 3000 hits)

And that is just the quick ones off the top of my head.

You missed the biggest compiler of alltime, Ken Griffey Jr! He should have retired 6 to 8 years ago. His stats are very flawwed because he has been average ever since leaving Seattle!

 

[sportscardtheory]

Other HOFers who were "Compilers"

Dave Winfield (DHd to get 3000 hits)
Eddie Murray (stayed to get the 3000/500 stat)
Paul Molitor (DHd to get 3000 hits)

And that is just the quick ones off the top of my head.

You missed the biggest compiler of alltime, Ken Griffey Jr! He should have retired 6 to 8 years ago. His stats are very flawwed because he has been average ever since leaving Seattle!

I can just HEAR you getting jazzed up for someone to confront you on this.

 

[cartersprings]

You missed the biggest compiler of alltime, Ken Griffey Jr! He should have retired 6 to 8 years ago. His stats are very flawwed because he has been average ever since leaving Seattle!

I can just HEAR you getting jazzed up for someone to confront you on this.

 

[BrewerSuperCollector]

Are they compiling stats or compiling CA$H.

 

[predatorkj]

Isn't one of the biggest "intangible" qualifications for the HOF whether or not you were dominant at your position in your era?

When was Alomar the "dominant" 2nd baseman?

The entire 1990's...who was MORE dominant than him?? Who's been a more dominant second baseman career-wise than him??

Craig Biggio, period.

And here are Biggio's similars from baseball-reference...

Robin Yount (836) *
Joe Morgan (779) *
Paul Molitor (778) *
Roberto Alomar (773)
Cal Ripken (761) *
Brooks Robinson (739) *
Lou Whitaker (739)
George Brett (736) *
Ryne Sandberg (723) *
Charlie Gehringer (716) *

...with Alomar 4th.

Alomar was a damn good second baseman but I never saw him as dominant.Never knew anyone else that did either.And yes...I am quite old enough to have seen him play.I do think he should get in though.I just don't see him as first ballot HOF'er.I think what I mean by that is that there are different caliber HOF'ers.Some are dead locks.Some are kind of second and third tier guys.Guys who should be in but certainly aren't the cream of the crop when compared to other members of the HOF.

He wasn't dominant compared to who? If you're comparing him to Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr., Barry Bonds, of course he wasn't...but who was...Alomar also wasn't an outfielder or first baseman where those power numbers were expected.

Compared to every other second baseman of his time (and in my opinion, all before), he was dominant. The man played on SEVEN different playoff teams and went to two World Series

Once you start comparing second basemen and other positions to the power hitting outfielders/first baseme, no shortstop, second baseman, catcher or third baseman should EVER get into the HOF.

Compared to nobody in particular.I understand that you won't get the kind of production from a 2nd baseman that you would from another postion.That is not my point.I just never had him pegged as a dominant ball player.That's all.It just an opinion.I see the stats.I am just as capable of hopping on MLB.com and seeing the same thing you are.That is not my point and it leads more into my point of the fact that watching a plyer can water down their dominance.Same thing with Biggio.I never considered him anything other than a good player.But now that we see him possibly going to the Hall in a few years...I realize what he has accomplished.I guess watching them can dumb you down a little is all.Especially when they aren't having monster years like Pujols and Howard etc.You can't compare the two but being out of the limelight a little can really affect your take on a player.That's all.

 

[predatorkj]

I don't like the compiler argument.Theoretically, anyone could play for 30 years and have some major milestones.The point is...who is getting there quicker?If it takes player A 30 years to get to 500 homeruns, yet it only takes player B 16 years, who is the better player?Same can be said for any category.The point is...everyone compiles stats.The minute you step on the field, it starts.The real problem is some people feel that certain athletes hang on longer than they should just to reach certain milestones.But what many don't seem to realize is the majority of the assalt on the key milestones has been done during their prime.Biggio probably played a season or two that he shouldn't have.But its not exactly like he didn't already have some nice numbers.So...are we gonna say he was a compiler?How about Hank Aaron?How about Greg Maddux(when he gets elected)?The fact is these guys did what they did during their prime and adding a few years on to an already good career doesn't mean they should be axed as a compiler.

 

[VizquelCollector.com]

But sad to say, Ozzie is in, now Vizquel will be.

I sure hope you're right!