- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Andre Dawson elected to HOF
Posted on 1/6/10 at 2:24 pm to TigerStripes06
Posted on 1/6/10 at 2:24 pm to TigerStripes06
quote:
For someone to hint at steroid use a little ridiculous...to justify that statement because of "25+ home runs in 5 of 6 seasons" is even more ridiculous. 25 home runs isn't many at all and hinting at steroid use by a player who sniffed 40 HRs MAYBE once in his career is just fricking stupid.
Considering the era and the fact that he developed after 30...it would be ridiculous to scoff at the suggestion.
0
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:24 pm to Bench McElroy
I will never understand all the love for Blyleven. I think nostalgia takes over after time passes and players' legends grow much greater than their production. Rice and Dawson didn't deserve to get in. Whenever you let in the lowest level you're gonna let in (Rice and Dawson), a groundswell develops for the next highest tier (Blyleven).
It's a neverending cycle where the quality declines. I think people should be cut off from eligibility a maximum of 10 yrs after retirement. I'm sick of them inducting ppl just b/c there was nobody better to induct that year. If you weren't good enough 10 years ago, you're not good enough now. Your numbers haven't improved, just your hype.
It's a neverending cycle where the quality declines. I think people should be cut off from eligibility a maximum of 10 yrs after retirement. I'm sick of them inducting ppl just b/c there was nobody better to induct that year. If you weren't good enough 10 years ago, you're not good enough now. Your numbers haven't improved, just your hype.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:29 pm to Jamohn
quote:
If you weren't good enough 10 years ago, you're not good enough now. Your numbers haven't improved, just your hype.
I'm willing to bet my left testicle don mattingly gets in one day...it may take him dying to accomplish that but he was a yankee...he won't be left out forever.
This post was edited on 1/6/10 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:31 pm to Jamohn
quote:
There are 38 starters in the Hall of Fame since Deadball. Blyleven's 118 ERA+ puts him in the middle third, his 287 wins would rank ninth overall, his 3,701 strikeouts would rank third, his 60 shutouts would rank fourth, his won-loss percentage would be low but still ahead of four others. By the readily available Hall of Fame standards, it seems pretty obvious to me that he's a Hall of Famer.
You're reasoning is logical, but Blyleven is a terrible example for you argument.
solid write-up on Blyleven and the HOF:
LINK
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:34 pm to Toula
I would counter your article for Blyleven w/ this one against:
LINK
quote:
He was never dominant for a decade, a half decade or even a full season. Only four times in 22 seasons did he receive Cy Young votes (he was third twice, fourth and seventh once), only twice did he make the All-Star team and only twice did he win more than 17 games. I tend not to vote for players who I see as great compilers rather than great players
LINK
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:39 pm to Jamohn
how does Donnie Baseball keep getting snubbed?
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:51 pm to Jamohn
So, because Blyleven was underrated then, he should be continued to underrated? First, let's be honest, if Blyleven won 13 more games, he'd already be in (300 wins). It's not hard to make the case for Blyleven without using one advanced stat...
5th alltime in strikeouts. FIFTH. Know who the top guy in strikeouts, who is eligible yet not enshrined? #18 Mickey Lolich. Blyleven had 3701 K's, Lolich had 2832. that's a different planet. All other guys in the top 17 are either not on the ballot or in the Hall. This is not some obscure stats, we're talking STRIKEOUTS.
He was top five in strikeouts FOURTEEN TIMES.
He was top five in ERA SEVEN TIMES.
He was top five in shutouts NINE TIMES.
He's 9th all-time in career shutouts with 60. Once again, not some obscure stat that you old-timers don't trust. Friggin' SHUTOUTS. Once again, the highest ranked guy in career shutouts eligible yet not in the Hall is #21 Luis Tiant. All of the other 20 guys are in.
He played for horrible teams. He's #1 since 1950 in 1-0 wins. If he had even played for 500 teams, he'd have 300 wins and he'd be in. that is stupid.
And wasn't considered great when he played? I remember as a kid being told repeatedly that Blyleven had the best curveball in baseball. He WAS considered great.
Leaving Blyleven out is an offense to basic logic.
5th alltime in strikeouts. FIFTH. Know who the top guy in strikeouts, who is eligible yet not enshrined? #18 Mickey Lolich. Blyleven had 3701 K's, Lolich had 2832. that's a different planet. All other guys in the top 17 are either not on the ballot or in the Hall. This is not some obscure stats, we're talking STRIKEOUTS.
He was top five in strikeouts FOURTEEN TIMES.
He was top five in ERA SEVEN TIMES.
He was top five in shutouts NINE TIMES.
He's 9th all-time in career shutouts with 60. Once again, not some obscure stat that you old-timers don't trust. Friggin' SHUTOUTS. Once again, the highest ranked guy in career shutouts eligible yet not in the Hall is #21 Luis Tiant. All of the other 20 guys are in.
He played for horrible teams. He's #1 since 1950 in 1-0 wins. If he had even played for 500 teams, he'd have 300 wins and he'd be in. that is stupid.
And wasn't considered great when he played? I remember as a kid being told repeatedly that Blyleven had the best curveball in baseball. He WAS considered great.
Leaving Blyleven out is an offense to basic logic.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:54 pm to Jamohn
I loathe Heyman's dishonesty:
Wanna know how many times he won EXACTLY 17 games? Five. Beware the arbitrary endpoint. Had Heyman said 17 or more games, it would be seven times.
This is the crap that pisses me off. He's just floundering looking to keep Blyleven out, not looking at the numbers and making a decision off the evidence.
quote:
only twice did he win more than 17 games
Wanna know how many times he won EXACTLY 17 games? Five. Beware the arbitrary endpoint. Had Heyman said 17 or more games, it would be seven times.
This is the crap that pisses me off. He's just floundering looking to keep Blyleven out, not looking at the numbers and making a decision off the evidence.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:57 pm to Baloo
quote:
I remember as a kid being told repeatedly that Blyleven had the best curveball in baseball.
My dad made sure I knew this.
I once told him that Dave Stieb's curveball is second to none, and he told me that Blyleven would make Stieb's curve look like a little league fastball.
This post was edited on 1/6/10 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 1/6/10 at 3:59 pm to Baloo
quote:
He played for horrible teams. He's #1 since 1950 in 1-0 wins. If he had even played for 500 teams, he'd have 300 wins and he'd be in. that is stupid.
He had 15 1-0 shutouts in his career. Mr. Koufax has 12.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:08 pm to Toula
Koufax had a much shorter career. I think strikeouts/wins are both terrible measures of how good a pitcher is. Baloo did a good job dissecting Heyman's argument w/ the 17 wins thing. The point Heyman made that I strongly agree w/ about the BBHOF is the "compilers of stats" thing. I don't think it's for great compilers of stats. I felt this way about Palmero long before he got busted. He was never dominant, never dazzled anybody, was just solid for a long period of time.
I'm not saying Blyleven sucks, I'm just saying he wasn't HOF good; just really good. And the main reason I hate how long these guys have to get in is that baseball players aren't like art; their work doesn't need time to be properly appreciated. The ones who saw them play are the best judges of their qualifications--Not the next generation that only looks at numbers. The contemporaries can distinguish a great player from a great compiler.
I'm not saying Blyleven sucks, I'm just saying he wasn't HOF good; just really good. And the main reason I hate how long these guys have to get in is that baseball players aren't like art; their work doesn't need time to be properly appreciated. The ones who saw them play are the best judges of their qualifications--Not the next generation that only looks at numbers. The contemporaries can distinguish a great player from a great compiler.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:13 pm to Jamohn
im gonna try and get the picture up I have of The Hawk a little later 
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:14 pm to Toula
Blyleven should absolutely be in. Whoever said he played for awful teams is correct. His exclusion is ridiculous. He will get in next year though.
Guys on the ballot that I think should be in (besides Blyleven):
Alomar
Larkin
McGwire
Raines
I don't really consider Dawson a HOF guy, close though (nor Rice for that matter). Some other guys I'm not sure about. I think McGriff probably isn't a HOF guy but has an interesting case. Don Mattingly belongs nowhere near the hall of fame. His numbers are not good for a 1B.
Guys on the ballot that I think should be in (besides Blyleven):
Alomar
Larkin
McGwire
Raines
I don't really consider Dawson a HOF guy, close though (nor Rice for that matter). Some other guys I'm not sure about. I think McGriff probably isn't a HOF guy but has an interesting case. Don Mattingly belongs nowhere near the hall of fame. His numbers are not good for a 1B.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:18 pm to Jamohn
quote:
I'm not saying Blyleven sucks, I'm just saying he wasn't HOF good; just really good. And the main reason I hate how long these guys have to get in is that baseball players aren't like art; their work doesn't need time to be properly appreciated. The ones who saw them play are the best judges of their qualifications--Not the next generation that only looks at numbers. The contemporaries can distinguish a great player from a great compiler.
I disagree but I think you make some really good points here. I do think Blyleven was probably sold short by a lot of his contemporaries because no one gave a shite about what he was doing on bad minnesota and cleveland teams for much of his prime though.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:19 pm to Jamohn
quote:
And the main reason I hate how long these guys have to get in is that baseball players aren't like art; their work doesn't need time to be properly appreciated.
This isn't true at all.
Hype, media markets...so on can all contribute to players being vastly underrated.
Time can give people perspective to realize a player's true quality.
quote:
Not the next generation that only looks at numbers
what better way to actually find out how someone stacks up against his peers in a generational and historical context? It's been proven that human eyes will lie to you. Bias can play a part in how a player is covered. But the numbers? They don't lie.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:22 pm to Jamohn
quote:
the "compilers of stats" thing. I don't think it's for great compilers of stats.
IMO, longevity is a positive factor in a HOF candidate, not one to cast in a negative light.
He may have "compiled stats", but there is still a reason his career ranks are so high.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:29 pm to Jamohn
I think wins are overrated, but come on, 287 wins is a lot.
I’m not sure how strikeouts are overrated. They’re overrated if the guy walks a lot of batters, which Blyleven didn’t do. He’s 29th all time in walks (compared to 5th in K’s) and NEVER was in the top 5 in walks. Remember, he was top 5 in K’s fourteen times.
His K/BB ratio is 2.800 (50th all-time) and his K/9 IP is 6.702 (115th – which is better than you think, because relievers just f’ this stat up). 6.7 K/9 puts him in the company of guys like Jim Bunning, Ron Guidry, and Kevin Brown. Going back to K/BB ratio, he was top five in K/BB thirteen times.
This wasn’t a guy just hanging on. He was on the leaderboards of the most important pitching stats upwards of ten times. If you are top five in K’s FOURTEEN times, that’s not compiling, that’s being among the best strikeout pitchers in the game for at least 14 seasons.
Hey, but let’s turn this around… what’s BAD about being able to play for a long time? They don’t let you hang around, someone has to keep paying you and they wanna win. Know who sticks around a long time? Great players. I’m supposed to hold the fact that Blyleven was able to pitch for 22 years AGAINST him? Oh, and when he was 36 he out-pitched Jack Morris in the 1987 ALCS. At age 38, he posted a 2.73 ERA, went 17-5, and finished 4th in the Cy Young voting. That’s a negative on his Hall of Fame case? There is VALUE in being able to play at the highest level late in your career.
He went 8-12 at age 41 with a near league average ERA. He COULD HAVE hung around longer if he really wanted to compile. Blyleven was a great pitcher. He wasn’t a compiler.
And at the end of the day, all that is left are numbers. Only contemporaries get to say who was good? Bull. Neither of us saw Babe Ruth, but we know he was great. How? The numbers. It is 100% impossible to make a Hall of Fame case without using numbers at all.
Blyleven was a winner, his contemporaries thought he was great, and the statistical evidence shows him to be great. The only thing keeping him out is spite.
I’m not sure how strikeouts are overrated. They’re overrated if the guy walks a lot of batters, which Blyleven didn’t do. He’s 29th all time in walks (compared to 5th in K’s) and NEVER was in the top 5 in walks. Remember, he was top 5 in K’s fourteen times.
His K/BB ratio is 2.800 (50th all-time) and his K/9 IP is 6.702 (115th – which is better than you think, because relievers just f’ this stat up). 6.7 K/9 puts him in the company of guys like Jim Bunning, Ron Guidry, and Kevin Brown. Going back to K/BB ratio, he was top five in K/BB thirteen times.
This wasn’t a guy just hanging on. He was on the leaderboards of the most important pitching stats upwards of ten times. If you are top five in K’s FOURTEEN times, that’s not compiling, that’s being among the best strikeout pitchers in the game for at least 14 seasons.
Hey, but let’s turn this around… what’s BAD about being able to play for a long time? They don’t let you hang around, someone has to keep paying you and they wanna win. Know who sticks around a long time? Great players. I’m supposed to hold the fact that Blyleven was able to pitch for 22 years AGAINST him? Oh, and when he was 36 he out-pitched Jack Morris in the 1987 ALCS. At age 38, he posted a 2.73 ERA, went 17-5, and finished 4th in the Cy Young voting. That’s a negative on his Hall of Fame case? There is VALUE in being able to play at the highest level late in your career.
He went 8-12 at age 41 with a near league average ERA. He COULD HAVE hung around longer if he really wanted to compile. Blyleven was a great pitcher. He wasn’t a compiler.
And at the end of the day, all that is left are numbers. Only contemporaries get to say who was good? Bull. Neither of us saw Babe Ruth, but we know he was great. How? The numbers. It is 100% impossible to make a Hall of Fame case without using numbers at all.
Blyleven was a winner, his contemporaries thought he was great, and the statistical evidence shows him to be great. The only thing keeping him out is spite.
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:33 pm to LfcSU3520
I think hype and media markets directly influence the amount of impact a baseball player has on the history of the game so they, just like longevity, should not necessarily be cast in a negative light. When Maz made the HOF it obviously wasn't for his stats, and while I was against him getting in as well his main positive factor was the impact he had on baseball history.
Numbers might not lie when evaluating a players competency in the short term but I think they can lie when being evaluated for a HOF candidacy. I happen to like Blyleven and think he was a fantastic pitcher. I just don't like how year after year guys like Rice and Dawson(both of whom I really liked as players) are hailed as "victories" by their devoted supporters when they "finally" make it. I think they, along w/ Blyleven, fall just under the line. JMHO
Numbers might not lie when evaluating a players competency in the short term but I think they can lie when being evaluated for a HOF candidacy. I happen to like Blyleven and think he was a fantastic pitcher. I just don't like how year after year guys like Rice and Dawson(both of whom I really liked as players) are hailed as "victories" by their devoted supporters when they "finally" make it. I think they, along w/ Blyleven, fall just under the line. JMHO
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:37 pm to Jamohn
quote:
Numbers might not lie when evaluating a players competency in the short term but I think they can lie when being evaluated for a HOF candidacy
I'm confused here.
If I can look at numbers to figure out if Blyleven or Morris was better, why can't I look at them to see if Blyleven was comparable to Whitey Ford?
Posted on 1/6/10 at 4:40 pm to Tiger Ryno
quote:
undeserved. This has become the hall of the very good.
bullshite!!!!!!
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News