Henderson & Rice elected to Hall of Fame
by mattlo
on Jan 12, 2009 4:23 PM EST
77 comments
Rickey Henderson cruised in with 94.8% of the vote and Jim Rice sqeaked by with 76.4%. Here's a link to an article with all the vote totals and quotes from some of the voters on who they picked and why: MLB.com voters share Hall thoughts
My first reaction to the voting is that there were no surprises - Rickey was a no brainer and Rice was about as borderline as it gets. So no big complaints. I know a lot of Cardinals fans would like to see Big Mac in the Hall but that's clearly not going to happen any time soon. Lee Smith is probably deserving but has time to gather nostalgia votes and may be enshrined in a few years. Blyleven and Dawson are marginal HOFers at best and I doubt anyone other than Twins and Cubs fans (respectively) care very much about them. (Though Bill James once made a strong case for Blyleven - I couldn't find a link to it but here is a blog post that gives you the gist)
My second reaction was that 5.2% of the voters should be banned from future elections (the ones who didn't vote for Rickey, in case that wasn't obvious). I simply can't imagine a plausible reason that Henderson doesn't deserve to be in Cooperstown. I don't think I need to go into the numbers but he's the career leader in Runs (what the game is all about) and Steals (exciting) and second only to Barry Bonds in walks. Apparently some voters think there should never be a unanimous vote and left Rickey off for that reason. I think that attitude makes a mockery of the system - it is an honor to be able to vote for the HOF and those who do should take it seriously and vote for players who deserve it. Does anyone out there have any ideas about 1) why Rickey didn't deserve the Hall or 2) how the voting system can be improved?
My final thought is that maybe the Rickey vote is a good thing, leaving open the possibility that, sometime around 2030, Albert Pujols could be the first unanimous inductee.
0 recs |
77 comments
Email
Print
Comments
There are many reasons not to vote for Ricky
But none of them are very good.
-Don’t believe in unanimous selection
-Forgot to fill out voting card
-Incorrectly filled out voting card
-Unable to fill out voting card
-Racist
-Hates the Oakland Athletics with an unworldly passion
Ricky is (perhaps) the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of baseball. He deserves to get in the hall. Congratulations to him for an awesome career.
by JWO on
Jan 12, 2009 4:35 PM EST
reply
actions
1 recs
Lee Arthur Smith
I’ve always thought he was deserving. I know that home run he gave up to Steve Garvey in the 1984 playoffs hurts his chances. That doesn’t change the fact he got 478 saves, the most of any pitcher of his time.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 12, 2009 4:35 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Loved big Lee
But he will probably need all fifteen years to build the necessary support.
by JWO on
Jan 12, 2009 4:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bizarre photos
Cardinal AND Cub
Kind of disgusting actually…okay not really.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 12, 2009 7:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bruce Sutter and Rogers Hornsby, too.
As far as I know, Hornsby is the only player to win an MVP for both the Cardinals and the Cubs.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jan 13, 2009 1:47 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And Ernie Broglio and Lou Brock!
I love how one of the worst trades ever involved the Cardinals hosing the Cubs. Beautiful.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 8:19 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bruce Sutter
There’s a HOF closer with the Cubs and Cardinals. I’d love to see Lee Smith join him in Cooperstown.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 13, 2009 11:27 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this photo is primary evidence of why the cardinals are infinitely better than the cubs.
play for the cards, you’ll look like a crazed mountain man.
play for the cubs, you’ll look like you just ate a hot dog and failed to get the ketchup off the corners of your mouth.
by tom s. on
Jan 16, 2009 5:25 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What a joke
The Rice selection was a complete joke. Although it does help Jim Edmond’s bid in about 4 or 5 years.
by thoran85 on
Jan 12, 2009 5:36 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
well it won't be 4, that is for sure
and I still think he needs 400 HRs to make it
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 12, 2009 7:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hooray for Jim Rice
but only to shut Dan Shaughnessy the hell up.
by Anonymous Communist on
Jan 12, 2009 5:36 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Won't happen
Shaughnessy lost his “Curse of the Bambino” meal ticket so now he has to find something-anything-to run his mouth about.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 14, 2009 8:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Other recent inductees:
Cal Ripken Jr. garnered 98.5% of the vote, meaning 8 people said no on him.
Tony Gwynn got 97.6, so 13 people left him off.
Nolan Ryan had an impressive 98.8, meaning only 6 people were douchy enough to say no to him.
Mike Schmidt was at 96.6, leaving only 16 people silly enough to say no on that ballot.
Steve Carlton fell 20 votes shy of perfect with 95.6
How to fix the voting system? Here’s the thing—the overall right decision was made, so I don’t know that it’s a huge travesty that someone voted no.
Now, it is awful that anyone would vote no because they don’t want an unanimous decision. Here’s what it should be about: If you think the guy is a Hall of Famer, you should vote yes. If you think he’s not, you should vote no.
Eventually, hopefully the people who hold these opinions either retire, give up their ballots, or have them taken away. I’m not sure how you can do much more other than try to pick knowledgeable writers who are going to take the responsibility seriously, and while some of the voters seem to not take it with the seriousness that we’d like to see, I don’t see anything changing.
It does make me wonder if Tom Haudricourt has a vote though…..
by mtalken on
Jan 12, 2009 5:39 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Hold on to your ass Fred
He has had one since 1986. BBWAA Badge List as of 2007
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 12, 2009 7:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I could care more about the guys not voting for Bert Blyleven
than I do about the people not voting for Nolan Ryan so that he’s not ‘unanimous’. Who cares if they are surefire first ballot hall of famers, or unanimous hall of famers? I kind of don’t. Those guys are in the Hall anyway. And anyway, it’s kind of silly that anyone should get a higher percentage of votes than Babe Ruth. Why even have a hall of fame without Babe Ruth?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jan 13, 2009 1:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not the people care about whether a selection is unanimous
What we are saying is that it makes mockery of the process because you are voting based on how other people are voting, when you should be voting based on who you think should make the Hall of Fame.
An example would be a player that everyone thinks is a sure fire first ballot Hall of Famer, but ends up missing it by 4 or 5 votes because a certain number of people left him off their ballot so that he wouldn’t be “unanimous”. This hasn’t happened yet, and the only explanation for that is that there is mass collusion between writers as to who gets in on what ballot, first, second, third, and so on. It’s not a mistake that Jim Rice made it on his last ballot. He’s a borderline HOF, despite being one of the best hitters (if not THE best hitter) in the big leagues for a 10 year stretch, so the writers punish him by making him wait 15 years to get elected. It’s the only possible explanation for why McGwire gets so few votes: The BBWAA writers decided as a group that he’ll have to wait until the right time to get his election because of supposed steroid use that they can’t prove.
It’s not an independent vote, and it should be. If you write about the game, then you should know enough about the game to know which players deserve to be enshrined and you should be able to make a case for them by looking at their careers. If you’re not going to vote for someone, then you should be able to make a case for him not to be enshrined. I don’t see how anyone could make a case that Rickey Henderson doesn’t deserve to be enshrined. I can see arguments against Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, etc, but I can’t see an argument against Rickey. He’s the greatest leadoff hitter ever, holds career records for runs and stolen bases, and is second only to Barry Bonds in career walks.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 9:25 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
McGwire Vote Down Again
He only got 21.9% of the vote this year. Big Mac only got 23.5% of the vote two years ago. He can watch his old teammate, Rickey Henderson, enter the Hall later this year.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 12, 2009 6:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
It actually increased in an important area
and that was Gordon Edes changing his vote in support of Big Mac. The more high profile voters who take this stance, the much easier it will be to sway general opinion.
by Hardcore Legend on
Jan 12, 2009 11:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Blyleven and Dawson are marginal HOFers at best and I doubt anyone other than Twins and Cubs fans (respectively) care very much about them.”
I think Blyleven is one of the worst current snubs going on. He’d be a fantastic addition to the Hall — incredible numbers as a dominant pitcher.
by azruavatar on
Jan 12, 2009 7:01 PM EST
reply
actions
1 recs
+1
Blyleven should be in the hall. Its sad when if he had just 13 more wins he would have been in already
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on
Jan 12, 2009 10:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 12, 2009 11:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's probably the most deserving
non-member…unless it’s Tim Raines. I’m genuinely disappointed w/ the ostensible contempt that HOF voters have shown for Raines who absolutely, unquestionably belongs in the Hall — certainly over someone like Rice who Raines could play circles around.
by chuckb on
Jan 12, 2009 11:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't get that...
Raines was the second best leadoff hitter ever, kind of Rickey Henderson Light. If it hadn’t been for Henderson’s sheer brilliance, Raines would be the best ever in the one-hole. I think people forget about him because he was hiding up in that ugly cave in Montreal for all of those years and besides being a well-known coke user he wasn’t really in the news much. It’s a shame.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 8:17 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dawson
while not a HOFer is every bit as deserving as Rice. Rice is completely a creation of Fenway Park who was a corner OF, not a CF like Dawson. Other than Fenway inflation, Dawson’s numbers are just as good as Rice’s plus he stole over 300 bases. Like I said earlier on another thread, the voters got it right for 14 years and f’ed it up this year.
I wonder if any of the guys who didn’t vote for Rickey voted for Rice?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 13, 2009 12:00 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i personally don't feel that Rice or Dawson belong in the hall
their #‘s just don’t cut it. yes they were good players & put up good #‘s, but it’s not the hall of good players, it’s the hall of fame. i feel the more marginal players they let in, the less special being a hall of famer becomes. and that’s just wrong.
now Bert belongs in, no questions asked. it’s a damn shame he’s not. and the only reason is the voters & press hate the guy. it shouldn’t matter how you feel about a person, his #‘s should speak for themselves. and Bert’s scream he’s a hall of famer. the press & voters ought to be ashamed.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on
Jan 13, 2009 1:44 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think Dawson may get in
He’s just going to have to wait until the very last vote to get in, just like Rice did.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 9:28 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm going to agree with AZ
Blyleven is about as far from “marginal” as it gets. He was a great pitcher and isn’t in because of the stupidity of writers and their inability to get past wins. He wasn’t necessarily a first-ballot guy, but he should be in already.
It’s been said again and again, but here are the arguments:
- He was in the top-10 in ERA TEN times in his career, or almost as many as Sandy Koufax had seasons period.
- 3,701 k/1322 bb for a 2.8 K/BB ratio…very good and well above league average during his career AND deflected downward due to Blyleven’s long career and decline phase.
**He was 13 wins short of 300…that’s one extra win a season in any 13 of his many seasons. Is an 18 game winner a better pitcher than a 17 win pitcher, esp. considering all of the things than can ruin your shot at a win.
Joe Posnansky is a far better writer than I, and he’s argued for Blyleven in much more eloquent language many times on his blog. (LINK HERE) In my mind it comes down to this: was he either very good for a long time with brilliant seasons mixed in OR was he otherworldly brilliant for a decently-long time (6-8 years or so) and curtailed by injuries. Blyleven was the first, so he should be in and it’s not really borderline to me.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 12, 2009 8:03 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
tommy john has passed the bbwaa’s 20-year limit with barely any notice and he had one more win than blyleven and was something of a medical pioneer. it’s clear that the standard for starting pitchers has risen in the last 20 or 30 (or 40?) years to a point that’s way beyond the standard for slugging corner outfielders and first basemen.
that said, i’m not the biggest fan of blyleven. his w-l record underperformed his runs allowed and run support by more than any pitcher in recent history by a significant margin. he still had a pretty impressive career and all that, but blyleven’s the one guy from that era for whom wpa’s would be enlightening, one way or the other.
by greenback06 on
Jan 12, 2009 10:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wins and Losses don't matter
It’s a team stat and isn’t an indication of how well a pitcher pitched. I don’t care that Tommy John had one more win. One win? Doesn’t matter. It’s one over a long career! That’s a game the fat setup man showed up drunk and didn’t tell anyone and gave up a granny two innings after the pitcher comes out. I would agree that the standard for pitchers is set very very high, probably a hair too high, but Blyleven still meets it. A long career that racked up 3,701 K’s, the 9th most shutouts in history, and top ten in ERA TEN times is much more impressive to me than any number of wins he may have accumulated or any strange correlation between his team’s runs scored and runs allowed. He had a career FIP of 3.24 and ERA+ of 118, which considering he pitched for a bajillion years and had a relatively long decline phase ain’t too bad. If he’d retired earlier his cumulative numbers would be better than they were, and I don’t think that is strike against a pitcher. Hell the guy pitched better in his playoff career than playoff hero Jack Morris, for what that’s worth.
Oh, and career WPA was 22.94 with six negative seasons and eleven positives. His best seasons were 4.59, 4.08, 3.85, and 3.54. For reference, Cliff Lee’s was 5.96 and CC Sabathia’s was 4.74. His best seasons would have put him in the upper echelons of baseball in that number, as would his other stats, and considering he was very good for a really long time that is Hall-worthy in my book.
Also, isn’t the real medical pioneer Dr. Frank Jobe? He performed the operation. Blyleven was also better…ERA’s are similar, but Blyleven’s K numbers were better with about the same BB numbers.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 12, 2009 11:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
k’s and bb’s are nice for predictions. it’s not necessarily an indicator of past value, which is generally the point in hof discussions. although while we’re on the subject, tj was pretty much the gold standard for groundball pitchers. he would get 20 gb outs a couple of times a year, which is remarkable in its own right.
anyway, i want to reiterate that when you would adjust for team support, blyleven’s w-l record dramatically underperformed his runs allowed. nobody else is even close in that underperformance, and again, this adjusts for his team. it’s not intended to be predictive, and in fact his dramatic underperformance was covered in the first half of his career and then in his second half the w-l results conformed. but the point is to win ball games, and for whatever reason, blyleven’s teams did not win as much as the standard rs/ra (or rs/fip, if you want to get real cute) model said they should have. i don’t know who to blame that on; bill james many years ago suggested giving half the blame to blyleven’s teammates, in which case you’re left with a pitcher who probably would’ve won 300 games, an automatic qualifier. one more time though, the predictive model works poorly in describing blyleven’s career.
as for the surgery, i think you’re underestimating the uncertainty of the procedure and the difficulty of rehab. he was a guinea pig and first guy to succeed, and there’s something to be said for that. i wouldn’t give all the credit to him, but we’re talking about a pitcher with the second-most career wins of any non-hof pitcher (behind only a guy who died in 1898). it shouldn’t take much credit for his successful return from then-unprecedented and now-routine surgery to push him over that the border. but again, nobody gives tj a mention, not a blurb at all. maybe you had to see one of those 20 gb out games to appreciate him.
by greenback06 on
Jan 13, 2009 12:45 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How does Blyleven's W-L underperform his runs allowed AFTER adjusting for team support?
Are we talking offensive or defensive support?
The pitcher’s just the pitcher; he throws the ball, he fields his spot, he tries not to hit into a double play at bat. If he gets four fieldable GB’s that his infield lets through and that inflates the run totals, it’s not his fault.
I don’t understand how you can rely on W-L (adjusted in any fashion) to contradict hard pitching stats. Especially when you say that you yourself have no idea why he “underperformed” his runs allowed.
The win and loss are essentially a team stat wrongfully ascribed to a pitcher. K’s and BB’s aren’t merely predictive. They are actual events — blyleven walked the guys and struck out the guys. Yes, obviously, if you strike out twenty guys in a game and give up six home runs, you’d have a great K/9 and stink as a pitcher. But there’s nothing that would suggest that Blyleven was responsible for that kind of performance.
by tom s. on
Jan 13, 2009 1:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
K's and BB's
These two stats are good for predictions because they are better indications of how a pitcher actually pitched. ERA/ERA+ are okay, but these are dependent on defenders. K’s and BB’s, on the other hand, stay a lot more constant or at least change in predictable ways. They indicate how well a guy throws strikes and the quality of stuff, which if you think about it is the most basic point of pitching…throwing good pitches for strikes to record outs.
I would encourage you to read tom s.‘s fine comment below mine before you trot out any argument involving W/L. They don’t mean anything. At all. Well, no…they mean you pitched reasonably well for a good team. Maybe they mean something if you play for a particularly bad team and have a good record, but that’s a bit of a stretch still.
I’ll give John credit for being willing to undergo that surgery. It was experimental and the rehab was hardly a fine tuned path-to-success that it is now. But the pioneer was Dr. Jobe, not John. Maybe Dr. Jobe has a case based on that…but it’s not enough for John.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 8:13 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, and I may be missing something
The teams that Blyleven played for over his career finished 1914-1915 total…one game under .500. Blyleven’s W/L was 288-250. That’s 35 games over .500 while playing for largely .500 teams. Am I missing something with this mysterious and meaningless adjustment you’ve made?
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 8:38 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What you're talking about has a lot to do with the teams you played on
Here’s an exercise for you: Which of these seasons during the same year from a starting pitcher do you think was better?
Pitcher 1 : 22-9, 19 CG, 6 Shutouts, 158 K’s/113 BB’s, ERA: 2.40, WHIP: 1.14, ERA+ 156
Pitcher 2 : 20-17, 25 CG, 9 Shutouts, 258 K’s/67 BB’s, ERA: 2.50, WHIP: 1.11, ERA+ 158
While both seasons are excellent, you can see that season number 2 is clearly more dominant. He has a 3.85 K/BB ratio, completed 25 games himself while throwing 9 shutouts, and had a higher ERA+.
Now, guess which one won the Cy Young that year?
*
*
*
Yup, Pitcher #1 did. Do you know why? His team finished first in their division, while pitcher #2’s team finished third in their division. Pitcher #2 got exactly ONE vote for the Cy Young that year and finished tied for 7th.
Pitcher #1 is Jim Palmer, winner of 3 Cy Young awards, runner up for two others, and member of the Hall of Fame.
Pitcher #2 is Bert Blyleven, who never won a Cy Young, was never even a runner up for a Cy Young, and is sitting on the outside looking in at the Hall of Fame.
The difference? Palmer played 8 division winning teams and won 20 games 8 different times. Bert Blyleven played on 3 division winning teams and won 20 games just one time. If you put Bert Blyleven on the 1970’s Orioles teams that Palmer pitched on, he probably wins 320 games and is a first ballot HOF.
As it is, Blyleven won more games, threw more innings, collected more complete games, shutouts, strikeouts, and had only 11 more walks in 1000 more innings pitched than Jim Palmer. But he doesn’t have three Cy Youngs because voters don’t vote for great pitchers on 3rd, 4th, and 5th place teams, which are the teams the Blyleven was on for the prime of his career. Palmers 20 win seasons and 3 Cy Youngs got him into the HOF, but you can’t say that he was a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven — he was just fortunate enough to end up playing for really good teams his entire career.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 10:10 AM EST
up
reply
actions
3 recs
Addendum
In 1973, which were the seasons in the above example, the Baltimore Orioles allowed exactly 561 runs over the course of the season, 49 runs better than the second best team in the league, and scored 754 runs, which was 4 runs fewer than the best offense in the league. They had Boog Powell, Bobby Grich, Mark Belanger, and Brooks Robinson in the infield, with Paul Blair in CF, all above-average to great defenders. They didn’t hand out Gold Gloves back then, but Belanger, Grich, and Robinson all would have had 10 or more of those over the course of their careers.
The 1973 Twins had below average fielders at every position except first base. Rod Carew was a decent 2B at this time but not nearly as accomplished as Bobby Grich.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 10:24 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
561?
That’s an amazing number. Great pitching and great defense together is a formidable run-prevention force.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 11:03 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It looks amazing...
Until you look at the stats for the 1972 season when all but three American League teams had fewer than 561 runs allowed.
Since 1973, however, no team in the American League has had fewer runs allowed over an entire season, although the ‘89 and ’90 A’s came pretty close.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 12:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great post! Both had 16HR in 1973 while Palmer had 296.3 IP to Blyleven’s 325 too.
by astrostl on
Jan 13, 2009 10:40 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This only happens with pitching too
There are a lot of position players that played on shitty teams their whole career and are in the HOF, but so rarely are good pitchers on shitty teams rewarded. Nolan Ryan is the only one I can think of that pitched on so few division winners and got in on the first ballot, and he had to pitch seven no hitters and strike out 5000 guys to get there.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 10:53 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Writers love W/L records
It doesn’t mean much, if anything, but those voters love em!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 11:04 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Phil Niekro
He pitched on a lot of bad Atlanta Braves teams, won well over 300 games, and didn’t make it to the Hall on the first ballot.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 13, 2009 3:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But he's still in
My point was that very few pitchers who pitch their entire careers on bad teams even get IN the Hall of Fame, and the only first balloter I could think of was Ryan.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 6:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he pitched for like
100 years also. Was he exceptional or was he just able to be pretty good for a really long time?
by chuckb on
Jan 13, 2009 10:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That is my biggest complaint
about the Hall. I think too much credit is given for longevity. The guys who are able to play effectively into their late 30s and early 40s are at least as lucky as they are good. I would like to see more weight given to the meat of a guy’s career. I am happy for Dave Winfield that he played 22 seasons, but I don’t think a guy that only hit .300 three times and only hit 30 HRs three times is a HOFer.
If Paul Molitor had retired after his age 38 season with about 2800 hits does that mean he really isn’t worthy? Don’t mean to pick on Molitor and Winfield, but they are good examples of guys who had the good fortune to avoid significant injury and age well.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 13, 2009 11:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Luck is involved...
…but so is hard work at conditioning and maintenance. Longevity is very important to me…provided that they were very very good over that period. Blyleven is a good example of that to me…you could argue that he wasn’t good enough during his peak, but he WAS excellent for a very long period of time. That is still a great accomplishment and is worthy of recognition.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 14, 2009 8:34 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point
but I think there are a lot of guys who put in the work and there bodies just don’t hold up. I don’t think what you do from 38-45 should dictate whether you are a HOFer or not.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 14, 2009 11:22 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
On the flip-side
Jim Kaat and Tommy John are BAD examples. They just hung around for awhile and piled up decent-to-good numbers for long periods of time.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 14, 2009 8:47 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Knucksie Was Great
He pitched the majority of his home games at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, which was a hitter’s park. The Braves were just plain bad in the 1970’s. He did pitch for the 1969 NL West champion Braves, but he didn’t pitch on consistently good teams until the end of his career with the Joe Torre-managed Braves, the Yankees, and the 1986 Indians. I’m amazed he got to 318 wins.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 14, 2009 11:37 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well all you have to do
is average 13.25 wins over 24 seasons. He pitched ’til he was 48 years old.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 14, 2009 2:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's Hard to Win 318
when you pitch on the type of teams Niekro did. He didn’t break into the big leagues until he was 25 years old. It took Ryan 27 seasons to win 324. Niekro’s Braves teams in the 1970’s were worse than Ryan’s Angels teams. Niekro was only on two playoff teams. Ryan was on five. Niekro overall pitched on worse teams than Don Sutton, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, and Nolan Ryan.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on
Jan 14, 2009 3:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tommy John wasn't a medical pioneer
the guy who performed the surgery was and, frankly, undergoing elbow surgery and being an OK pitcher for a long time are hardly reasons for induction into the Hall.
by chuckb on
Jan 12, 2009 11:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Agreed
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 13, 2009 8:14 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Very much agreed. It’s not like his name will be forgotten, either.
by astrostl on
Jan 13, 2009 10:41 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yah...
The “Tommy John” surgery just kind of rolls off the tongue, while the “Dr. Frank Jobe” surgery just isn’t quite as catchy.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on
Jan 13, 2009 10:54 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree...
So you know where I stand out of the gate I want to say that I think that it is a dravesty that Tommy John isn’t in the Hall of Fame. I was talking to my wife the other day, after the voting came through, and on the list she recognized Tommy John and knew exactly who he was. This is a woman who would have trouble picking Bonds or Clemens or Pujols or Arod out of a line up but she knew Tommy John. Now I will grant you that the reason she knew that name probably (likely) had more to do with an injury than it did with the players ability, but I think we need to look at why he is associated with that injury. Tommy John wasn’t the first to tear his Ulnar Colateral Ligament, he probably wasn’t the first to have it operated on, what he was able to do was to come back from it. In doing so he paved the way for hundreds of pitchers after him, after Tommy John your career wasn’t over after this injury you could be effective again. Getting back to the HOF he is border line if you look at his numbers alone. 26th all-time in wins (7th by a south paw), 48th in K’s, T26th in shutouts, 4 time World Series Loser, 4 Time All-Star, most wins by a pitcher not in the HOF. But, if at his numbers inn addition to his impact on the game (Proving there is life after Colateral Ulnar Reconstruction) I think it is impossible to keep him out. Yes he is famous because a surgery is named after him, but it is named after him because he was an exceptional player, who proved to generations of later players that life goes on after elbow surgery, and someday everyone here will be thanking the baseball god’s that someone came along to prove that, when Apu finally decides to go under the TJ knife.
Fun Fact: and proof he came back strong; Tommy John had one less win after coming back from surgery (164) Than Sandy Kofax had in his whole career (165).
by Viva Vina on
Jan 13, 2009 6:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again
being recognizable is not and should not be a valid criteria for being elected to the Hall of Fame. Just b/c your wife has heard of Tommy John doesn’t make him deserving of the Hall. Tommy John was never an exceptional player. He just absolutely was not. He was a nice player and a pretty good left-handed pitcher. I’m glad for him that he was able to pitch relatively successfully after undergoing surgery, but his entrance into the Hall would devalue the Hall as an institution b/c his numbers simply do not merit entrance. His #1 comp according to B-R is Jim Kaat — another guy who pitched forever and was pretty good, but not in any way exceptional.
by chuckb on
Jan 13, 2009 11:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah
how can you be a HOFer if you were never even the best pitcher on your team?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 13, 2009 11:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
does that mean no HOF for Glavine?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 14, 2009 5:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good question
but I think there were a few seasons when Glavine might have been considered the best pitcher on the Braves.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 15, 2009 8:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Meh
Glavine could only be considered the best before Maddux arrived in 1993. Even when Glavine won the Cy Young in ’98, Maddux was better. And, there were even a couple of seasons when Smoltz was better than Glavine.
by spants on
Jan 15, 2009 1:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't get me wrong
I am not a huge Glavine fan. After all, I did say “might have been considered” He was the best pitcher on the Braves in ’91 and ’92 before Maddux arrived. Saying either Maddux or Glavine was better in ’98 is really splitting hairs.
I still don’t think you can put him in the same class as Tommy John who never even made the top 10 in Cy Young voting until after his surgery when he was 34.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 15, 2009 3:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Splitting hairs?
ERA+ / WHIP / FIP / K/9 / BB/9 / WPA
Player A 187 / 0.980 / 2.81 / 7.31 / 1.61 / 4.93
Player B 168 / 1.203 / 3.50 / 6.16 / 2.90 / 3.72
Guess who?
Don’t get me wrong, I would take either player’s season. But it’s obvious who was dominant.
by spants on
Jan 15, 2009 4:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For what it's worth,
I’m not implying that Glavine is in the same class as Tommy John.
by spants on
Jan 15, 2009 4:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're right
I did a quick check and saw:
Maddux 18-9 2.22 ERA
Glavine 20-6 2.47 ERA
and didn’t bother to look at the peripherals. Like I said earlier, not interested in defending Glavine. A lot of very good pitchers would have had trouble being the best pitcher on their team if Maddux was a teammate.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 15, 2009 5:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Or Don Drysdale
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jan 15, 2009 10:44 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think most people would say
Drysdale’s 1962 Cy Young season when he went 25-9 and no other pitcher on his team won more than 15 games he was the best pitcher. Koufax had a higher ERA+, but he only made 28 starts to Drysdale’s 43. Also, as a 20 year-old in 1957 he posted a 154 ERA+ and went 17-9 on an 84-win Dodger team. Probably also the best pitcher on his team in 1968 when he set the consecutive scoreless inning record.
When Tommy John finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting in 1977 Burt Hooton threw more innings, allowed fewer hits, struck out more batters and had a better ERA. In ’79 and ’80 with the Yanks John and Guidry were very close, so I guess you could argue it either way.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
Jan 15, 2009 3:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And, like spants, I wasn't really trying to say that Tommy John was equivalent to Drysdale
I was more just trying to say that ‘never the best pitcher on their team’ is a dangerous argument to make, because there is a chance that a guy could run into a historically awesome monster as a teammate, but otherwise have a spectacular, HOF career.
Curt Schilling, as another example, was kind of very good, and then turned spectacular for the D-Backs, but probably wasn’t really ever RJ’s equal, and then he was on a rotation with Pedro and then Beckett. He’s probably still a borderline HOFer, rather than a pretty sure lock like guys like Drysdale and Glavine, and still better than John.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jan 15, 2009 5:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SOpBB_career.shtml
Number 2 all-time K/BB ratio isn’t borderline for me!
by astrostl on
Jan 15, 2009 5:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No on John
The guy simply hung around awhile largely because Dr. Frank Jobe was able to pull off something of a medical miracle. He just piled up numbers by being a solid pitcher for a long time. Would I like to have a guy like him on the 2009 Cardinals? Yeah, probably, but that’s not HOF worthy to me. He was certainly an important figure in baseball’s history…but keep in mind that the institution is called the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. His career and the surgery deserve to be recognized in the Museum in some way…but the Hall of Fame is for the upper echelon players in baseball’s history. John just isn’t that.
For the record, Wins are not a good indicator of all that much other than being an above-average pitcher on a good team. A high number of career wins means you were an above average pitcher on a good team and pitched a really long time. Jason Marquis won 15 or 16 games in 2006 but was clearly the worst full-time starter in baseball that year. Mulder won more in 2005 than Roger Clemens, but Clemens had a sub-2.00 ERA and Mulder played for a 100-win team.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
Jan 14, 2009 8:43 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hall of fame
lee smith should be in, no he wasn’t a starter for a while like eck but i have to think he was as feared as eckersley. I think dawson should get in he played excellent d and if had played into the live ball era he would have close to 600 homers rather than 400 and change. blyleven is well covered in above posts.
I got no problem with who got in, rickey and rice both deserved it.
One quick note i was a little shocked by the no love for david cone, he is borderline at best but less votes than mark grace? The 6 people that voted for mo vaughn, should share what they are on. Nobody voted for poor ron gant
"When the boogie man goes to sleep he checks his closet for Chuck Norris"
by elirock83 on
Jan 12, 2009 10:31 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
There's a kind of funny blog post at Yahoo Sports about
a voter who put Jay Bell on his HOF ballot. (Actually, two voters put Bell on their ballot, according to the MLB.com link at the top of the diary.) Bell had fewer than 2,000 hits, fewer than 200 HR, no top-10 MVP finishes, a career OPS+ of 101, and the only career leaderboard he’s on at BR is strikeouts. Those numbers just scream HOF!
It’s too bad they don’t have any quotes from the folks who voted for Bell or didn’t vote for Henderson at that MLB.com link. I’m sure they would have been entertaining (or maybe infuriating is the word I’m looking for…).
by BTown Birds fan on
Jan 13, 2009 1:07 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
