Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar to go in Hall

[vanDoug]

Happy for Bert.

[SenorGato]

Both really are worthy.

I think Bagwell should make it too...Not sure if Biggio was on the ballot but he should be 1st ballot...Guy was an awesome player.

[PFSIKH]

I agree with Alomar, but cannot wrap my fingers around Blyleven.

CYs? None.

All-Stars? 2.

League Leader Wins? Nope. ERA? Nope. Ks? Once. Shutouts? Three. Complete Games? 1

The argument that he was consistently bad teams is not exactly true. He was on more winning teams and only two 90 loss teams which match his world champion teams.

The Hall of Fame just inducted a player that averaged 14-12 for his career.

[SenorGato]

I agree with Alomar, but cannot wrap my fingers around Blyleven.

CYs? None.

All-Stars? 2.

League Leader Wins? Nope. ERA? Nope. Ks? Once. Shutouts? Three. Complete Games? 1

The argument that he was consistently bad teams is not exactly true. He was on more winning teams and only two 90 loss teams which match his world champion teams.

The Hall of Fame just inducted a player that averaged 14-12 for his career.

There's worse or similar in the HOF...Sutter, Vic Willis, Sutton...plus he's got a signature move kinda thing since his curveball might legitimately be the best curveball in baseball history from a righthander.

[Sharrow]

Plus he is 5th all time in strikeouts, compiler or not.

[PFSIKH]

There's worse or similar in the HOF...Sutter, Vic Willis, Sutton...plus he's got a signature move kinda thing since his curveball might legitimately be the best curveball in baseball history from a righthander.

And yet he was 10th alltime in losses.

He put up decent numbers over a long career. Being a compiler should not gain enshrinement into the Hall of Fame.

If he had more than two All-Stars or consistently competed for the CY (4 top 10 finishes none higher than 3rd) than that would be one thing. However, seeing he did not, very few times during his career was he consideered one of the best at his position.

He played a long time and compiled some decent numbers. He had a great curve and was remarkably durable for his career.

Again, in a vaccum, 287 wins and 3701 Ks are Hall worthy. Being a good pitcher for 22 years is not Hall worthy.

Plus he is 5th all time in strikeouts, compiler or not.

He is 5th alltime because he pitched 22 years.

[JohnnyHector]

And yet he was 10th alltime in losses.

He put up decent numbers over a long career. Being a compiler should not gain enshrinement into the Hall of Fame.

If he had more than two All-Stars or consistently competed for the CY (4 top 10 finishes none higher than 3rd) than that would be one thing. However, seeing he did not, very few times during his career was he consideered one of the best at his position.

He played a long time and compiled some decent numbers. He had a great curve and was remarkably durable for his career.

Again, in a vaccum, 287 wins and 3701 Ks are Hall worthy. Being a good pitcher for 22 years is not Hall worthy.

He is 5th alltime because he pitched 22 years.

Using All-Star appearances as a meaningful criteria is an affront to anyone who possesses even a morsel of knowledge about the game of baseball. And if you throw out team success (which should have nothing to do with one's worthiness), he should have finished much higher than 7th in the Cy Young in '73, as he was arguably the best pitcher in the AL that year.

He ranks 13th all-time amongst pitchers in WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and he finished in the top-10 in ERA in his league ten times.

As far as his Won-Loss record, if he had the same level of run support that Jack Morris enjoyed during his career, Blyleven's record would be something like 321-205.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

Using All-Star appearances as a meaningful criteria is an affront to anyone who possesses even a morsel of knowledge about the game of baseball. And if you throw out team success (which should have nothing to do with one's worthiness), he should have finished much higher than 7th in the Cy Young in '73, as he was arguably the best pitcher in the AL that year.

He ranks 13th all-time amongst pitchers in WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and he finished in the top-10 in ERA in his league ten times.

As far as his Won-Loss record, if he had the same level of run support that Jack Morris enjoyed during his career, Blyleven's record would be something like 321-205.

Using team statistics to evaluate individual performance is not accurate or reliable. Sounds easy enough but people still do it. Also All Star voting and Cy Young voting are subjective measures, not really the strongest tools in evaluating the value of a player.

[PFSIKH]

Using All-Star appearances as a meaningful criteria is an affront to anyone who possesses even a morsel of knowledge about the game of baseball. And if you throw out team success (which should have nothing to do with one's worthiness), he should have finished much higher than 7th in the Cy Young in '73, as he was arguably the best pitcher in the AL that year.

He ranks 13th all-time amongst pitchers in WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and he finished in the top-10 in ERA in his league ten times.

As far as his Won-Loss record, if he had the same level of run support that Jack Morris enjoyed during his career, Blyleven's record would be something like 321-205.

No one said the All-Star selection was the be all end all of Hall selction criteria. However, a position that was not at the whim of fan selection, only three times did he get selected to the all-star game. Three times in 22 years. No manager thought enough of him to add him in the allstar game more than 3 times. Maybe he was just an a$$. Or maybe he was a good pitcher, but never one of the best.

13th amongst pitchers in WAR? Really. Wow. Another stat compiling ranking. That is like being 5th in Ks, with the 124th highest per game average. Stat compiling.

No sabermaatric love for WHIP? He ranks 129th in that.

Props to him for having 10 "Top Ten ERAs". It is an accomplishment.

Again, I am not saying he sucks. He was a consistent player his entire career. If that warranted Hall selction, so be it.

Even the BBWA, did not think he was worthy until the 14th time. Like his career, does he deserve...well...these guys are better.

I see a good to very good player. IMHO that should not warrant selection to the Hall.

He should thank god for the roid era otherwise I doubt he gets in.

[GimmeShelter]

No way Blyleven deserves it. He was a good pitcher but not dominant.

Anyone who followed the game during his time never gave him a 2nd thought when thinking of the dominant pitchers in the game. His staying in Baseball since his retirement likely helped his votes a lot.

[SenorGato]

And yet he was 10th alltime in losses.

He put up decent numbers over a long career. Being a compiler should not gain enshrinement into the Hall of Fame.

If he had more than two All-Stars or consistently competed for the CY (4 top 10 finishes none higher than 3rd) than that would be one thing. However, seeing he did not, very few times during his career was he consideered one of the best at his position.

He played a long time and compiled some decent numbers. He had a great curve and was remarkably durable for his career.

Again, in a vaccum, 287 wins and 3701 Ks are Hall worthy. Being a good pitcher for 22 years is not Hall worthy.

He is 5th alltime because he pitched 22 years.

Yes, well Sutter compiled saves...Sutton did the same thing and arguably wasn't even as good as Blyleven...I realize the argument that "hey there's worse in the HOF" is a terrible one, but it does take into the account that the standards of the HOF are not 100% set...there are at least a few players who are not truly great players at their position but perhaps created their own strong niche in baseball lore...Cap Anson wasn't all that special as a player really, but he's a legend in Cubs history and played a big role in the league's early years...George Sisler hit .400 twice. He also didn't walk and he didn't hit for power as a 1B, but was a big stah out there in St. Louis...Sutton seems to have been a hit in his day...Sutter obviously was a big deal with the whole saves thing + St. Louis is a huge baseball town...Gossage...iunno...HOF's weird to me, though I respect it more than I do it's voters.

[PFSIKH]

Yes, well Sutter compiled saves...Sutton did the same thing and arguably wasn't even as good as Blyleven...I realize the argument that "hey there's worse in the HOF" is a terrible one, but it does take into the account that the standards of the HOF are not 100% set...there are at least a few players who are not truly great players at their position but perhaps created their own strong niche in baseball lore...Cap Anson wasn't all that special as a player really, but he's a legend in Cubs history and played a big role in the league's early years...George Sisler hit .400 twice. He also didn't walk and he didn't hit for power as a 1B, but was a big stah out there in St. Louis...Sutton seems to have been a hit in his day...Sutter obviously was a big deal with the whole saves thing + St. Louis is a huge baseball town...Gossage...iunno...HOF's weird to me, though I respect it more than I do it's voters.

Maybe, maybe not. In the Sutter did hit 300 wins. Did he benefit by playing for the usually contending Dodgers? Yes. Sutter becoming the first reliever to win a Cy probably resonates with the voters. I am not saying right or wrong, but it is what it is.