In Like Gwynn
Tue, Jan 9, 2007
by Geoff Young
You know that saying, “in like Flynn”? Now it’s “in like Gwynn.”
Congratulations to Tony Gwynn, Mr. Padre, on his Hall of Fame election. Gwynn picked up 97.6% of the vote. It’s an honor well deserved, and as a citizen of San Diego and fan of the Padres, I couldn’t be happier to have Gwynn represent all of us.
Congratulations also to former Orioles shortstop Cal Ripken, who received 98.53% of the vote.
More Gwynn HOF Coverage:
- Reflections on a Hall of Famer (North County Times). John Maffei, who has covered Gwynn since the latter first played hoops at SDSU in 1977, has some kind words for the newest Hall of Famer.
- Gwynn made it one base at a time (North County Times). Shaun O’Neill pays tribute. Great quote from Gwynn: “The pitcher has the ball. He knows what he wants to do. He knows how he’s going to attack guys. But when I went to the plate, I flipped the script. I made it so I was dictating the action.”
- Gwynn anxiously awaiting official call (San Diego Union-Tribune). Bill Center’s article contains this gem from the master: “Someone asked me yesterday morning if I was making preparations and I started talking about the Aztecs. No kidding, this guy just gave me a blank stare – like I had lost my mind.”
- Gwynn’s long-ago choice will be validated by a call from the Hall (San Jose Diego Union-Tribune). This is Bernie Wilson’s Associated Press piece from a few days ago.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
January 9, 2007 at 11:20 am
Congrats to my favorite player of all time!!!
I am so happy today…
January 9, 2007 at 11:21 am
Congratulations to Tony and Cal, both very deserving! I was encouraged, if a little disappointed, by the numbers for the Goose. With a thin ballot next year, maybe Gossage finally gets the spot in the Hall I feel he deserves.
January 9, 2007 at 11:52 am
Congratulations to Tony Gwynn. We are extremely lucky to have such a great guy representing the city of San Diego.
January 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Goose Gossage and Alan Trammell. The fact that Trammell receives little support is ridiculous and baffling.
January 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Had to just leave a comment to say how happy I am for Tony.
I suppose a road trip to Cooperstown in July wouldn’t *totally* be out of the question….
January 9, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Woah! It’s only 4 hours away from me! That’s totally doable!
I’M *SO* GOING!
I look forward to seeing a few of you there!
January 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yeay! Congrats to Mr. Padres, Tony Gwynn.
January 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Congrats, Tony!
Just as I’ve been saying since I sponsor’d his page at Baseball Cube many years ago (http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=1195) … I’ll see you at HOF induction ceremony!
January 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I was just in admiring my T Gwynn shrine, bat, ball, picture and ticket from his final game. It’s nice to pick a hero that lives up to that title. Congratulations, TG!
January 9, 2007 at 1:51 pm
BA has posted a scanned copy of an article Maffei wrote for them about Gwynn back in ‘81:
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....63083.html
Pretty neat…
January 9, 2007 at 2:54 pm
For those looking to make reservations for HOF weekend, LynchMob has passed along an option made available by nearby Hartwick University to book one of their dorm rooms. The good folks at Hartwick have allowed me to post a form for anyone who is interested (warning: the link opens a PDF)
http://www.geoffreynyoung.com/Publication1.pdf
Sounds like rooms are going fast…
January 9, 2007 at 3:11 pm
re: 10 … *fantastic* … nice of BA to dig that up and post it … classic … and right on! Towards the end of the article, I half expected it to predict an HOF career
January 9, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I also heard on XX today that they are putting together a trip to Cooperstown for induction ceremony weekend, complete with flight, rooms and rickets for induction ceremonies and the usual cocktail parties, receptions, etc. No word on prices. I emailed the travel agent and when I hear back, I’ll post word, although I’m betting it’s pricey.
January 9, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Does anyone know around what time they usually hold the big ceremony?
If it’s early in the morning I’d probably need to go the day before and find myself a place to stay. But if it’s later in the day I can just drive right to it.
January 9, 2007 at 3:37 pm
re: http://dictionary.reference.co.....;q=rickets ???
Actually, there’s no such thing as a ticket to Induction ceremony, if I understand things correctly … it’s free for any / all to attend … but it’s also my understanding that this free admission is to a spot on a field behind a fenced-in area for VIPs, which is a long way from the podium … just be warned …
January 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm
#13
The price is less than $1,700 per person, and the flight is a direct charter to Albany from San Diego with hotel accomodations at the Hampton Inn.
January 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm
re: 14 - last year’s ceremony started at 130pm … http://www.baseballhalloffame......06/ATH.pdf
January 9, 2007 at 3:43 pm
More info on the option mentioned in #13 and #16:
http://www.carefreevacations.com/hof.html
January 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm
LM: Sorry, LM. I thought “rickets” are what you played tennis with.
January 9, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Gwynn had hits off three future HOFers in his rookie season: Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro. He didn’t have much success against them overall — combined line of .195/.261/.220 in 46 PA.
January 9, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I love his career line against Greg Maddux: .429/.485/.583 with 10 walks and 0 strikeouts in 103 PA. That is just amazing.
January 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm
After looking at the lists of career leaders in K’s and Shutouts (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/) I gotta believe that Blyleven is an HOF’er … he’s #5 in K’s all-time (and everyone down thru #13 (Bob Gibson) either is or will be in … and it’s not obvious who the next guy is who might pass him on this list … Santana?) … and he’s #9 in Shutouts (and everyone else in Top 20 is in … Blyleven has 14 more Shutouts than Roger Clemens!!!) … seems like he’d be an average HOF’er …
January 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I just noticed a way to sit “inside the ropes” (ie. in the VIP section) during the induction ceremony … a $500 membership in the HOF gets you “two reserved seating tickets for Induction Ceremony” (plus some other bene’s) … http://www.baseballhalloffame......levels.htm … fyi!
January 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm
This is worth reading …
http://www.baseballhalloffame......n_tony.htm
… such as …
“Relief is a great word,” Gwynn said on a conference call after the official announcement. “Don’t get me wrong; I thought what I did was worthy. But when those words came, I kinda lost it.
“When I got the call and [BBWAA Secretary-Treasurer Jack O'Connell] said, ‘You made the Hall of Fame,’ I lost it. I was thinking about my [late] father [Charles], my family about all the hard work.”
January 9, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Congratulations Tony…I became a Padres fan just around the time he was breaking in with the Padres…So glad I got to see his entire career in San Diego.
January 9, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Great ending to a storied career.
January 9, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Wow! I’m stoked. I know, as others have said, most of us probably looked on it as a foregone conclusion, but it’s just so awesome now that it’s finally done!
Congratulations to Tony and his family! Congratulations to the Padres and to all the Padres and Tony Gwynn fans, too!
It sort of feels like a little part of me made it to the Hall of Fame.
January 9, 2007 at 9:35 pm
We are flying in to NYC early in the week, gonna do some sightseeing, catch a game at Shea…then drive up to Schenectady (sp?) where we will stay in the Holiday Inn.
Flying on Continental…staying with a friend in NYC for four of the nights; total cost before food and gas and such? about $2200.00 for the four of us. Well worth it.
Gonna drop another $70 on a “family” HOF membership. We’ll be up there Fri/Sat/Sun, so we’ll check out the Hall itself a little each day. I’ve never been before.
I think that a Ducksnorts gathering for at least one meal is almost a must-do…any agreement on this?
January 9, 2007 at 10:33 pm
28 - re: Ducksnorts gathering … count me *in*!
btw, Yahoo’s got video of Tony’s press conference @ Petco currently up on it’s mlb home page (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb) … he’s our guy!
January 10, 2007 at 7:33 am
I will be there…staying in Syracuse on Friday, the college on Saturday, and back to Syracuse on Sunday…wooo hooo
Lynch, I guess the problem with Blyleven is the same problem with Rice, Baines, or Dawson, they were never the best player. Sure, they were very good and you would want them on your team, but were they great? No. Call me stodgy, but there are too many “mediocre” players in the hall already.
January 10, 2007 at 9:51 am
Blyleven was not mediocre, CM. Mazeroski was mediocre.
January 10, 2007 at 10:04 am
BTW, Mulder got 2yrs/$18 mil from the Cardinals. WOW.
January 10, 2007 at 10:16 am
CM - looking forward to seeing you in NY!
re: HOF’ers … it seems to there are 2 vectors … peak performance and length of performance … I think there’s a place for both in the HOF … and I do share a bias towards having more peak performers (= players where were clearly “the best player” for some period of time) …
I think one reason you have to have some room for players like Blyleven is so that you don’t end up with only players fortunate enough to be on good teams. I think if Blyleven had been on teams that had enough other players to more often make the playoffs, his W total would have been much higher and hence he’d have been percieved as being among the “best players”.
5th all-time on the K list? How can that alone not qualify someone for the HOF? I like “high standards” … and it sure seems to me that Blyleven meets some high standards …
And it’s also not always obvious about “best player” … I think it’s clear that Dale Murphy was “the best player” during ‘82 & ‘83 (thru ‘87?) … I think an argument for Rice could be made (who was better from ‘77-’79?) … I’m not saying they are HOFers, I’m saying that the simple criteria of “being a best player” works (I guess I’m advocating that it’s neither necessary nor sufficient) …
And, to hit home, who thinks Tony Gwynn was ever “the best player”? Is Tony with his singles comparable to Blyleven with his K’s?
January 10, 2007 at 11:00 am
Jim Rice is one of the most overrated players of the past 30 years. He never walked and usually led the league in GIDP. Dave Parker was better from 77-79.
January 10, 2007 at 11:06 am
Longevity does not equal great! And I think the Blyleven played on bad teams is a red herring…actually, the teams winning % that he played on was over .500 and very closely mirrored his winning %.
He was an all-star exactly 2 times, never won a Cy-Young, and never led the league in significant category.
Now, I certainly use the “Best Player” arguement for a part of the reason he does not belong…Tony was never the best player and that is a strike against him…he did win batting titles, gold-gloves, and was a feared batter when the game was on the line…
January 10, 2007 at 11:08 am
All-Star appearances should mean almost nothing, especially for a pitcher. They are based on a half a season and chosen by a manager from an opposing team.
January 10, 2007 at 11:09 am
Just to help with the discussion, here is an excerp from Buster Olney on Blyleven…
I can’t find another Hall of Famer voted in by writers with less than three All-Star appearances; Blyleven had two. Blyleven never finished first or second in Cy Young balloting and was never the most coveted free-agent pitcher or the object of a huge bidding war in trade talk, the way that Tom Seaver and even Vida Blue were.
During the course of Steve Carlton’s career, he finished in the top three in his league in ERA, strikeouts, victories or Cy Young voting 23 times. Tom Glavine has done that 14 times; Roger Clemens 38. Nolan Ryan did this 23 times; Fergie Jenkins 18; Don Sutton 6, Ron Guidry 11, Randy Johnson 35; Blyleven, 12 times.
What I wanted to hear from his peers, the guys who faced him, was this: He was easily among the most dominant pitchers of our generation; he wasn’t Seaver or Carlton, but he was right there behind them. If I had heard that from even half of those I talked to, I would’ve reconsidered my vote. What I heard from almost all of them was this: He had a great curveball and he could be really tough. I wanted to vote “yes” for Blyleven; I did not.
A common argument made on Blyleven’s behalf is that he played on bad teams for most of his career. I checked on that, thinking that if Blyleven’s teams finished under .500 for most of his career, that might be a big check in his favor. In fact, in 12 of his 22 seasons, he played for teams with records of .500 or better. He didn’t always play for bad teams. His teams had a winning percentage of .502, which is lower than those teams of most Hall of Famers, but higher than the likes of Phil Niekro (.490).
I thought that perhaps Blyleven was a primary reason why most of his teams had at least some success, so I asked the Elias Sports Bureau for two sets of numbers for a group of current and future Hall of Famers — a pitchers’ winning percentage, and the winning percentage of the teams he played for. Blyleven’s winning percentage was .534, or 32 points higher than that of the teams he played for, and that’s close to Jim Bunning (39 points higher), Gaylord Perry (25), Catfish Hunter (35).
But then you look at some others — Glavine (58 points), Greg Maddux (60 points), Pedro Martinez (a high of 145 points), Randy Johnson (140), Roger Clemens (122), Grover Cleveland Alexander (110), and you can’t get away from the reality that Blyleven is a borderline candidate.
If you think Blyleven should get in, I can’t argue with you, I can’t tell you you’re wrong. But after puzzling and puzzling and puzzling, I have not.
January 10, 2007 at 11:09 am
Kevin…they have to be taken into consideration. Are they the end-all, be-all? No, but it is a piece of the pie.
January 10, 2007 at 11:12 am
Why do they have to?
January 10, 2007 at 11:15 am
Here’s BP’s Joe Sheehan’s recent comment …
Looking past the honorees down the ballot, we see that the election of Rich Gossage becomes a virtual certainty. Just as Bruce Sutter did two years ago, Gossage received the most votes of any player not elected, and will be returning next season in a fairly weak ballot year. Sutter’s election, while frustrating for Gossage, may have been the best thing to happen to his candidacy. It’s impossible to consider Sutter a Hall of Famer and Gossage not one. He’ll go in next season.
The presence of three overwhelmingly qualified new candidates—two of whom even received fair treatment from the electorate—pushed down the vote totals for some returning guys. Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven all received a lower percentage of votes this year, although Blyleven’s absolute number stayed the same. In fact, of the 15 players who appeared on both the 2006 and 2007 ballots, only Gossage and, oddly, Davey Concepcion moved closer to election this year, and Concepcion isn’t getting elected.
The lesson of Sutter’s election is that being well-positioned going into an off-year for new candidates is as important as anything you did during your playing career. Gossage will certainly go in next season, while it’s an important year for Rice, Dawson and Blyleven, who need to regain momentum as just one certain Hall of Famer, Rickey Henderson, comes onto the ballot over the next three years. It’s not entirely rational, but the caliber of new players is a critical factor in making votes available for carryovers. Look for Rice to get in on the 2009 ballot, and Dawson the 2010 one. Blyleven, whose case has become a cause celebre for analysts, may have maxed out his support, however. If Jack Morris passes him in the next couple of seasons, it will be a travesty.
January 10, 2007 at 11:19 am
Joe Sheehan is good, and that is good analysis, but it’s too bad that Rice and Dawson will get in just because voters feel like they should elect someone during down years.
January 10, 2007 at 11:19 am
It is a measure of how good the player is in relation to his peers. No, it is not entirely accurate, but it does give some feeling and measure of how good a player is in relation to his peers.
If you look at Blyleven’s numbers in a vaccume you would say, how could this guy not get in, but you have to take a couple of things into account. He was never one of the elite. He did not compare favorably on a year-over-year basis with the great pitchers playing when he did (No Cy-Young, 2 All-Star). He never led the league in a significant pitching category.
He is a guy that pitched for a long time and put up longevity #’s…other examples would be Harold Baines, Raffy Palmiero (Steroid issue nonwithstanding), and even pitchers like Tommy John and Jim Kaat. I don’t see/hear anyone screaming for their induction.
January 10, 2007 at 11:22 am
Here’s another Sheehan piece, written for Sports Illustrated, where he says Concepcion, Murphy, Rice and Morris are not Hall of Famers, and it’s fairly laughable that they could be.
He also says the best eligible players not in are Santo and Blyleven.
“And among the players who warrant consideration, there are tiers. You have the top level of players who certainly should be in but aren’t, such as Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html
January 10, 2007 at 11:23 am
Kevin…you are right there and why if I had a vote next year, I would submit it with MAYBE only one name on it…Goose is the only one on that list that I could reasonably vote for…
IMO, Dawson, Rice, Morris, and Blyleven don’t belong in the HOF…but again, I am an admitted stodgy grump when it comes to who gets into the HOF…
January 10, 2007 at 11:25 am
I’m not saying Blyleven is or is not a Hall of Famer. I’m on the fence.
But I don’t buy All-Star appearances as a measure of anything. It’s a bogus measure. Why would you want to use a measure that you know is silly.
They Cy Young voting, etc. is fine. But maybe Blyleven always had bad first-halfs, maybe opposing managers didn’t like him. Maybe his credentials would be better if he had 10 All-Star apperances, but not with me.
January 10, 2007 at 11:25 am
re: 39 … I think AS appearances should be a factor because they are a reflection of perception at the moment. “Great” players will be recognized with a spot on the AS team. I accept that this factor is a negative for Blyleven … my counter-point to it would be that a future similar player (ie. one with only 2 AS appearances) who doesn’t end up in the Top 10 all-time K *and* Top 10 all-time ShO leaders should not be an HOFer.
Also, I agree comletely that “Longevity does not equal great!” … I haven’t re-researched it, but I think that was my argument against Sutton & Niekro … Blyleven’s performance, as manifest in K’s and ShO’s (and W’s for that matter, it just happens be below a “magic number”) indicates more to me than pure longevity.
re: Olney’s comments … nice article … and I must appreciate this comment more than he does: “He had a great curveball”.
January 10, 2007 at 11:28 am
44:
I agree for the most part. I think Alan Trammell is clearly a Hall of Famer. I think Goose should be in, and Sutter out, for that matter.
I think one of the best players on the ballot this year fell off the ballot — Albert Belle.
January 10, 2007 at 11:30 am
Rob Neyer has been on the Raines for HOF (or at least serious consideration) bandwagon. It’d be interesting to read a BP analysis of his credentials. (Raines falls a little short, according to Baseball Reference.) Neyer is also a serious pro-Bert writer.
I have a problem with inducting the very good player who hangs around long enough to pad his counting stats during seasons that are clearly not HOF-caliber. Who is a good example of that? Don Sutton? He won something like 320 games, right? Kaat would probably be a good example, only he isn’t in. Andre Dawson, probably. I say this as someone who was barely 8 when TGwynn finished his .351 campaign in ‘84, so I have to go by the numbers, largely, and some older baseball fan would count that as a strike against me. But are our memories any better? People remember what they want to remember and let their eyes and sentimentality overrate players. I still have trouble thinking objectively about whether Kirby Puckett (my other favorite heavy-set singles hitter) got into the Hall too easily.
January 10, 2007 at 11:35 am
Raines is not a very good player. Raines should not be a borderline case or a guy people have to make a cae for.
Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer (although he probably will never be elected by the writers).
In Bill James New Historical Abstract, Raines was rated the 81st best player of all time, ahead of Willie Stargell, Al Kaline, Brooks Robinson, Greg Maddux, Carlton Fisk, Kirby Puckett, Billy Williams, Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Dave Winfield, Gaylord Perry, Paul Molitor, Gary Carter, you know, Hall of Famers.
If Rickey Henderson had never played baseball, Tim Raines would be the best leadoff man of all time.
January 10, 2007 at 11:48 am
Kevin…I think this is where the Sabre guys may go a bit to far in their reliance on stats…of the list you laid out, I would take 11 of the guys before even considering Raines…and the other 2 (Williams and Puckett) would be a toss-up.
January 10, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tim Raines should be in the HOF. So should Blyleven. Agreed with #46: His numbers were not only due to lengevity. As far as All Star and Cy award, we know those are not a measure of greatness. Mark Redman was in an ‘All Star’ last year, and Bartolo Colon’s CY over Johan Santana in 2005.
January 10, 2007 at 11:51 am
I just can’t let this go, from XX’s coverage yesterday. Bill Werndl thought it “ironic” to see Trevor Hoffman—a player who could be the subject of a similar press conference in 6, 7 years—watching and listening to Tony Gwynn speak. That doesn’t even fall under the coincidence category for lazy use of the word irony. It’s not even an “interestingly enough” usage. That really just falls under the “It was neat to see” category.
I also found Gwynn’s “I’m sweating like a slave up here” comment, um, interesting.
January 10, 2007 at 12:01 pm
CM: Are you determining your choices simply off the top of your head? For instance, Raines’ OBP—aargh, he starts off with on-base, so predictable—was three ticks shy of Gwynn’s. He was probably the best leadoff hitter in the NL during his time, although I am saying that based on looking at just his stats this morning and Vince Coleman’s a month ago. Can’t say I remember his defensive contributions.
January 10, 2007 at 12:06 pm
At BP, Jay Jaffe analyzes HOF candidates using WARP scores, combining peak WARP with total to account for greatness and the ability to sustain it. In this article, he analyzes the pitchers, and concludes that Blyleven easily exceeds the standard for pitchers in the hall:
http://www.baseballprospectus......5d9e4638d9
Blyleven has an above average peak WARP and well above average total career WARP. A good metric for distinguishing between dominance and throwing a lot of good innings is pitching runs above average (PRAA) vs. pitching runs above replacement (PRAR). A high total of PRAA comes from dominating the league; a high total of PRAR comes from throwing a lot of innings. Blyleven has the fifteenth highest total of PRAA all-time. He also has 60 shutouts, another good measure of dominance, and that is ninth all-time. Blyleven deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
CM (post 50): If you’re not going to use stats to pick the best players, what do you use?
January 10, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Also, Rich Lederer is a really convincing advocate for Blyleven for the Hall, and he takes on several of the most common objections to Blyleven here:
http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....en_f_1.php
January 10, 2007 at 12:10 pm
re: 50
Even if you think they go too far, I don’t see how someone can go so far the other way as to think he is not a Hall of Famer.
January 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Stephen…did Gwynn really say that? Wow…
As far as the other guys, some are off the top of the head and others are guys that I know well…let’s just say that my History Degree from SDSU has a lot to do with studying the history of baseball. With that being said, I have not studied Rock Raines much, mostly going off of what I remember…I will have to pay closer attention to his #’s. Baseball-Reference here I come!
January 10, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Kevin…I never said stats should not be the measure, I just said that Sabre guys go to far sometimes (as do non-Sabre guys).
There has to be some subjective analysis in this. Should Harold Baines be a HOF’er? What about Raffy Palmiero? I don’t think either of them belong in the HOF for a number of reasons, but just taking the #’s alone and they would almost certainly be in there.
Taken too far the other way and you get inductees like Maz…a nice guy and a nice player who hit 1 HR that propelled him to the HOF…silliness!
Blyleven has good overall numbers, but when compared to his peers he does not measure up. Just my opinion…
January 10, 2007 at 12:19 pm
CM:
I think you are responding to Ben’s post, not mine.
January 10, 2007 at 12:21 pm
But if you think they go too far, what subjective measure or any measure says that that Raines’ evaluation is out of line.
Just because you don’t “feel” Raines is better than those players.
January 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Joe Sheehan is on ESPNews now.
January 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Which peers are you comparing him to, CM?
January 10, 2007 at 12:27 pm
57: Probably just one of those weird, undeliberate things. I was also a tad surprised to hear XX play a soundbite containing that comment immediately afterward during a break. I’m not trying to stir anything up, and I think it would stop me if Gwynn happened by be white or Latino or all of the above, so not seeking to provoke that sort of thing, either.
January 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Ben…Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins…those are just the guys off the top of my head…add in guys near the end of his career like Clemens and it is a list that could easily get 10 players deep.
It just seems to me that if you are not one of the top 10 pitchers during the era you pitched, you probably are not a HOF’er…
January 10, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Sheehan just described Raines as “wildy overqualified” for the Hall of Fame. … of the 60 best players in baseball history … better than Kirby Puckett.
January 10, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Wow, good stuff here. IMHO Blyleven absolutely belongs, as does Raines. I’ve lobbied on Trammell’s behalf in the past, and much of that is based on Ozzie Smith’s inclusion. Ozzie and Sutter, both fine players, lowered the HOF standards quite a bit in my eyes. Baines? I don’t think so, although his career is extremely similar to that of Tony Perez. Then again, I doubt I’d have voted for Perez.
On another note, I’ve booked a place at Hardwick College (thanks to LM for the heads-up on that). I’ll be doing a 10-day road trip to get there; will announce dates and locations tomorrow for anyone who wants to meet me along the way.
January 10, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Blyleven - 118 ERA+
Seaver - 127
Carlton - 115
Ryan - 112
Palmer - 125
Jenkins - 115
That’s obviously a really rough comparison, but by that Blyleven certainly fits in with the rest of them.
January 10, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Among Blyleven’s contemporaries, the induction of Catfish Hunter really messed things up. Hunter has a career ERA+ of 106 and 224 wins. Luis Tiant and Vida Blue are more deserving, and I wouldn’t vote for either of them.
There does seem to be a perception about Blyleven that I don’t think is supported by statistical evidence. Looking at their numbers, it doesn’t make sense to me that there is room for Hunter and Don Sutton but not Blyleven.
January 10, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Tim Raines began his Major League career eight years before I was born, and I only bore witness to his final five seasons (and when he wasn’t injured, he was only mediocre during them). However, after going over his numbers a bit, it’d be hard for me to vote him into the Hall when he doesn’t have 3,000 hits, a career OBP or OPS in the top 100 all-time, an MVP award, a Gold Glove, and only two World Series rings that he won as a part-time player.
Sure guys like Smith and Sutter and Mazeroski have lowered the Hall’s standards, but I see it more as a reason NOT to let more “very good” guys in than as a reason to let them in. When you start playing the “player x made it, so player y should too” game, you start down a slippery slope that could lead us to debate Quilvio Veras’ Hall of Fame credentials.
January 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Geoff, that is exactly why I try to stay away from the arguement that if “X player is in the HOF, then Y player has to be.”
Like ESPN mentioned today, Edgar Martinez has a better OPS than Hank Aaron, but he is not a HOF’er.
Bryan is right, the inclusion of guys like Maz and Sutter make me want to tighten up, not ease the requirements. The last thing we want is to be like the NFL HOF or the NHL HOF which let anyone who was decent have a plaque on their walls.
January 10, 2007 at 2:06 pm
CM: I agree to a certain extent. First off, I don’t believe that Blyleven falls into that category. He’s a pretty clear HOFer in my eyes. Second, the one problem I have with tightening up requirements (which is a great idea in theory) is that it totally screws some players. Can we retroactively throw out guys that were mistakes to make this right? Meanwhile, how do we explain to Blyleven that Hunter is worthy of induction and he isn’t? Where does that conversation even begin?
Bryan: I may have to rethink Raines. As someone who mostly follows the NL, I’d kind of forgotten that he wasn’t a dominant player after he left Montreal.
January 10, 2007 at 2:21 pm
On Raines: Someone mentioned Bill James earlier, and one of his claims is that players who did a lot of things well, but weren’t dominating at any one thing, tend to be underrated. Raines did a lot of things well. I don’t know if he did them well enough to be a HoF, but he’s at least on the border.
So many of the comments about Blyleven still focus on things beyond his control. He was never the most in-demand free agent? What does that have to do with anything? He’s a HoFer on 3 of 4 of Baseball Reference’s markers. And part of the reason he had such a long career is because he was good enough to pitch, and pitch well, in the majors at age 19.
January 10, 2007 at 2:36 pm
While picking my son up from school, I heard that XX has SA in studio today from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., taking calls from listeners. Wonder how many Dave Roberts questions we’ll hear?
January 10, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Tug McGraw, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Frank Tanana, and Jessie Orosco all had VERY LONG careers…actually put up very solid numbers…but none are HOF worthy…longevity is a prerequisite, but speaks to little more than his ability to be somewhat effective and stay healthy.
I had no idea that I was stepping on such a landmine when I said I did not think Bert deserved to get in…I can’t imagine what type of problems I would stir up if I said that Tony Gwynn is overrated.
(And for the record, Tony is my favorite player of all time, I have a shrine to him in my office, and already booked my trip to see him in Cooperstown)
January 10, 2007 at 3:44 pm
CM I don’t believe you don’t think Tony Gwynn should not be excluded from the HOF ;~)
Hows that for a quadruple negative. Try to figure out what I mean!
January 10, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I really don’t know what to say to that…
I will rub my life-sized Fat Tony doll on his belly and forget I ever read that.
January 10, 2007 at 5:48 pm
And I’ll rub my Tony Gwynn Babooshkah doll … seems like that might help too!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tony-Gwynn.....dZViewItem
(note: I’m *not* selling this … this link is just meant to provide a picture of what I’m talking about
)
January 10, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Listening to SA on XX. He just commented that they’ve received a lot of criticism for not taking Drew in the draft. Earlier he commented that taking Bush was probably a mistake, but it’s done and can’t be resolved. But, of more interest was his comment that “The team that drafted Drew didn’t win the division — we did. The team that drafted Drew didn’t win the division the year before — we did.”
His comment was that the draft and minor league system is a lot different that it was 2.5 years ago and it’s getting better and they’ve stockpiled picks to improve farm system.
He also stated that with the exception of a 5th starter, they think they are pretty well set. Things may change through the spring, but right now they’re happy with the team.
January 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm
GY, re: Ozzie, I don’t think you can have a HOF w/out him. His hitting was obviously suspect, but look at outs compared to other SS of all time. He recorded a ridiculous level of outs every year. He belongs. Still the best defensive SS of all time (at a position that requires more defense than probably any other position)…
January 10, 2007 at 6:54 pm
79: I agree. He was not only the best defensive SS of all time, he supplemented ordinary hitting with good walk numbers and very good steals numbers. He was not a Hall of Fame hitter, but he was underrated.
He had an on-base of .350 or better in six full seasons. He stole 30 or more bases in 11 seasons. Again, those aren’t Hall of Fame numbers, but you add in the best defensive player of all time — at any position — and you don’t just have a Hall of Famer, but a player who is in the top half of Hall of Famers, I think.
January 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm
If Ozzie is a no-brainer, then so is Trammell. He was a very good defender at shortstop and had at least six seasons that were superior offensively to Ozzie’s best.
January 10, 2007 at 7:06 pm
re: Raines comments
69: I’m not sure what your birth date has to do with it, but Tim Raines is clearly a Hall of Famer. It’