Idiots Write About Sports

I should really get around to writing the obligatory Who I’d Put in the Baseball Hall of Fame If I Could Trick the Baseball Writers of America into Giving Me a Vote piece. Why? Because everyone’s doing it. Also, they’re going to announce the class of ‘05 in a couple hours, anyway, and for once, I want to be ahead of the curve.

That said, this piece will be remarkably free of much in the way of statistical analysis since: A) it’s 3 o’clock in the morning, as B.B. King is wont to sing, and I can’t even close my eyes, B) I lack the cranial capacity to do that sort of thing in any prompt and efficient manner, and C) several folks post definitive, engaging breakdowns of the merits of Hall of Fame candidates — take Jay Jaffe’s look at eligible pitchers and hitters — without me offering up pisspoor imitations. So this is basically me running my big fat mouth, OK?

Let’s dispense with the people who aren’t getting my mythical vote, first:

• Jim Abbott
• Tom Candiotti
• Dave Concepion
• Chili Davis
• Steve Garvey
• Tommy John
• Mark Langston
• Don Mattingly
• Jack McDowell
• Willie McGee
• Jeff Montgomery
• Dale Murphy
• Otis Nixon
• Dave Parker
• Tony Phillips
• Terry Steinbach
• Darryl Strawberry

I mean, I don’t see anyone on that list who merits serious Hall of Fame consideration. Concepcion, maybe, or Garvey. But the arguments for Davey — very good player on great team, as good as Ozzie with the leather — really don’t hold up upon closer examination. As for Garvey, he’s better than some of the first baseman who have gotten into the Hall courtesy of the Veteran’s Committee, but not nearly as good as some of the first basemen who are going to get kept out in the coming years, if that makes any sense. There’s just not enough there for me to hang my hat on. So include Garvey and Concepcion in the group of players who, for their fine careers, get a hearty handshake, a complementary spiral ham, but no Hall of Fame plaque.

Now the near misses…

• Lee Smith: The all-time saves leader, which is just more reinforcement for what a meaningless stat that is. I think relief pitchers deserve to be considered for the Hall of Fame, but they have to achieve a degree of dominance for longer period of time than Smith ever did.

• Jim Rice: I just don’t think his career was long enough or his numbers impressive enough, once you account for the fact that he played half his games at Fenway.

• Jack Morris: I used to think Morris should be in Cooperstown — guess that performance in Game 7 of the ‘91 Series stuck with me over the years — but I don’t anymore. A fine pitcher for three championship teams, but oh that career ERA!

• Andre Dawson: Every year I think long and hard about this one, and every year, I fail to convince myself that the Hawk had enough great years to earn a plaque. It probably doesn’t help that I’m not sure if he should won that MVP award in 1987.

• Bert Blyleven: I’m about three-quarters convinced that I’m making an idiotic error, and that Blyleven does, in fact, deserve a place in Cooperstown. Since I was dead certain that Blyleven wasn’t a Hall of Famer when his name first popped up on the ballot, I think that counts as progress.

The reason for this near change of heart? Every year, I come across another article by someone smarter than me that makes a compelling case for the Dutchman. This year’s realization that I don’t know what I’m talking about comes courtesy of Rich Lederer (link from 6-4-2), who puts the wood to many of my long-held preconceptions about Blyleven’s career. Maybe by this time next year, I’m jumping on the Blyleven bandwagon.

So why not this year? Because I still can’t get past the fact that Blyleven can only point to four Top 10 Cy Young finishes in a 22-year career. As for his closest pitching comparables being Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry, I’m not really convinced those two guys are Hall of Famers, either.

Still, I like to think I’m at least putting more thought into Blyleven’s candidacy than Jerry Crasnick who offers up this analytical gem:

Blyleven is a tough one for me, but I haven’t voted for him yet. I talked to writers who covered him, and they gave me the sense that he was sort of a petulant guy who bailed on his teams a couple of times. I know I’m talking style as much as substance here, but it resonated with me.

You’ve heard second-hand stories that the guy was petulant with reporters? Well, that tears it. Ban him from Cooperstown! BAN HIM!

So who gets my non-binding, non-existent vote? These guys.

• Wade Boggs: Arguably the fourth-best third baseman of all time behind Schmidt, Brett and Mathews — you’re still No. 4 in my book, Home Run Baker — and the owner of 3,010 career hits from an era when that total still meant something. An annoying, annoying player — I still cringe remember his Sarah Bernhardt act when he joined the 3,000 Club. And anyone who seriously thinks a Tampa Bay Devil Rays cap should be on his Hall of Fame Plaque should maybe be kept outside a couple years until he gets some perspective. But other than that, as sure a first-ballot Hall of Famer as you’ll find.

• Ryne Sandberg: I have no idea why he’s not in already, other than the fact that second basemen are now built like circus strongmen and that Ryno played in an era where more modest production was expected from the keystone. That shouldn’t matter — he was the best at his position for a decade, and isn’t that what the Hall of Fame should be about?

• Alan Trammell: More proof that Blyleven is going to land on this side of the ledger sooner rather than later: I used to be dismissive of Trammell’s candidacy, too. But after reading enough articles that proved I’m a big, fat dope, I’m convinced that he’s had a Hall of Fame career. It’s a shame that he got jobbed out of the AL MVP in ‘87, or people with actual Hall of Fame votes might agree.

• Goose Gossage: Like I said up above, I think relievers should be considered for the Hall of Fame. And the Goose was the best reliever of his era. Plus, his induction would double the number of Hall of Famers named Goose.

• Bruce Sutter: A questionable call, given how short his career was. But I think he deserves some special consideration for his impact on the history of the game (changing the role of the closer, playing a part in popularizing the split-finger, an so forth). Rob Neyer thinks I’m a chucklehead, incidentally.

So that’s how I see it. Will the BBWA agree with me? Probably not — Boggs is a lock to get in, and Sandberg will probably join him. But I would be shocked — pleasantly, mind you — if the other three even got close. And if Bert Blyleven were to sneak in, well, that wouldn’t tear me up inside, either.

Meanwhile, we turn our attention to the Veterans Committee ballot...

Dick Allen, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Wes Ferrell, Curt Flood, Joe Gordon, Gil Hodges, Elston Howard, Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, Sparky Lyle, Marty Marion, Roger Maris, Carl Mays, Minnie Minoso, Thurman Munson, Don Newcombe, Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, Ron Santo, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, Maury Wills, Smoky Joe Wood.

They also need 75% of the vote, but they have only 85 members. So, the support of 64 people will get you in. If it were me, of course Santo gets a vote, along with Oliva, Wood, and Wills. Hodges and Torre barely miss.

Santo and Minoso, definitely. Olivia and Wood, probably. If you're considering Torre as a manager, then yes. If as a player, then no.

This is probably for another post at another time, but a couple years back, I was at a SABR meeting where the late, great Leonard Koppett gave a talk on the then-new method of Veterans Committee selections. And I remember thinking, "Man, under this system, there's no way anyone's every going to get elected again." Since it's the Hall of Famers themselves doing the voting, what exclusive group is ever going to voluntarily make itself less exclusive?

I think you're still wrong on Blyleven. If your main argument against him is the Cy Youngs, keep in mind the yahoos who *vote* for the awards and how they usually look at W-L first.

It's not that I need him to win a Cy Young, Monty. It's just that I'd feel more comfortable with him receiving more votes -- even third-place votes -- than he wound up receiving. In part, maybe that's because there's only three ballot slots and maybe it's also because of the aforementioned yahoos. But that he didn't consistently pop up on ballots the way Jim Palmer and Nolan Ryan did can't be dismissed entirely.

Here's the problem I have assessing Byleven. His career numbers are certainly impressive -- but how much of that is due to longevity and how much is due to the fact that he was among the best at his craft for sustained portion of that long career? I like to place a little more emphasis on the latter when it comes to giving the thumb's up on a Hall of Fame candidate, and I haven't been able to answer that question about Blyleven to my satisfaction yet.

Which would be a lot more relevant if I actually had a say in the matter.

If Blyleven, why doesn't John get some consideration? He never won the the CYA, but finished second once in each league, and fourth another time. His career ERA+ was 111, and he was better than the league every year from 1965 to 1982. His career W/L record of 288-231 is better than many HOFers -- perhaps most of them.

Personally, I think both deserve to go in; I'm just not sure that the sabermetric consensus that Blyleven belongs and John is iffy is warranted.

Not that the kinds of writers who look at W-L records will give a rat's hindquarters, but Blyleven spent most of his career near the top of the K/9 heap, i.e. the one stat that most closely relates to dominance. And there are plenty of guys in the Hall of Fame against whom, if you were to turn to the "but he got his numbers strictly by longevity" argument, you should marshall that first. Walter Johnson is one such. So are Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry.

http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2005/01/another-pointlet-in-blylevens-hof-bid.html

Blyleven may turn out to be one of those guys who the scouting-and-tools types hate and the stat guys love. I dunno. As Rich pointed out, they almost may as well declare a sign at the entrance to Cooperstown that says, "You must be at least 300 wins tall to enter", but that would constrict the HoF even more so than it is now.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: