A look back - 2003 Hall of Fame voting

[P_Manning 18]

Its interesting to see how many future HOF'ers that were on the ballot and how they measured up to each other at the time. Blyleven was 9th in his 6th year on the ballot.... but 8 years later he finally got enough votes. Looks like some weak classes helped him finally get in... I still dont see how he made it. If you are only an All Star twice in a 22 year career :?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2003.shtml

 

[A_Pharis]

I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

 

[Lars]

All the statheads that came of age over the last 10 years helped Blyleven's cause as they shed new light on how good he was or at least had the credentials to be a passable Hall of Fame guy.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

All the statheads that came of age over the last 10 years helped Blyleven's cause as they shed new light on how good he was or at least had the credentials to be a passable Hall of Fame guy.

This.

Hall of Famers should be National stars, Blyleven was not. He was however a regional star depending on where he played. Statistically, he is a Hall of Famer...but there isn't a whole lot of "fame" there.

It's a tough battle between stats and fame, some have made it on fame, some stats...but the true legends have both.

 

[P_Manning 18]

I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

But if you look at Jim Katt's stats... you see basically the same pitcher with 1300 less strike outs. Do 1300 Strikeouts really make that big a difference? Roughly same wins.. same ERA... less losses... 3 more seasons.... but he finished his career in the bullpen. Arnt they both the same pitcher?? One stayed on the ballot for 15 years and ran out of time... the other made it in his 14 year.

 

[goldenegg1]

Jim Kaat also had 16 gold gloves as a pitcher, Kaat > Blyleven in my opinion.

Also, All Star appearances mean nothing now that the fans vote, Fukudome anyone?

 

[braden]

[quote="A_Pharis":9e7tckvv]I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

But if you look at Jim Katt's stats... you see basically the same pitcher with 1300 less strike outs. Do 1300 Strikeouts really make that big a difference? Roughly same wins.. same ERA... less losses... 3 more seasons.... but he finished his career in the bullpen. Arnt they both the same pitcher?? One stayed on the ballot for 15 years and ran out of time... the other made it in his 14 year.[/quote:9e7tckvv]


They sure do. Striking a batter out is the single best thing a pitcher can do. Nobody can score, nobody can advance, etc.

 

[P_Manning 18]

[quote="A_Pharis":m1kdem26]I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

But if you look at Jim Katt's stats... you see basically the same pitcher with 1300 less strike outs. Do 1300 Strikeouts really make that big a difference? Roughly same wins.. same ERA... less losses... 3 more seasons.... but he finished his career in the bullpen. Arnt they both the same pitcher?? One stayed on the ballot for 15 years and ran out of time... the other made it in his 14 year.

They sure do. Striking a batter out is the single best thing a pitcher can do. Nobody can score, nobody can advance, etc.[/quote:m1kdem26]

In the grand scheme I agree. But when you look at 2 players that have roughly the same stats over a 20-25 year career... do 1300 more Strikeouts really mean the other guy deserves a spot in Cooperstown?

2 pitchers... 280-240 3.35 ERA but 1300 more strikeouts really make the other guy a HOF'er??

 

[braden]

[quote="P_Manning 18":2m20i6rg][quote="A_Pharis":2m20i6rg]I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

But if you look at Jim Katt's stats... you see basically the same pitcher with 1300 less strike outs. Do 1300 Strikeouts really make that big a difference? Roughly same wins.. same ERA... less losses... 3 more seasons.... but he finished his career in the bullpen. Arnt they both the same pitcher?? One stayed on the ballot for 15 years and ran out of time... the other made it in his 14 year.

They sure do. Striking a batter out is the single best thing a pitcher can do. Nobody can score, nobody can advance, etc.[/quote:2m20i6rg]

In the grand scheme I agree. But when you look at 2 players that have roughly the same stats over a 20-25 year career... do 1300 more Strikeouts really mean the other guy deserves a spot in Cooperstown?

2 pitchers... 280-240 3.35 ERA but 1300 more strikeouts really make the other guy a HOF'er??[/quote:2m20i6rg]

Admittedly I've never really taken a close look at Kaat's stats, especially against his contemporaries. That said, both Blyleven and Kaat were widely regarded as borderline. So if one's in and one's out, it would make sense that the one in is the guy who dominated a very important statistic.

 

[js0000001]

Bert B had x2 shutouts then Jim K on top of all the K's

 

[Bob Loblaw]

It's not the Hall of Fame anymore.

It's the Hall of Very Good. Jim Rice, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, and now Bert Blyleven have proven same.

 

[NECpilgrims8]

It's not the Hall of Fame anymore.

It's the Hall of Very Good. Jim Rice, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, and now Bert Blyleven have proven same.

Actually, it's called....

The Hall of Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent-and-by-then-it's-too-late

or

The Hall of We-Won't-Let-You-In-Because-We-Love-To-Stereotype

 

[js0000001]

It's not the Hall of Fame anymore.

It's the Hall of Very Good. Jim Rice, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, and now Bert Blyleven have proven same.

Actually, it's called....

The Hall of Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent-and-by-then-it's-too-late

or

The Hall of We-Won't-Let-You-In-Because-We-Love-To-Stereotype

Still better then Hall and Oates

 

[craftysouthpaw]

[quote="A_Pharis":2j4ht8p5]I think it's called living in the shadow of better pitchers. The guy has decent stats... yeah, he compiled... but there are others that did that as well.

And it's not like that's his intent -- hell, the guy put a huge physical strain on his body for 22 seasons! Effort, being loved by your fans, hallmark stats (even if compiled) all go into HoF voting.

But if you look at Jim Katt's stats... you see basically the same pitcher with 1300 less strike outs. Do 1300 Strikeouts really make that big a difference? Roughly same wins.. same ERA... less losses... 3 more seasons.... but he finished his career in the bullpen. Arnt they both the same pitcher?? One stayed on the ballot for 15 years and ran out of time... the other made it in his 14 year.[/quote:2j4ht8p5]

Saying they are the same pitcher except for the K's is like saying a pretty girl is the same as Scarlett Johansson except for the breasts. That "except for" is a huge component (no pun intended) of the separation of the two.

Their ERA's aren't that similar once you normalize for league and park. Blyleven's ERA+ is 118 vs. 108 for Kaat. So just based on that Blyleven is roughly 10% better. And the fact that their ERA's are even that close given the difference in K's can almost certainly be explained by luck, quality of defense, or both. In other words, things largely outside of their control. It is pretty clear at this point that once the ball is put in play, pitchers have very little control about whether it is a base hit or not. Kaat may have a HOF case but not because he was as good as Blyleven.

I still don't get the compiler argument. All baseball players are compilers. The guys that stick around long enough to put up counting stats do so because they are among the best players to begin with. That's why they stick around. If the compiler argument is a guy got his numbers by playing too long and having multiple crappy years at the end of their career to pad counting stats, Blyleven definitely doesn't fit into that category. At age 38, he was 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA (or 140+). He had two more years after that and hung it up. To me, the compiler argument is somewhere to hide when you can't support your belief with meaningful facts (i.e. something other than number of wins).

A solid argument can be made that Blyleven was the 2nd best pitcher of his generation behind Seaver. Yes, even ahead of Carlton. I'm not saying I am in that camp, but their is merit to that claim. Bert's ERA+ is a bit better (118 vs 115) but in the end, I would probably lean Carlton because of the 200+ more innings and 400+ extra K's. But people automatically scream "no way" immediately almost entirely due to the number of wins. If you flipped the teams they played for, their W-L records would basically flip (notwithstanding Carlton's amazing 1972 season - another reason to put him ahead of Blyleven overall). And people consider Blyleven a compiler, how can they not do the same for Carlton given how long he hung on? Again, I don't think either are compilers, nor anyone with a HOF case.

I agree several weak candidates have gone in the last few years (Rice and Dawson primarily) but Blyleven truly was a dominant player who was among the best 3 or 4 guys at his position for a long time. The lack of CY votes means little given the same guys that kept him out of the Hall for so long were the ones voting on the awards. If the guys voting today were voting 35 years ago, his vote totals would look much different. Do you think Felix would have won the CY in 1973 with that W-L record?

 

[bowmanchromeandorr]

skip bayless says it best, its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good. one show know on the first (maybe second) ballot if they are good enough to make to Cooperstown. I also agree with Bayless that the BBWAA are a bunch of idiots who refuse to vote for players on their first ballot, which to me is stupid also. Either vote them in the first year or not at all. yes, you coudl have 10 guys in one class but there would be a crapload of years with no one which is also fine with me. the hall of fame shouldn't vote guys in for the sake of voting guys in.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

skip bayless says it best, its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good. one show know on the first (maybe second) ballot if they are good enough to make to Cooperstown. I also agree with Bayless that the BBWAA are a bunch of idiots who refuse to vote for players on their first ballot, which to me is stupid also. Either vote them in the first year or not at all. yes, you coudl have 10 guys in one class but there would be a crapload of years with no one which is also fine with me. the hall of fame shouldn't vote guys in for the sake of voting guys in.

I've been saying that for years....

 

[WoundedDuck]

Saying they are the same pitcher except for the K's is like saying a pretty girl is the same as Scarlett Johansson except for the breasts. That "except for" is a huge component (no pun intended) of the separation of the two.

I'll take a Scarlett Johansson replica with any breasts you want. I'm sorry, but it had to be said.

 

[Wes]

Jim Kaat also had 16 gold gloves as a pitcher, Kaat > Blyleven in my opinion.

Also, All Star appearances mean nothing now that the fans vote, Fukudome anyone?

Fans don't vote on pitchers. Unless it's the additional bonus player.

 

[RL24]

yes, you coudl have 10 guys in one class but there would be a crapload of years with no one which is also fine with me.

Do you really think the small town of Cooperstown could survive a crapload of years with no induction ceremonies? It would be sad to head to town for that big class of 10 guys only to discover there are no hotels, shops or restaraunts because they are all out of business...

 

[Wes]

yes, you coudl have 10 guys in one class but there would be a crapload of years with no one which is also fine with me.

Do you really think the small town of Cooperstown could survive a crapload of years with no induction ceremonies? It would be sad to head to town for that big class of 10 guys only to discover there are no hotels, shops or restaraunts because they are all out of business...

My town is in fine shape and we don't have any HOF induction ceremonies ever.