The quote you’re citing simply is not a list of “standards.” As auditing conformance to standards happens to be my profession, I do understand what the word means.
You’ve yet failed to identify a “standard” Blyleven does not meet. You’ve implied that there exists a standard for the number of All-Star games a player should have been in, and that the number is higher than 2. (Perhaps it is 3, the number Robin Yount was named to?) Other than that, what “standard,” specifically, does he not meet? Please be specific.
There is no other list provided to the BBWAA of the factors to be considered. Most of them being subjective and intangible, of course you won’t find numbers to be met. How many times do you need that pointed out? If there were just a set of numbers in a matrix involved in making selections, you wouldn’t even need voters. But Hall voting IS in the world of subjectivity and human judgment, by its own rules. Which you keep dismissing.
Apparently not well enough to understand when you’re misapplying it outside that realm, or that there are situations out in the real world where they do not apply at all. Do you understand the difference between eligibility requirements and selection, oh, let’s say “considerations” now, at least?
Then you need to go back and reread the thread, and quit wasting everyone’s time with tantrums.
So a HOF voter could legitimately exercise his human judgment and conclude that number of All-Star appearances really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, right?
We’re all arguing about numbers; it’s just which numbers we decide to give weight to (and whether we can justify giving weight to them) that matters.
No we aren’t, but that was a nice try. What numbers can you apply to integrity, sportsmanship, and character? That’s half the list.
Even if we were going solely by numbers, as you suggest, the choice of which numbers to use would still be subjective and intangible and judgment-based, and therefore so would the results. That fact is often overlooked in the rush to quantify things and get the feeling of better understanding the subject, whether it’s baseball or something else. That feeling of understanding can be illusory and misleading more often than those who have it tend to admit. As a sign in the office says, “Don’t believe everything you know”.
Sure, it’s half the list. But if you think anyone ever accords those three factors half the weight when making their HOF selections – you included – then you’re consarn crazy.
Forget their on-field performances; let’s kick Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Mickey Mantle out of the Hall because their character doesn’t measure up.
Meanwhile, let’s take a good long look at all those MLB lifers out there who ooze integrity, sportsmanship, and character – I hear Mark Lemke is a stand-up guy.
You’re being ridiculous if you think on-field performance isn’t the overwhelming bulk of what people consider when they think about who’s deserving to enter Cooperstown. And on-field performance is about three things: (1) numbers, whether it’s three thousand hits or five pennants; (2) moments – like Gibson’s homer or Cabrera’s single; and (3) aura – whether someone “feels” like a HOFer.
I fully admit that people like Blyleven (and Trammell, etc.) are lacking in categories (2) and (3) – that’s exactly why they’re on the outside looking in. But “aura” is driven by some ineffable mix of numbers and moments. And just as the plural of anecdote isn’t data, a collection of “moments,” without more, does not a HOFer make.
There are no wrong “standards” as long as the voter considers the factors listed by the Hall, in whatever combination. But it’s certainly possible to say that the on-field performance of certain players who are not in the Hall is as good as (or better than) the bulk of comparable players who have been inducted, and – unless there are some specific sportsmanship, integrity, or character issues to point to (as with McGwire or Dick Allen, for instance) – it’s valid to conclude that this makes the excluded player worthy of induction himself.
Which, I believe, was the point that Tom Scud was making. So “please” yourself.
Since you’ve seen fit to reply to my posts piecemeal, I’ll just ask you point blank: how the hell can you keep a guy who’s in the top ten for lifetime strikeouts and shutouts out of the Hall of Fame?
Of course not. I agree wholeheartedly. You’re the one who implied there were specific standards. Asked to provide them, you did not, and instead provided a quote for the Hall of Fame which does not state any standards.
If you’re now saying there are no specific standards (aside from playing for ten years, retired for five, etc.) then we’re in agreement; there are no objective standards for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame, once basic eligibility’s out of the way.
So we’re back to the preponderance of the evidence, which clearly weighs in on the side of Blyleven being highly deserving. Your only real argument to the contrary is that he was rarely selected to the All-Star game, which I agree is something to be considered. Having examined the evidence, I think it’s outweighed by the rest of the facts. There is no pitcher with equivalent accomplishments in the entire history of baseball who is eligible who hasn’t been put in, and there are many, many inferior pitchers who have. He pitched extraordinarily well for a long time, was a critical contributor to two World Champions, and so far as anyone’s aware was a good sportsman. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame.
If you have some good arguments to the contrary, I’d be interested in hearing them.
One point I’d mention in Edgar’s favor is the way he made the players around him better. Fact is, in his prime, opposing pitchers were terrified of him. During his prime, his teammates Ken Griffey, Jr. and Jay Buhner had their best home run totals. I think a big part of that was the fact Edgar was hitting right behind them. Griffey 3rd, Buhner 4th, and Edgar 5th. Pitchers had to pitch to Ken and Jay. How do you walk those two when the guy coming behind them is hitting .340 and is liable to score them both with a double off the center field wall?
And since it’s been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere in the thread, I’ll throw this out there: 7 ASG selections.
Well, I’ll bet Edgar had a couple seasons higher than his career average too
Edgar was an absolute hitting machine. If he had established himself as an MLB regular sooner (and had a few more seasons under his belt to pile up the counting stats), he’d be a stone cold lock in my mind. The fact that he didn’t do so wasn’t really under his control, though, so (unlike some people) I don’t ding him too much for it. His total lack of defensive value, on the other hand, is more worrisome.
Still, he’d make the cut for my personal Hall, and I’d vote him into Cooperstown. While borderline, I still think he’s a deserving candidate. (As opposed to Fred McGriff, for example, who’s borderline in the other direction.)
I was basing that mainly on the comments I see elsewhere from fans of other teams, who don’t follow every Mariners game. Tons of comments along the lines of “Geez, all the guy ever does is slap singles! What’s so great about that?”
Heh - I love this Ichiro quote, from the New York Times:
"Chicks who dig home runs aren’t the ones who appeal to me. I think there’s sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I’d rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out.”
As will I-he can continue to rant into the void, I’ve made my case, maybe some lurkers out there can be convinced. I’ll just note that, this time, he missed the “in part” thing when I brought up the VC (as in, I never claimed that re-reviewing the worthiness of older players was the primary purpose of the VC, but it was one of its raison de etre’s).
For or against? Or do you mean he’ll be such an obvious lock that no discussion is necessary?
Me, his D & baserunning compensate perfectly adequately for his lack of power, which is irrelevant anyway because the voters won’t deny the Hall to someone with 9+ straight 200 hit seasons.
He’s a lock. For short periods of time, his slap hitting isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But pair it with his superior defense and baserunning, and he’s a once-in-a-lifetime hitter.
Well, that and the fact that it’s not like he’s slapping out .285 or so. He’s a career .333 hitter who runs the bases well from the leadoff position and has missed very few games. Everyone could use a guy like that.
Sure, his value mostly lies in hitting singles. But he hits a LOT of singles.
I haven’t seen the numbers in awhile but if I recall correctly, his career analytical stats - WARP, Win Shares, whatever you want - are already on the low end of Hall of Famers, passing some of the lower-quality HOFers, and bear in mind that’s in only nine years in the major leagues.
Plus, Ichiro’s the kind of player who could play into his mid 40s, giving him ten more seasons. The numbers he could put up in ten seasons will put him in rarified company indeed.
