Posted on 01/08/2008 11:17:53 AM PST by GreatOne
And I'll say right up front, as a huge Twins and Blyleven fan, that Bert Blyleven should not have made it. While he was playing, no one ever considered him to be amongst the top 10 pitchers at virtually any time. No one ever went to a game primarily to see him pitch. You would not have traded him straight up for Jack Morris, Frank Viola, Ron Guidry, or any of a dozen other pitchers who were playing but not in the HOF. He was good, not great. He does not belong.
Whoops - shouldn’t have put that into “breaking news”. Sorry.
I would not have put Blyleven in the HoF. BUT, I would certainly pay to see him pitch, when his breaking ball was right, no one’s broke more.
P.S. I’m a Dodger fan who thinks Sutton got in out of mere longevity. At his peak he was the #3 man in the rotation (behind Brth Ooten and Tommy John). When John went free agent, Sutcliffe, not Sutton, took the #2 spot. Bob Welch spent some time there, too.
The Four relievers who are currently in the Hall of Fame are Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, and Dennis Eckersley.....Bruce Sutter’s split finger fast ball had to be one of the most difficult pitches in history to hit.
Brth Ooten = Bert Hooten
Axydlbaaxr = Longfellow
Look, if one has to think about it, then they shouldn't be in. Hall of Famers should be no-brainers, not maybes.
When I was a pitcher I most wanted to be the Goose, chaw and all.
Bert Hooten = Burt Hooton
* Cheater.
Congrats to Goose. Never a big fan but he was dominant back when closers might pitch two or more innings, not just the final three outs.
The stat-geeks have turned their love for Blyleven into some sort of Ron-Paul-like crusade. He was a very good pitcher for a very long time but the voters have been pretty consistent when it comes to Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Kaat. If you put in one, you should put in the other two.
I’d go back and look at the stats. Burt Hooton had only two years which were better than Sutton’s, and I could only see one, maybe two, years where Tommy John was better. Tommy John’s best years were with the Yankess, ironically, and but for those 2 20-win seasons to go with the 17 and 20-win seasons with the Dodgers immediately preceeding, he wouldn’t garner any consideration for the HOF.
congrats from a lifetime yankee fan, next year sure first ballot entry: rickey henderson.
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/the_hall_of_fam.php
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2004/12/bert_blyleven_f_1.php
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2003/12/only_the_lonely_1.php
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/if_don_sutton_w_1.php
(Sorry - too lazy to add the links myself.)
Sorry Roger....don’t even bother applying.
Nah...Blyleven belongs. He was vastly underrated.
I've heard them all. The only compelling argument to me is his high strikeout totals but I think the stat geeks have overrated strikeouts. It's just another out. They're nice when you are in a jam but then so is a sweet double play grounder to the shortstop.
The REAL story is that Mark McGwire, again, got only about 25% of the vote.
Agree about Rice. Guess the lack of a championship ring hurts him. No question he was a dominant player of his decade.
I still say Dale Murphy should be in. :-)
I guy that I loved to watch was Dan Quisenberry. His side arm junk made batters furious. His statistics with a 2.76 over about a thousand innings were comparable to Sutter.
Teams hated that dirt-dragging side arm and he was fun to watch during the Royals glory years in 78-85.
A damn fine fellow who died of cancer at a young age was an example of how people of strong faith and solid character face a deadly diagnosis.
But then again, if he had won all those games, his legacy would be greater. But he didn't. No HOF for Bert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.