Maybe being a parent makes me see things differently but I think more people should be in.

The Hall of Fame should be a celebration of the games history and be somewhere where I want to take my son and daughter to learn about the best palyers at their respective positions during their era.

If the best Shortstops of the 1960's were small ball guys with great gloves like Louis Aparicio then they should be in. If the best 3B were great gloves who had better bats than SS's but not as good as 1B like Ron Santo let them in.

And belive me I already know I am in the minority but I always have a hard time explaining to my kids that yes baseball is about more than hitting and striking people out no matter what the HOF thinks.

Quote: Originally Posted By truemen on 1/06/2010Mark McGwire was on only 23% of the ballots? Now thats just plain wrong. Dude was the most feared hitter of our generation

Not really. If juicin don't count then Barry Bonds was.

Like most people my age I like Dawson. He was an awsome guy but I have trouble seeing how he was a lot better than Dale Murphy or Dave Parker.

I think Blyleven should be in based on his career numbers.
27th in Wins, 5th in K's, 9th in shutouts. He's the only pitcher in the top 20 on the career shutout list that isn't in the Hall.

IMO there's a difference between an All-Star and a Hall-Of-Famer:
All-Star recognition is for players that had a great season.
The HOF is for players that had a great career. His numbers point to that.

Quote: Originally Posted By skinndogg on 1/06/2010


Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%),



Personally, I don't think this guy belongs either.

Is all it takes these days is a long career? Being average for 20 years is all it takes?

you are completely retarded if you think Blyleven was average for 20 years

Quote: Originally Posted By Trentonjoe on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By footballmm11 on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally posted by skinndogg on 1/06/2010



Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%),



Personally, I don't think this guy belongs either.

Is all it takes these days is a long career? Being average for 20 years is all it takes?

Are you referring to Blyleven with the "average for 20 years" remark? I certainly hope not.



My big beef with Blyleven is if he was so good how come he only made the all star team twice and was only in the top 10 for Cy Young Voting 4 times.

How come his contemporaries didn't think he was that good?

couple problems with that

1 - cy voting - 1st, 2nd, 3rd - thats it - most seasons, only 4-5 pitchers got votes - so you cant use *top10* finishes - thats ridiculous - and go thru the cy voting - very few pitchers have more than say 5 seasons of getting any cy votes - and the morons of those times consider w-l record the be all, end all - and Bert played on a ton of teams that couldnt hit - funny how some of his teams won WS when he was on remotely talented teams

2 - what contemporaries? they were all jealous of his curveball (and his beard!) - you will hardly find many who said he wasnt a damned good pitcher

3 - all star teams? heh - thats pretty funny

Quote: Originally Posted By bheid408 on 1/06/2010
I think Blyleven should be in based on his career numbers.
27th in Wins, 5th in K's, 9th in shutouts. He's the only pitcher in the top 20 on the career shutout list that isn't in the Hall.

IMO there's a difference between an All-Star and a Hall-Of-Famer:
All-Star recognition is for players that had a great season.
The HOF is for players that had a great career. His numbers point to that.

9th in shutouts says it all - you arent just *hangin on* to get that high on that list

effin ridiculous

Quote: Originally posted by crickett13 on 1/06/2010With those requirements about 6 players would be in. Wouldn't that make for a fun tour.

????? Only 6??? How about you know your stats first before making a uneducated guess.
It's closer to 23. The best of the best.
Plus I think a lot of the guys who have 85%+ would probably get the extra few votes if voters knew they only had 3 years to get a guy in. That's about another 20 guys.

I'd rather go visit and take a tour with 45 or so of the Best of all time and actually read about them and learn about their careers than go see a watered down Hall with 290 people in it

The vote:
Andre Dawson 420 (77.9%), Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%), Roberto Alomar 397 (73.7%), Jack Morris 282 (52.3%), Barry Larkin 278 (51.6%), Lee Smith 255 (47.3%), Edgar Martinez 195 (36.2%), Tim Raines 164 (30.4%), Mark McGwire 128 (23.7%), Alan Trammell 121 (22.4%), Fred McGriff 116 (21.5%), Don Mattingly 87 (16.1%), Dave Parker 82 (15.2%), Dale Murphy 63 (11.7%), Harold Baines 33 (6.1%), Andres Galarraga 22 (4.1%), Robin Ventura 7 (1.3%), Ellis Burks 2 (0.4%), Eric Karros 2 (0.4%), Kevin Appier 1 (0.2%), Pat Hentgen 1 (0.2%), David Segui 1 (0.2%), Mike Jackson 0, Ray Lankford 0, Shane Reynolds 0, Todd Zeile 0.



Here's Blyleven's votes - f*cking idiots should have their ballots revoked!

How could someone vote for David Segui but not Zeile? I mean Zeile was way better



Andrew Dawson would be in my Hall of Very Good, but I am not going to complain since Jim Rice got in somehow. However, McGwire, Raines, Alomar & Larkin shoulf def be in & Be Home and Trammel have good cases as well.

Alomar is in, they are just gonna make him wait 15 years. and hope he croaks in the interim. thats what spitting on an ump gets you

The argument that bugs me is, "He's not a first ballot HOFer" How the heck does that work? How does future balloting make a guy more (or less) HOF worthy?

And its equally amazing that there has never been a unanimous 100% first ballot selection. As ridiculous are votes for Segui, how does anyone justify not voting for Aaron, or Mays, or Ted Williams? ( I know why they didn't, but there is no rational way to justify it).

And I'll bring up Edgar Martinez. Everyone with his offensive stats (300/400/500 2200 H, 1200 BB, R, RBI, 300HR, 500 2B) is in the HOF. His OPS 150+ 8 times. The "he was just a DH" argument is weak. He played over 500 games at 3B and he wasn't awful. But the Ms got better gloves to play 1B-3B, so they had the luxury of letting him DH. Can anyone cite a player that had HOF offensive numbers but was kept out of the HOF because their defense was bad? If there are any guys in the HOF who were poor defensive players then one could state that Edgar actually added value to his team by being a DH instead of playing in the field.

If a DH can't make it, then no reliever should ever make it either. Sorry Mariano, no HOF for you. If you were HOF good you would have been a starter.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_cyy2.shtml

Mr. Tracy-

Throughout the 70's and 80's there was, on average, 7 pitchers who received yotes for the Cy Young Award. Blyleven only got votes 4 times. In sixteen seasons, no one thought he was a top 3 pitcher in the AL.

That's more comparable with Jim Kaat and Tommy John (who no one is banging down the HOF door to let in) then Mike Mussina (who has 9). Mussina sure as hell isn't a lock to get in.

Blyleven was a good pitcher for a long time. He wasn't as good as Tom Glavine, he wasn't as good as Mike Mussina, he was probably better than Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez.

I think he is very comparable to Andy Pettitte (if you take out Pettitte's post season record).

Where's my Ron Santo????