Like baseball’s yearly awards, Hall of Fame voting standards are vague. Jon Heyman revealed the world his Hall of Fame standards in an article yesterday, and I’m a big fan of what he had to say. This is the key:
In filling out my ballot, I go more by impact than career numbers.
Heyman details how the Internet community will base its vote purely by stats, making Bert Blyleven a shoo-in. But in Heyman’s 14 years of voting, not once has he voted yes. After reading his article, Blyleven doesn’t sound like a Hall of Famer to me.
Blyleven certainly is a borderline Hall of Famer, he just falls on the wrong side in Heyman’s book. I agree with Heyman’s vote because Blyleven’s impact on the game wasn’t high enough for the Hall.
Some players exceed their statistics, while others are overvalued by their statistics. Blyleven has the stats, but where are the accolades? He only received votes for the Cy Young four times in his 22-year career, and he didn’t place higher than third. He was elected to just two All-Star games.
I’m just realizing this now, because Heyman neglected this fact in his article, but Blyleven won two World Series rings. However, judging by his stats in those two seasons, it doesn’t seem like he was the team leader.
Another part of Heyman’s argument against Blyleven I didn’t like was this:
He had a terrific career and his case is very close, and he would not be the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame.
If Blyleven is better than even just one pitcher in the Hall, how is it fair to him to not give him your vote? I think voters need to adapt their Hall of Fame criteria based on the players who have been elected.
Last year Blyleven and Roberto Alomar fell just short of the 75 percent required to be inducted. Both certainly will reach the percentage needed this year.
My thoughts: I can’t vote on either player. I think any writer who didn’t live to see a player’s career should not be given the opportunity to vote on that player. How can one judge a player’s fame if he didn’t experience it for himself?
Logging you in...
Uncle Mike · 749 weeks ago
There was a pitching in the 1920s and '30s named Ted Lyons. He pitched for the White Sox, who were never in a Pennant race while he was there -- not once. He won 260. Yankee manager Joe McCarthy said that if Lyons had pitched with the Yankee bats to back him up (Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, later Dickey and DiMaggio), he would have won 400 games. That might be a stretch, but he would've been well over 300. So would Blyleven. He deserved to be elected years ago.
Alomar does not. He's the only player I've ever seen who played himself out of Cooperstown -- he didn't fall out of my consideration due to injury or substance abuse, he just stopped having good seasons. This does not consider the spitting incident: Hirschbeck forgave him, and it ended up not hurting my team (the Yanks beat the Orioles in that ALCS anyway). But Alomar was not as good as the other HOF 2nd basemen of my lifetime, Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg. He just wasn't. Frankly, I'm not sure he's as worthy as Jeff Kent -- and in spite of his MVP and his home runs, I'm not sure he's worthy.
Lenny Neslin 70p · 749 weeks ago
As for the Alomar debate, many say Alomar was the best defensive second baseman ever. He's also got a nice postseason resume and he matches up very closely with Sandberg statistically.
@CharlesSimone · 749 weeks ago
That's not to take anything away from Mattingly, but "what if Mattingly never got hurt" and "what if Blyleven had better teammates" are two completely different arguments. You supported Felix Hernandez and his 13-12 record for this year's Cy Young, didn't you?
Lenny Neslin 70p · 749 weeks ago
Blyleven had a few years, 1973 especially, when he was among the top pitchers in the game. Even if he had won the Cy in '73, he wasn't "dominant" compared to the rest of the league. And when I think of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher, I think of someone who had several dominant seasons. Maybe my standards are too high.
@CharlesSimone · 749 weeks ago
nutball gazette · 749 weeks ago