Spooje would vote for
Kirby Puckett
Dave Winfield
Goose Gossage
and
Kirk Gibson.
I’m not up on Kirk’s career numbers, but I watched his entire 1988 season with my Dodgers. His presence, on and off the field, elevated that team. And he was responsible for one of the greatest World Series moments ever!
I’m with Bob Cos. Dale Murphy should be in. In addition to his back-to-back MVP awards and the offensive stats Bob Cos mentioned, the guy was a perennial gold-glover, with great speed in the outfield and a rifle arm.
Of course, I live in Atlanta…
Well, he is third all-time in strikeouts with a great career ERA+, but I guess your anecdotal reasoning counts for more. 
Ummm, Blunt… Bert Blyleven was a starter, not a reliever.
And ElvisL1ves… Jack Morris’s 10 inning shutout of the Braves happened in '91, not '87.
Please, if you’re going to vote, use facts as your basis.
I bet the winners will be Kirby Puckett and Dave Winfield.
And that Deshaies got his solitary vote…
Well, the results are in - Winfield and Puckett. Both deserving, although I was never a big Winfield fan when he was a Yankee. He just never seemed to come through in the clutch.
I would’ve liked to have seen Mattingly get a few more votes, especially since his numbers aren’t that much different than Puckett’s. I guess the differences that will be brought up are Puckett’s World Series appearences, and the fact that his career was cut short at it’s height, while Mattingly had several seasons of injury-induced mediocrity.
(Trivia: Kirby Puckett is credited with giving Don Mattingly the nickname “Donnie Baseball”)
Damn, my bad. I meant to write Bruce Sutter, but it was like 4am when I made that post. I was trying to think of something witty to say about Bert “be home” Blyleven (as Chris Berman would call him), and I got confused.
As for the Jim Deshaies campaign, he got one vote, so I guess he was sucessfull. All he wanted to do was not get shut out, and he wasn’t. I personally was hoping that 387 of the voters would have thought they would be get him that “one” vote, and he would have been elected. That would have been awesome.
Sorry 'bout dat. Got too many things to remember to keep them all straight without doing a damn search every time.
Somebody asked about Molitor - today’s paper says he’s up in 2 years.
Congrats to Winfield and Puckett, though.
There’s more to greatness than simple numbers, don’t you think? Or else why bother with voting? Blyleven just was never one of the most feared or respected performers at his position, and he didn’t have a record of being at his best when it counted most.
Here’s my rant:
Why the hell wasn’t Gary Carter elected? What does the guy have to do? He was a BETTER player than Carlton Fisk, who was inexplicably elected first. He was a better player than Kirby Puckett, and you could legitimately argue that in a sense he was greater than Winfield. He was the no-questions-asked best catcher in all of baseball for about five years, has career numbers that are way above the HoF’s standards for catchers, played on All-Star teams, won Gold Gloves, and led him team to a World Series. Good Lord.
Lou Whitaker got 15 votes and is off the ballot. Lou Whitaker should probably be in the Hall of Fame, much less off the ballot. God.
Bruce Sutter got 245 votes. Tom Henke got six. Henke saved 311 games to Sutter’s 300. Henke’s career ERA was 53 percent better than the league average, Sutter’s was 36 percent better. Henke was a better pitcher. 245 votes to six! What the hell? Why is he off the ballot and Sutter is on? Why did Sutter get more votes than Goose Gossage? Ron Guidry got fewer votes than Dave Stewart?
All kinds of crappy choices are in the Hall of Fame but historically they’ve all been selected by the Veterans’ Committee. The last two years, though, the BBWAA has just absolutely blown it, big time. There’s no excuse for Tony Perez being elected ahead of anyone, there’s no excuse for Gary Carter not being in, and the snubs of Whitaker and Henke are just criminal.
Next year Ozzie Smith’s on the ballot. Ozzie Smith is a no-questions-asked first ballot Hall of Famer and anyone who says otherwise is a communist and a scumbag. And I bet they snub him, the bastards.
RickJay, some possible answers:
Fisk: Media exposure. He played in big baseball towns, and had a moment or so of real glory in the '75 Series. Carter was stuck in Montreal for his best years and didn’t get noticed by as many voters - the same problem that will probably keep Andre Dawson out next year.
Whitaker: Gotta disagree with you. He was thought of as a pretty good fielder, hitting stats inflated by the Tiger Stadium effect but still not great, and never really a cornerstone player.
Don’t forget the ridiculous easing of the save rule that inflated Henke’s stats. Also, did players and fans ever really think “Oh no, Henke’s in! We’re doomed!” the way they did in Sutter’s prime?
Re Ozzie Smith: Betcha he gets in on the first ballot. He really WAS the pre-eminent shortstop of his time.
The Veterans Committee for HOF Admissions ought to be disbanded. It was established so that old timers whose careers ran out before the HOF was established would be recognized, but they’ve long since overstayed their welcome and usefullness. Their recent picks have been more a “Whose he?” variety.
Here in Cleveland there’s been a push to get Mel Harder, and Indians pitcher from the 1930’s admitted to the Hall by the Veterans Committee, and by all accounts Mel was and is a fine fellow, the basis for making him a hall of famer seems to be that he was and is a fine fellow and that it would be nice to reward him before he dies. That’s the basis for making him Rotary Club Man of the Year, not for enshrinement in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
ElvisL1ves:
Yes, but numbers play the most significant part. Everything else is a subjective evaluation.
Like this.
RickJay, you don’t happen to have Politics of Glory handy, do you? I can’t remember all the criteria Bill James poses for HOF inclusion.
For what it’s worth, of the ten most similar pitchers to Bert Blyleven, eight are Hall of Famers (Sutton, Perry, Jenkins, Roberts, Seaver, Wynn, Niekro, and Carlton) and two are just barely on the outside looking in (John, Kaat). His top three most similar pitchers are all in the Hall of Fame.
By Baseball-Reference’s set of Hall of Fame standards, Blyleven equates with the average Hall of Famer (both score 50). In their Hall of Fame Monitor, Blyleven scores 117.5 (with 100+ being a likely Hall of Famer).
In contrast, Jack Morris is most similar to Dennis Martinez, though seven of Morris’s top ten most similar pitchers are HOFers. Morris scores 39 on the Hall of Fame standards metric, well below the average Hall of Famer. In the HOF monitor, he scores 113.5–good, but not better than Blyleven.
What criteria are you using, then, that puts Morris in and Blyleven out?
Gaderene -
Thanks for those handy reference links. Based on the HOF standards and Monitors ratings (50 and 100 for HOF-type credentials), Don Mattingly may well be getting into Cooperstown someday. His numbers (34.4, 134) are very close to Puckett’s (39, 156). If it weren’t for that damn strike in 1994, Mattingly might’ve gtton to the World Series, which may have put him over the top for HOF consideration.
How about Mattingly?
He was a perennial all star. He was an MVP. He had nine gold gloves. He averaged 195 hits per season. Career average of 307. Hit 417 in his one postseason appearance. Though his career was cut short by injuries, he was a great hitter, a great fielder, and an all around class guy.
Glad to help, Soup. 'Course, keep in mind that most HOF voters don’t use criteria with anywhere near that sort of precision, nor are those metrics entirely comprehensive (they don’t really take defense into account, for example).
Mattingly, in my estimation, falls fairly short. Almost all SABRmetricians agree, for what that’s worth.
Not here at work.
You may be referring to the Keltner List, the list of questions James liked to ask about any given player to determine their Hall of Fame credentials. IIRC, they are:
There’s no given number of “yes” answers you need, it’s just a way to frame the discussion. If you run through the list for a guy like for Mike Schmidt, they’re almost all “yes.” If you run through it for guy who was pretty good but not really a Hall of Famer, someone like Harold Baines, they’re all “no.”
To run through this list with Blyleven;
No
No
Probably not
Yes, certainly. Blyleven had some years when he could easily have been the best player on a championship team. His 1973 season holds up to anything.
Blyleven was a major factor in Minnesota’s 1987 championship; they would not have won without him. He also went 12-5 for the '79 Pirates, who just barely edged out the Expos and ended up winning it all. Those were the only two champions he ever played for.
As you’ve already pointed out, EVERY pitcher similar to Bert Blyleven is in the Hall of Fame except a few who are pretty close to making it.
Blyleven was pitching and winning well into his late 30’s.
Blyleven’s career record was 285-250; as has been pointed out, that is more a function of him playing for poor teams than anything else. Early in his career with Minnesota he has having years where he pitched amazingly well and going 17-17, 14-12, stuff like that. Aside from his W/L record his other numbers are terrific.
I believe Bert Blyleven is the greatest pitcher of all time who is retired and eligible for the Hall of Fame but isn’t in. Tommy John was close, but IMO was not quite as great as Blyleven; his relative ERAs are a bit less impressive. I’d rank Jim Kaat below Tommy John and about even with Jack Morris. I’m not sure where Dave Stieb fits. Blyleven certainly has the statistical credentials.
Blyleven never won a major award.
Blyleven appeared on only two All-Star teams, which is a stunningly low total. I’m certain it would be a record for a Hall of Famer in the All-Star era. He was a hell of a pitcher; I can only conclude his poor W/L records killed him.
In 1974, Blyleven had an ERA one run better the the league average and struck out 249 men, but he went 17-17. His team just didn’t score for him. It’s hard to blame him for that.
Overall, the strongest case for Blyleven is really simple; there aren’t any pitchers truly similar to him who are not Hall of Famers except Tommy John, and there are NO pitchers superior to him who aren’t in. To use Bill James’s example, that blocks the door; until Clemens and Maddux retire and become eligible, you either have to elect Blyleven, elect no pitchers at all, or explain how Jack Morris is a better pitcher. And he’s not.
I’m hearing alot of this - that Mattingly was great, but falls short of HOF credentials. If you take another look at those ratings, he is certainly as worthy of consideration as Puckett and the much lamented Gary Carter (maybe the ratings need to be raised a little?).
I think if Mattingly had the same career but started 3 years later, so that he participated in the '96 and '98 World Series, he would be considered a sure thing, though perhaps not on the first ballot.
You should consider the positions they played, as well. Then again, I think Kirby Puckett is a borderline Hall of Famer, even though he’s such a classy guy. I’ve got no real problem with Puckett in the Hall, in the end; there are so many first baseman already there, though, that I just don’t think Mattingly is deserving. If Mattingly goes in, maybe we should be taking a closer look at Will Clark, and hell, even Boog Powell!
You may be right. I still wouldn’t vote for him in that event, since it’s not the lack of titles that are keeping him out in my mind, but some baseball writers would probably be swayed.