A look back - 2003 Hall of Fame voting

[craftysouthpaw]

You can call it whatever you want, but the voting patterns established over 70+ years have established what it really is. It is the Hall of "Players Who Dominated Their Era". "Fame" has nothing to do with it and never has.

A few guys may have gotten boosts from their "Fame" (Nolan Ryan and Ozzie come to mind) but I can't think of a single instance where someone was inducted for "Fame" and not their playing record. Ozzie was inducted because voters believe he is the greatest defensive SS of all time and was decent offensively for a SS. Not because he was "famous". Nor has a single voter ever supported his vote for or against a player based upon "Fame".

We can disagree on whom they (and we) consider to be the Players Who Dominated Their Era but that is the standard voters clearly use. Until someone can show me one single instance (let alone a large enough number of voters to make a difference) where "Fame" was a factor in anyone's vote, I will continue to reject that argument.

 

[elmalo]

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 vote the position players.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

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.

Yes its a good thing to be given ample opportunity to judge everyone's accomplishments and to put them in proper perspective before rushing to judgment. Technically its the exact opposite of judging the 'HOF credentials' of a player with no accomplishments in low-A ball...which more than a few people here like to do

Perceptions of unconventional or unique players (or people) who made a difference can change over time.

Although Blyleven's stats seem to measure up, the writers also decided he has HOF integrity, character and contributions to the game.

 

[smapdi]

Dudes, it's never been the Hall of Immortals, no matter what Skip Blowless says. Applying your own definition of what you think some existing institution should be is just for someone with column inches to fill or silence to break. Every year people bemoan the election of players who were not Cobb, Williams, or Alexander. In any group of players, there will be someone who is lowest/highest/most/least in some stat and that's what the detractors focus on. It's the Hall of Fame, and whatever that means to you, there is someone on the ballot or already in that doesn't conform to that meaning. They're here, they're lame, get used to it.

FWIW, I support the election of both these guys, based on people already in. I don't think any bar has been lowered by their election, and their presence is fine. I don't think excluding them would've been a blemish either, but whatever mythical line I have in my own head, they passed it.

 

[jcmint]

60 shoutouts is hall of fame worthy. You talk to some hitters who faced him and most will say that guy was the toughest to hit. His stats warranted admission.

 

[elmalo]

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.

Why is everyone so down on Gary Carter, the guy was a great all around catcher. He is definitely a Hall of Famer.
I agree with you on the other ones.

 

[carrsallstars]

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.

There are 205 players in the Hall of Fame. Do you know how many players have played major league baseball?! neither do I but through 2005 it was 16,219. 205/16219 means that 99% of baseball players do not make the hall of fame. That is not a line drawn at very good. Over 130 years (1876 to 2006, since you have to be retired for 5 years) thats 205 players, or 1.58 players per year the game has been played. Find another trite statement to repeat.
I'd be willing to bet that you are not very smart, since you didn't get higher than a 1540 on your SAT. Or 2290 for any young spuds around here.

 

[scotty21690]

You can call it whatever you want, but the voting patterns established over 70+ years have established what it really is. It is the Hall of "Players Who Dominated Their Era". "Fame" has nothing to do with it and never has.

A few guys may have gotten boosts from their "Fame" (Nolan Ryan and Ozzie come to mind) but I can't think of a single instance where someone was inducted for "Fame" and not their playing record. Ozzie was inducted because voters believe he is the greatest defensive SS of all time and was decent offensively for a SS. Not because he was "famous". Nor has a single voter ever supported his vote for or against a player based upon "Fame".

We can disagree on whom they (and we) consider to be the Players Who Dominated Their Era but that is the standard voters clearly use. Until someone can show me one single instance (let alone a large enough number of voters to make a difference) where "Fame" was a factor in anyone's vote, I will continue to reject that argument.

Surprised Blyleven got in, he did not have the "Fame" nor did he Dominate his Era...

He should be very thankful he finally made it on a weak ballot.

 

[joey12508]

60 shoutouts is hall of fame worthy. You talk to some hitters who faced him and most will say that guy was the toughest to hit. His stats warranted admission.

+1 dont think many modern day pitchers will come close to his complete games or shutouts. we have one they call king who only has 4 shutouts.

 

[scotty21690]

60 shoutouts is hall of fame worthy. You talk to some hitters who faced him and most will say that guy was the toughest to hit. His stats warranted admission.

+1 dont think many modern day pitchers will come close to his complete games or shutouts. we have one they call king who only has 4 shutouts.

Pitchers nowadays don't really have a choice in the matter, managers want to pull them after 6-7 innings or 110 pitches to reduce the risk of injury on their investments. Pitching today in the ML is a lot different than it was in the 70s/80s,etc....

 

[joey12508]

60 shoutouts is hall of fame worthy. You talk to some hitters who faced him and most will say that guy was the toughest to hit. His stats warranted admission.

+1 dont think many modern day pitchers will come close to his complete games or shutouts. we have one they call king who only has 4 shutouts.

Pitchers nowadays don't really have a choice in the matter, managers want to pull them after 6-7 innings or 110 pitches to reduce the risk of injury on their investments. Pitching today in the ML is a lot different than it was in the 70s/80s,etc....

i agree with you 100 percent. it was a different time and a different game when he pitched. many who post on here saying he doesnt deserve to be in, never seen him play. probally werent born. he was a dam good pitcher. i am glad he made it.

 

[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.

There are 205 players in the Hall of Fame. Do you know how many players have played major league baseball?! neither do I but through 2005 it was 16,219. 205/16219 means that 99% of baseball players do not make the hall of fame. That is not a line drawn at very good. Over 130 years (1876 to 2006, since you have to be retired for 5 years) thats 205 players, or 1.58 players per year the game has been played. Find another trite statement to repeat.
I'd be willing to bet that you are not very smart, since you didn't get higher than a 1540 on your SAT. Or 2290 for any young spuds around here.

Wow. A lot of personal insults on the boards today.

I could argue your statistics by pointing out that a good number of those 16,219 -- and I hazard a guess that it's significantly more (a typical baseball team will use 45-50 players a year - that's 1500 -- obviously some drop off the roster, but I'd hazard a guess that WELL more than 16,219 have played since the 1800s). In fact, it's so obviously more than 16,219, I'm going to stop there. You're not worth arguing with... since I'm obivously not as smart as you.

The Hall of Fame has become the Hall of Very Good. Period.

 

[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.

Why is everyone so down on Gary Carter, the guy was a great all around catcher. He is definitely a Hall of Famer.
I agree with you on the other ones.

.262 BA, 322 HRs, .335 OBP, .773 OPS, NEVER led the league in ANYTHING other than RBIs, once, broke 30 HRs only 2 times, broke 100+ RBIS only 4 times (never more than 106), and only 3 gold gloves. Played for 4 different teams. Finished 2nd in MVP voting once, 3rd once (and ******* about it for months in 1986). Never won an MVP.

Very good, yes. Fameworthy? No.

If Carter was that great, why did it take SIX YEARS to vote him in, and why did LESS THAN HALF of the writers deny him entry in his first year -- and only a third in his 2nd year?!?

1998 BBWAA (42.3%)
1999 BBWAA (33.8%)
2000 BBWAA (49.7%)
2001 BBWAA (64.9%)
2002 BBWAA (72.7%)
2003 BBWAA (78.0%)
Selected to HOF in 2003,


And, he's a tremendously large *********, if we're counting the moral fiber aspect.

 

[js0000001]

[quote="Jeff N.":td6im5hc]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.

Why is everyone so down on Gary Carter, the guy was a great all around catcher. He is definitely a Hall of Famer.
I agree with you on the other ones.

.262 BA, 322 HRs, .335 OBP, .773 OPS, NEVER led the league in ANYTHING other than RBIs, once, broke 30 HRs only 2 times, broke 100+ RBIS only 4 times (never more than 106), and only 3 gold gloves. Played for 4 different teams. Finished 2nd in MVP voting once, 3rd once (and ******* about it for months in 1986). Never won an MVP.

Very good, yes. Fameworthy? No.

If Carter was that great, why did it take SIX YEARS to vote him in, and why did LESS THAN HALF of the writers deny him entry in his first year -- and only a third in his 2nd year?!?

1998 BBWAA (42.3%)
1999 BBWAA (33.8%)
2000 BBWAA (49.7%)
2001 BBWAA (64.9%)
2002 BBWAA (72.7%)
2003 BBWAA (78.0%)
Selected to HOF in 2003,


And, he's a tremendously large *********, if we're counting the moral fiber aspect.[/quote:td6im5hc]

Gary's resume deserves consideration no doubt
more for the catching then the fielding though

# 11× All-Star selection (1975, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988)
# 3× Gold Glove Award winner (1980, 1981, 1982)
# 5× Silver Slugger Award winner (1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986)
# 2× MLB All-Star Game MVP (1981, 1984)
Def. Games as C 2056 (4th all time)
Putouts as C 11785 (4th all time)

 

[craftysouthpaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":3kgmpxol]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.

Why is everyone so down on Gary Carter, the guy was a great all around catcher. He is definitely a Hall of Famer.
I agree with you on the other ones.

.262 BA, 322 HRs, .335 OBP, .773 OPS, NEVER led the league in ANYTHING other than RBIs, once, broke 30 HRs only 2 times, broke 100+ RBIS only 4 times (never more than 106), and only 3 gold gloves. Played for 4 different teams. Finished 2nd in MVP voting once, 3rd once (and ******* about it for months in 1986). Never won an MVP.

Very good, yes. Fameworthy? No.

If Carter was that great, why did it take SIX YEARS to vote him in, and why did LESS THAN HALF of the writers deny him entry in his first year -- and only a third in his 2nd year?!?

1998 BBWAA (42.3%)
1999 BBWAA (33.8%)
2000 BBWAA (49.7%)
2001 BBWAA (64.9%)
2002 BBWAA (72.7%)
2003 BBWAA (78.0%)
Selected to HOF in 2003,


And, he's a tremendously large *********, if we're counting the moral fiber aspect.[/quote:3kgmpxol]

I don't think you can put a whole lot of stock in how the writers vote. A healthy chunk of them look at BA, HR's, and RBI's and that's about it - especially 15 years ago. And another healthy chunk feel it is their duty to stratify the Hall by not voting for certain guys until later in their candidacy because they aren't Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron (and even they can't get 100% of the vote). Following the voting logic for Carter, what about DiMaggio? Took him 3 tries and he also received less than half his vote his first year (44.3%).

You have to view Carter within the context of his position and era. Catchers rarely lead the league in anything because of the defensive demands and the amount of games they sit out. Berra never lead the league in anything either and that was with many fewer teams.

Carter's OPS+ is 115 which is excellent for a catcher. He did "only" win 3 GG's, but he had Bench to deal with early on and he probably should have won more looking at his numbers.

Bill James has him ranked the 8th best catcher ever and his top comparable per BR is . . . Johnny Bench. If the 8th best player ever isn't worthy of the HOF, that is one small Hall. I lean towards being a small Hall guy, but I find it hard to exclude a top 10 guy at his position. Dawson and Rice . . . those are different stories.

 

[RL24]

[quote="Jeff N.":egtjhfk0]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.

There are 205 players in the Hall of Fame. Do you know how many players have played major league baseball?! neither do I but through 2005 it was 16,219. 205/16219 means that 99% of baseball players do not make the hall of fame. That is not a line drawn at very good. Over 130 years (1876 to 2006, since you have to be retired for 5 years) thats 205 players, or 1.58 players per year the game has been played. Find another trite statement to repeat.
I'd be willing to bet that you are not very smart, since you didn't get higher than a 1540 on your SAT. Or 2290 for any young spuds around here.

Wow. A lot of personal insults on the boards today.

I could argue your statistics by pointing out that a good number of those 16,219 -- and I hazard a guess that it's significantly more (a typical baseball team will use 45-50 players a year - that's 1500 -- obviously some drop off the roster, but I'd hazard a guess that WELL more than 16,219 have played since the 1800s). In fact, it's so obviously more than 16,219, I'm going to stop there. You're not worth arguing with... since I'm obivously not as smart as you.

The Hall of Fame has become the Hall of Very Good. Period.[/quote:egtjhfk0]

I found this in google:

There have been roughly 20,000 players in the MLB in baseball history, and 750 play currently

Seemed low to me too, so I did a little more searching. According to WikiAnswers:

8,000,678

:lol: That one seems a little high.

Back in the day they didn't use nearly as many players as they do today, and it probably depends on if you have a minimum set, how many players have played at least 1 season? Or is it just 1 game? Maybe there have been 8 million.

Either way though, you're arguing that there have been MORE than 16,219 players have played... and there are still only 205 that have made it into the HOF. If there have been 40,000 players in the history of the MLB, only 0.005125% of them make it into the Hall. If there were 8 million, only 0.000025625% of them have made it. If there really were 16,219, only .012 of those players made it into the hall. The "very good" ones don't make it. You have to have a great career to make it into the hall. Gary Carter did both of those things.

 

[carrsallstars]

[quote="Jeff N.":1opthiv7]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.

There are 205 players in the Hall of Fame. Do you know how many players have played major league baseball?! neither do I but through 2005 it was 16,219. 205/16219 means that 99% of baseball players do not make the hall of fame. That is not a line drawn at very good. Over 130 years (1876 to 2006, since you have to be retired for 5 years) thats 205 players, or 1.58 players per year the game has been played. Find another trite statement to repeat.
I'd be willing to bet that you are not very smart, since you didn't get higher than a 1540 on your SAT. Or 2290 for any young spuds around here.

Wow. A lot of personal insults on the boards today.

I could argue your statistics by pointing out that a good number of those 16,219 -- and I hazard a guess that it's significantly more (a typical baseball team will use 45-50 players a year - that's 1500 -- obviously some drop off the roster, but I'd hazard a guess that WELL more than 16,219 have played since the 1800s). In fact, it's so obviously more than 16,219, I'm going to stop there. You're not worth arguing with... since I'm obivously not as smart as you.

The Hall of Fame has become the Hall of Very Good. Period.[/quote:1opthiv7]

My post that someone "is not very smart" wasn't intended as a personal insult, it was intended to be sarcastic. It paralleled the definition of "very good" in regards to baseball players in his and your posts.

I obivously agree that it's not worth arguing about- since you are so slick with the math that you stop before you try it. The majority of the roster spots for each team and from season to season are taken up by players that have played the previous year. So talking about roster spots is irrelevant to the conversation.