Barry Larkin - 2012 HOF?

[X-band '01]

Per ESPN, Larkin was 3rd in All-Star balloting with 62% of the votes. Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar did pass the 75% threshold this season and will go into the Hall this summer.

I was surprised at how well Barry did on the 1st ballot last year; I don't think there's anybody noteworthy being added to the ballot next year. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are on the radar, but won't be eligible until 2014.

[gladdenguy]

It is ludicrous that Ozzie Smith was a first ballot hall of famer and Larkin will be a 3rd ballot hall of famer. If Barry could do back flips he would be in.
Ozzie Smith was great with the glove. But at the plate he was terrible.
Larkin had a glove, a bat, speed, and the same amount of World Series titles. Joke.
Ozzie Smith had a name, a glove and nobody else who could play shortstop when he played.

[Juice]

It is ludicrous that Ozzie Smith was a first ballot hall of famer and Larkin will be a 3rd ballot hall of famer. If Barry could do back flips he would be in.
Ozzie Smith was great with the glove. But at the plate he was terrible.
Larkin had a glove, a bat, speed, and the same amount of World Series titles. Joke.
Ozzie Smith had a name, a glove and nobody else who could play shortstop when he played.

Agreed.

Alan Trammell could play shortstop when Ozzie played. Trammell is getting screwed, but not as screwed as Barry or Jeff Bagwell.

[American X]

Blyleven not getting in until now is preposterous - check the stats.

Why the hesitation on Bagwell - was he ever associated with the juicers? When is Craig Biggio up? 3000 hits plus high on list for career doubles.

[Juice]

Blyleven not getting in until now is preposterous - check the stats.

Why the hesitation on Bagwell - was he ever associated with the juicers? When is Craig Biggio up? 3000 hits plus high on list for career doubles.

Joe Posnanski made a good point yesterday. Bagwell was probably the NL's bset first basement until Albert Pujols.

Bagwell - .297/.408/.540, 149 OPS+, averaged 10+ stolen bases a season, ROY award, 1 MVP, etc. Those are first ballot type numbers.

[smileyy]

Agreed.
Alan Trammell could play shortstop when Ozzie played. Trammell is getting screwed, but not as screwed as Barry or Jeff Bagwell.

I wouldn't say that. Both Larkin and Bagwell will make the HOF. Without a Blyleven-like bludgeoning of sanity into people's heads, there's a good chance Trammell won't make the Hall. (I do agree that Bagwell's total was absurdly low)

Wins Above Replacement put Larkin and Smith around the same value. I suspect Ozzie got an easier pass (as he should) for being the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

But yeah, Larkin will make it. Get ready to celebrate next year.

Edit: I disagree with the notion that Ozzie was "terrible" at the plate. As a regular in STL (between '82 and '93), he posted an OBP of .353, a SLG of .345, which turns into an OBP-heavy 95 OPS+. Basically, you can take away from that that he was league-average at the plate, which is pretty good for a shortstop of the era. League-average at the plate while being the all-time greatest defensive SS gets you into the Hall. Being league-average the plate while being the all-time greatest defensive 1B doesn't.

[nuts4xu]

That is actually a lot better than many people thought Larkin would do on this ballot. I am with GG, there Ozzie is the wizard of fraud, as he couldn't hit his weight....and he was not a heavy man.

Larkin will get in, and it should happen next year or the year after. As long as he gets in, I will forget about the delay in putting the man in his rightful place.

The HOF voting never makes sense to me. Why would someone not vote for Larkin this year, but vote for him next year? What is he going to do in the next 12 months to improve his stats? Either he IS a hall of famer, or he is not. All the political jockeying is mind blowing in my opinion.

[XU 87]

Larkin's stats are similar to Alomar's. Larkin was also an 11 time All Star. that tells me you shhould be in HOF, which he will probably make next year.

As for Bagwell, I wonder if he was a juicer. I saw an interview with him two summers ago and he looked like a rail. He looked like he lost 30 lbs of muscle. I didn't even know who he was at first. Really made me think.

[DC Muskie]

As for Bagwell, I wonder if he was a juicer. I saw an interview with him two summers ago and he looked like a rail. He looked like he lost 30 lbs of muscle. I didn't even know who he was at first. Really made me think.

You could say the same thing about any NFL lineman really. Bagwell has never been linked or suspected as far as I know.

I really just hate the Hall of Fame. All of them and their entire existence.

Bert Blyleven is the perfect example. Never was considered an elite pitcher when he played, but man he did rack up 280 some odd wins! Put in him!

And the way he bitched about it for years. Like he was Nolan Ryan or something.

[_LH]

Agreed.

Alan Trammell could play shortstop when Ozzie played. Trammell is getting screwed, but not as screwed as Barry or Jeff Bagwell.

Look at Trammell's numbers. They are very comparable to Larkin's. How does Larkin get over 60% of the vote (basically assuring him eventual entrance) while Trammel gets like 24%?

Just another reason why the writer's should have zero say in the HOF.

[smileyy]

I really just hate the Hall of Fame. All of them and their entire existence.

Bert Blyleven is the perfect example. Never was considered an elite pitcher when he played, but man he did rack up 280 some odd wins! Put in him!

The biggest hall critics I know think the _exclusion_ of Blyleven was making the place a joke. Are you an incredibly-small-hall kind of guy?

[smileyy]

Just another reason why the writer's should have zero say in the HOF.

I'm not really sure who should, though. Players, managers and fans are about as bad at recognizing the greatest players ever.

For those looking for an HOF with much heavier scrutiny and analysis (seriously, these guys almost mandate heavy statistical analysis for their voters), consider the Hall of Merit: http://hallofmerit.com/

[smileyy]

As for Bagwell, I wonder if he was a juicer. I saw an interview with him two summers ago and he looked like a rail. He looked like he lost 30 lbs of muscle. I didn't even know who he was at first. Really made me think.

Well, he also stopped playing sports that required to carry muscle. And ended a career with a shoulder injury that may have prevented him from any sort of weight-lifting to keep his frame.

[_LH]

I'm not really sure who should, though. Players, managers and fans are about as bad at recognizing the greatest players ever.

For those looking for an HOF with much heavier scrutiny and analysis (seriously, these guys almost mandate heavy statistical analysis for their voters), consider the Hall of Merit: http://hallofmerit.com/

Current living HOFer's, however many there are, should be the one's who decide are going to join them in their exlusive club.

[DC Muskie]

The biggest hall critics I know think the _exclusion_ of Blyleven was making the place a joke. Are you an incredibly-small-hall kind of guy?

Yeah probably.

If it's just about stats, then call it the "Hall of Stats."

He was never considered great when he played, hence the voting for Cy Youngs and MVP's. But he whined like a little baby then when he finally got in, chastised people for taking this long to recognize his self perceived "fameness."

He never lead the league in anything significant that I can tell. Except for losses in 1988 with the Twins after they won the WS. He was a pretty good postseason pitcher I must admit.

It's the same thing with Jim Thome. It's wonderful that these guys are able to play many seasons on 400 different teams. But their peers and writers didn't think they were that great in the context of when they actually played, but somehow, over the next 14 years, I'm supposed to believe that Blyelen is a Hall of Famer?

No thanks.

[American X]

Bagwell was probably the NL's bset first basement until Albert Pujols.

Congratulations on being the first person drunk on the day of the Shootout. Before noon even. Nice work.

[chico]

Yeah probably.

If it's just about stats, then call it the "Hall of Stats."

He was never considered great when he played, hence the voting for Cy Youngs and MVP's. But he whined like a little baby then when he finally got in, chastised people for taking this long to recognize his self perceived "fameness."

He never lead the league in anything significant that I can tell. Except for losses in 1988 with the Twins after they won the WS. He was a pretty good postseason pitcher I must admit.

It's the same thing with Jim Thome. It's wonderful that these guys are able to play many seasons on 400 different teams. But their peers and writers didn't think they were that great in the context of when they actually played, but somehow, over the next 14 years, I'm supposed to believe that Blyelen is a Hall of Famer?

No thanks.

Here is a great argument for Blyleven from Joe Posnanksi, one of the best baseball guys out there. I also included his paragraph about Larkin.

Bert Blyleven: My colleague and friend Jon Heyman wrote an entire column this year about why he did not vote for Blyleven, and it's fair to say that I didn't agree with much of it. Jon's main point seems to be that though Blyleven's career numbers may be impressive, his career lacked impact. He never won a Cy Young award (or finished higher than third), he never was a factor in the MVP voting, he only made two All-Star teams.

The facts are there, but I guess it depends what you mean by impact. Blyleven STILL ranks fifth on the all-time list for strikeouts -- wedged between a couple of guys named Carlton and Seaver -- and strikeouts seem to have some impact on the game. He ranks ninth all-time in shutouts, fourth if you only count the years after the deadball era -- and shutouts seem to have some impact on the game. He won more games 1-0 than any pitcher in 90 years -- and 1-0 victories seem to have some impact on the game. I guess I would like to believe more in those than in the award voters who often underrated him* or All-Star Game managers who usually have their own agendas.

*Blyleven was probably the best pitcher in the American League in 1973. This was not seen in his 20-17 record, but he was second in the league in ERA, first in ERA+, first in shutouts and he threw a staggering 325 innings. You may or may not have use for Wins Above Replacement, but he finished first in the league in WAR -- not just for pitchers but for ALL players. The MVP voters were 30-plus years too young for WAR, however, and gave him one 10th place vote.

But Jon is hardly the first person to say, essentially, that Blyleven does not FEEL like a Hall of Famer. Blyleven was rarely talked about as one of the great pitchers of his time (though people did acknowledge his historically great curveball). I have never thought this should matter -- after all, I can remember Steve Garvey, Fred Lynn, George Foster, Dave Parker and many others referred to as "future Hall of Famers" when they were at their peak, and it didn't quite work out that way. This, I think, is why we wait five years before voting on a retired player. We want to let a lot of that nonsense dissipate.

And it should have dissipated. Maybe Bert Blyleven did not have a reputation as a great big-game pitcher, but 5-1, 2.47 ERA in the postseason (one of those wins coming over sainted big-game pitcher Jack Morris) and his record in 1-0 games suggest that he didn't really let that reputation stop him from pitching well in big games.

Maybe Bert Blyleven did not get a lot of Cy Young support, but six times he had a higher WAR than the guy who actually won the Cy Young, which can only mean one of three things:

1. WAR is impossibly flawed and the voters were right.
2. The voters picked a lot of really bad Cy Young winners.
3. Bert Blyleven was absurdly underrated by the Cy Young voters.

Of course, it doesn't have to be just ONE of those three three things. It could be all of them.

Anyway, yes, Blyleven's Hall of Fame case has some lumps in it. I don't think even the most devoted of Blyleven's supporters -- I would be in the team photograph, I suspect -- would deny that. His winning percentage should have been better, he was kind of a pain in the neck, he was fairly mediocre for three or four years in the middle of his career, and he really only had one good year after age 36. He's not Greg Maddux (who I think really should have a chance at being voted unanimously). He's one of the 30 best starting pitchers in baseball history, I think. But if you want to find flaws, there are some there.

But I guess there was something else about Jon's Blyleven piece that really bugged me ... and he knew it was really bug a bunch of people. He said so right in the piece. He said: "Blyleven's backers sometimes will also act astounded or even apoplectic over the fact that some, including myself, support Jack Morris over Blyleven."

Yes. Apoplectic is the word. This, I find, is precisely where I stop being reasonable. I saw three or four stories from other people who voted for Morris over Blyleven, and it so boggles my mind that I have to keep myself from ranting. And I'm never very good about keeping myself from ranting.

I guess my simple comparison of Blyleven and Morris is this: Bert Blyleven won more games with an ERA more than a half run lower and an ERA+ advantage of 118-105. Blyleven struck out 1,223 more batters but, even more remarkably, walked 68 fewer batters. Why are the walks more remarkable? Because Blyleven threw 1,146 more innings than Morris. That's 127 nine inning games if you are scoring at home. And he still walked fewer batters.

Blyleven had a reputation as a gopherball pitcher -- well earned since his 50 homers allowed in 1986 is still the record -- but he gave up fewer homers per nine than Morris. Blyleven threw more than twice as many shutouts, threw 70 more complete games, had a significantly lower WHIP, and he has more than twice as many wins above replacement (90.1 to 39.3). Morris had the better winning percentage, but it has been shown that is almost entirely attributable to Morris' superior teams. Blyleven also has the better overall postseason numbers. I've written about this a million times, it's out there on the internets if you want to go into greater detail.

Here's the thing that bugs me most: Jack Morris has a Hall of Fame case. I don't buy in, but I can see the case. He was an extremely durable pitcher who completed a lot of games and won a lot of games and pitched one of the more famous World Series games ever. There's a case for him. But to make that case, logic insists that you MUST ACKNOWLEDGE Bert Blyleven first. Because Blyleven was better than Morris in every way that Morris was good. He was MORE durable, and completed MORE games, and he won MORE games, and he was so clearly more dominant in every way that can be recorded. And, as mentioned, when they faced each other in the postseason, Blyleven's team won.

But some people have simply dug in against Blyleven. The stuff that Jon wrote about Blyleven not having impact -- him not being a factor in Cy Young voting or MVP voting -- is essentially true about Morris too. He never won a Cy Young. He never was a factor in the MVP race.

Jon's essential explanation for his Morris support is to say "to some degree, you had to be there." I sometimes say that very thing about a Midnight OIl concert I went to in 1994 -- to understand Midnight Oil's greatness you had to be there. But I would probably concede that doesn't make Midnight Oil into the Beatles.

I should also say that I think Blyleven will get in this year and we can finally end these kinds of posts.

-- Barry Larkin: Bill James and I have each done a list of our 32 Best All-Around Players in baseball history. Well, I don't think Bill's list is quite 32, and I'm not entirely sure we had the same thing in mind when thinking what "best all-around players" even means. We'll run that thing out there sometime in January to keep the hot stove talk burning.

But I can tell you now that Barry Larkin is on both of our lists. He did everything. He hit. He hit with power. He ran. He defended. He threw. He walked. He played the game with a high level of intelligence and verve. I think he was a deserving winner of the MVP in 1995 (assuming you weren't going to give it to Bonds every year), and he was probably even better in 1996.

The knock on Larkin is simply his durability -- he only played 150 games in a season three times. But he was a fabulous player from 1991-98. That's eight seasons when he posted a 134 OPS+ (Take Cal Ripken's eight best seasons -- not even in a row -- and you get a 132 OPS+), he stole 206 out of 240 bases, he won two Gold Gloves, he slugged .487. There are not many shortstops in baseball history that can give you eight seasons like that. And he offered value in other years too. I think he's a clear cut Hall of Famer.

Here's the entire article if you're interested. Posnanski HOF Vote (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/12/hall-of-fame-eight-definites.html)

[Juice]

Congratulations on being the first person drunk on the day of the Shootout. Before noon even. Nice work.

Haha, I wish that was true. Sadly, I'm just a moron.

[smileyy]

DC Muskie, I think you're what gets categorized as a "Peak Hall" kind of guy. It's a viewpoint I can understand, but don't personally agree with.

I think being as good as Blyleven was for as long as he was good is a rare, remarkable and valuable skill.

[Juice]

DC Muskie, I think you're what gets categorized as a "Peak Hall" kind of guy. It's a viewpoint I can understand, but don't personally agree with.

I think being as good as Blyleven was for as long as he was good is a rare, remarkable and valuable skill.

Lets hope he's not a "Jack Morris in the Hall" kind of guy...

[DC Muskie]

I can respect the other side of view. And Posnanksi makes very good points.

However.

WAR is incredibly flawed. Are we now going to deep down into stats to see what the counts were in each of those situations? Or how was the era of the guys in each bullpen? Are we going to come up with a stat for hitters who didn't get RBIs because their teammates were too slow?

I am of the line that it shouldn't take 15 years to become a HOF. 15 years? The voting is flawed, but the entire premise of the Hall is flawed.

Danny Knobler, at CBS, whom I like, didn't vote for Blyleven but praised the process that allowed him to become one. I completely disagree.

You shouldn't go from a thought process of:

"Yeah, many people didn't think Bert was a tremendous pitcher when he actually played, but when you come back to it 20 years later he is."

You should go:

"Steve Garvey is a future Hall of Famer"

Then when he is done, you realize he isn't.

The line about Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver is laughable. Tom Seaver was ROY in '67 and won 20 or more games from '69 to 75. Blyleven did it once in '73. Carlton was a 4 time Cy Young pitcher. Is that process so incredibly flawed? Are you telling me I should think of Bert Blyleven and Steve Carlton as the same pitcher? Because now I am told they are.

And I disagree with that.

[DC Muskie]

DC Muskie, I think you're what gets categorized as a "Peak Hall" kind of guy. It's a viewpoint I can understand, but don't personally agree with.

I think being as good as Blyleven was for as long as he was good is a rare, remarkable and valuable skill.

Don't get me wrong, it was great feat that he pitched for all of those seasons. I would expect him to accumulate some great stats. He was a good player, but he was no Steve Carlton or Tom Seaver to me.

Do you think when he is done, that Jamie Moyer is a Hall of Famer? Does longevity trump impact? If Moyer retired right now, he would have the same number of seasons as Greg Maddux. Maddux won 100 games more than him.

Or think of it this way:

Is Bert Blyeven the same as Greg Maddux?

Or is Gregg Maddux more like Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver?


Lets hope he's not a "Jack Morris in the Hall" kind of guy...

I'm not a Jack Morris guy either. His era is way too high for me. I also don't understand the entire Bert or Jack camps. It's like a stupid Twilight parody. And like I said earlier, you can look at Morris when he played and know he had an impact. But when you step away after years, you realize that impact was just in certain places and not consistent.

Hall of Famers to me are people who were consistently great. And if there is a year when we don't have any, I'm fine with that.

[chico]

I don't think anyone would argue that Seaver and Blyleven are equal pitchers. What I would argue is that both met the criteria needed to be elected to the hall. Seaver blew by those criteria, Blyleven just made it.

Bill Simmons made an argument for a tiered sort of hall. A guy like Blyleven, Jim Rice, Perez and the like would be the first level, all the way up to level 5 where only guys like Ruth and Mays would be located. I kind of like that idea because a guy like blyleven, though deserving of the hall, is in no way near the greatness of guys like Spahn, Walter Johnson and Tom Seaver.

WAR may be overrated but Blyleven was very good for a very long time. It cannot helped that he played on some very bad teams during the majority of his career. It also carries a lot of weight with me that those who played against him consider him to be a hall of famer, and his curveball is widely viewed as the best of his generation.

[XU 87]

Blyleven may have the stats to get in but if I were a voter I wold be troubled by the fact that he only made the All-Star twice. that means year after year, manager after manager, did not think he was a premier pitcher. (Maybe he did better in the second half of the season)

But let's not compare Blyleven to some of he greatest like Seaver or Carlton. But Gaylord Perry went to 5 All-Star games. Phil Niekro went to 5. Eckersley went to 6.

The lack of All-Star games tells me the Blyleven simply wasn't thought of as being a top pitcher when he played.

[DC Muskie]

Blyleven had a great curve ball. But he also gave up a lot of homers.

I hate Simmons tiered argument. Why not let in Jamie Moyer, who has 29 less wins that Bert and a worse era? What tier can he squeeze him into?

I disagree that there is such a wide criteria that for someone like Seaver can breeze through, while Blyleven needed almost 20 years of review. It goes back to impact while he played.

[DC Muskie]

Blyleven may have the stats to get in but if I were a voter I wold be troubled by the fact that he only made the All-Star twice. that means year after year, manager after manager, did not think he was a premier pitcher. (Maybe he did better in the second half of the season)

But let's not compare Blyleven to some of he greatest like Seaver or Carlton. But Gaylord Perry went to 5 All-Star games. Phil Niekro went to 5. Eckersley went to 6.

The lack of All-Star games tells me the Blyleven simply wasn't thought of as being a top pitcher when he played.

One could argue that Blyleven pitched his prime years in Cleveland in the early 80's. In the three full seasons as in Indian, he never once was their representative.

If that isn't well thought of, I don't know what is. Today Harrah went one year and didn't even play.

Posnanksi would argue that All Star managers had agendas. Tom Seaver went to twelve.

[chico]

I don't know about all star games. Fergie Jenkins only made 3. Don Sutton went to 4. I'd put Blyleven on par with those guys.

Dc, you keep bringing up Jamie Moyer. He certainly has pitched for a long time but, as I'm sure you know. He has not been a top flight pitcher for most of his career. Blyleven's longevity is only part of the equation. It's pretty much all Moyer has. Moyer hasn't been a very effective pitcher for a long time - relying on the fact that lefties are in such dire need is what's got him this far.

The problem is, where do you draw the line. You can look at stats, but you can always cherry pick stats to make your case. I guess you just have to look at a player's career as a whole as well as look at his prime. In his prime, was he a dominant player. But did he also have a sustained career when he was still very good outside his prime. It's probably why it's taken a guy like Blyleven so long to get in.

Maybe we cut down the years a player is eligible. You're right that a guy's career doesn't change between the 5th year he's retired and the 20th. It takes a while for a lot of guys to get in. Maybe that's how you rank them - how many years it took for them to get in dictates just how great they were in the line of greats. Because there are hall of famers and there are Hall of Famers, if you know what I mean. There is always debate on the guys who don't get in until the 10th try or later, but never on the guys who get in during their first 5 years of eligibility.

[XU 87]

That surprises me about Fergie. On the other hand, he won 20 games or more 7 times, and that was pitching for the Cubs and the Rangers. I realize wins can be overrated, but still.....

[smileyy]

I guess I think there can be great baseball players who, for one reason or another, are never recognized as such throughout most of their career. And I get that Peak Hall guys wouldn't want them in the Hall of Fame, because, well, they never peaked enough to be notable.

For the case of Blyleven, I don't get how you can be 5th all-time in strikeouts and not be in the HOF. People will say "Well, he pitched a lot of innings to do that." Which makes the point that he pitched all those innings because he was a really good pitcher. To pitch that many innings while maintaining an ERA 20% better than the rest of the league...that's pretty significant.

Re: Jamie Moyer -- He's not an HOFer to me right now. His ERA just isn't that good. However, if he pitches 3 or 4 or 5 more years...I start to change my mind. A guy who's able to be an effective major league pitcher at age 50 is really remarkable, even without ever being really dominant. He's great in a completely different way than Sandy Koufax, and I think that's worth noting.

To me, DC Muskie and others have flawed critieria that produces false positives (like Steve Garvey), but never false negatives (like Bert Blyleven). It strikes me that any test ought to produce both when it's in error.

[XU 87]

IRe: Jamie Moyer -- He's not an HOFer to me right now. His ERA just isn't that good. However, if he pitches 3 or 4 or 5 more years...I start to change my mind. A guy who's able to be an effective major league pitcher at age 50 is really remarkable, even without ever being really dominant. He's great in a completely different way than Sandy Koufax, and I think that's worth noting.



That is an interesting argument. Not sure I agree with it since the HOF is for the greatest players ever, but still interesting.

[DC Muskie]

Well chico to me, there are just Hall of Famers.

Everything you said can be summed up to impact felt while they played. That's why Morris is being discussed. He had more of an impact on people.

I guess I need to have it explained to me how Blyleven was considered dominate in his prime. When was his prime?

In 1979 he won 12 games for the Pirates in the year they won the WS. He was the ace of the staff but had the third most wins on the team. The CY went to a closer in Bruce Sutton who saved 37 games. He wasn't an All Star, nor did he finish anywhere near the CY top ten.

In 1979 Bert was 29 years old. Ace of the WS winner. And nothing.

32 years later he's a Hall of Famer.

I do agree that you can pick and choose, and that's what WAR is. Simply a stat to help people like Blyleven. And Moyer is just an example of longevity. But someone could begin to argue we need to put more left handed pitchers who pitched a long time.

[DC Muskie]

I guess I think there can be great baseball players who, for one reason or another, are never recognized as such throughout most of their career. And I get that Peak Hall guys wouldn't want them in the Hall of Fame, because, well, they never peaked enough to be notable.

For the case of Blyleven, I don't get how you can be 5th all-time in strikeouts and not be in the HOF. People will say "Well, he pitched a lot of innings to do that." Which makes the point that he pitched all those innings because he was a really good pitcher. To pitch that many innings while maintaining an ERA 20% better than the rest of the league...that's pretty significant.

Re: Jamie Moyer -- He's not an HOFer to me right now. His ERA just isn't that good. However, if he pitches 3 or 4 or 5 more years...I start to change my mind. A guy who's able to be an effective major league pitcher at age 50 is really remarkable, even without ever being really dominant. He's great in a completely different way than Sandy Koufax, and I think that's worth noting.

To me, DC Muskie and others have flawed critieria that produces false positives (like Steve Garvey), but never false negatives (like Bert Blyleven). It strikes me that any test ought to produce both when it's in error.

I think if you are going to be the 5th strikeout leader of all time, then sometime, during your career, you should have led the league in strikeouts. And in doing so, somewhere along the line, people that you played against and people that covered you during that time would recognize that feat.

The sport is simply about moments, right? The highlights of baseball are about moments, and players who delivered moments consistently, and what moments did Blyleven provide that made people stand up and go "Yup, there you go."

If Jamie Moyer pitches till 50 that would be great. But then put Julio Franco in the Hall for doing the same thing...as an everyday player. You open up a can of worms to a game and a Hall that is based largely on stats.

I don't see why you ever want to have something that recognizes your greatest players the cream of the crop, the special ones, with a false negative system.

If this was 10 years ago, Bert doesn't get in simply because of the internet storm his backers created. We are going to let in guys who are able to effectively throw the biggest fits.

[chico]

Let's not get into the wins argument (even though he won 287). They're a fickle stat - that's why you can make 37 starts in 1979 and only have 17 decisions.

As for Toby Harrah making the all star game, don't forget every team has to have at least one player. My guess is that there were no 3rd basemen and an overload of pitching so Harrah got the nod. Although Harrah did have some pretty good years.

Look at his era - it took him 20 years before he had an era over 4. Nine of those years he was under 3. That is incredible. It shows that he was a very good pitcher for a very long time. Now add in the strikeouts. 5th all time. He only made it to the post season three times (one in his rookie year) so there's proof that he played on some pretty bad teams. Even taking that into account, and using your fickle stat of wins, he had 287. And the anecdotal evidence of how good that curve was added in makes a pretty good case for the hall.

What stats do you use that he was not in the hall? Cy Young voting? All star game appearances? Home runs allowed? Ancillary stats at best.

And by the way, Warren Spahn gave up 434.

[XU 87]

What stats do you use that he was not in the hall? Cy Young voting? All star game appearances? Ancillary stats at best.



I think those are important because it shows how managers and baseball media felt he was doing on year to year basis. That said, your ERA argument is persuasive, although I think ERA's were much lower in the 70's, although I have nothing to support that conclusion. It's just a hunch.

[chico]

Jamie Moyer has been around so long because he hasn't been awful. A player who hasn't had a significant drop off over his later years. It is telling that he has never had a season when his era has been under 4.

DC, there is always going to be debate no matter where you draw the line. If you raise the bar, there will still be guys who are borderline. It's like the NCAA tourney - there will always be bubble teams, it's just degrees of quality. It's not a perfect system but I think things usually get done right.

I think another reason it takes so long for some of these guys to get in is that the voters are lazy. They don't really do much research unless it's put right in front of them. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the game can say that Mike Schmidt was a hall of famer. Maybe that's the criteria you want, though.

[chico]

I think those are important because it shows how managers and baseball media felt he was doing on year to year basis. That said, your ERA argument is persuasive, although I think ERA's were much lower in the 70's, although I have nothing to support that concluion. It's just a hunch.

era's were lower in the 70's than they are now but don't forget they lowered the mound in 1969, the year before Blyleven broke in.

An I agree that awards and all star appearances are important but a lack of them should not exclude a player form entrance into the hall.

[smileyy]

That is an interesting argument. Not sure I agree with it since the HOF is for the greatest players ever, but still interesting.

Well, then you're just changing the discussion to "What is greatness?" :)

And there, again, to some it will be all about peak. To others it'll be include a peak + 10 years of a very-good-to-good career. And to others, it might include 20 years of a very-good-to-good career, without much of a peak.

I think the Keltner List does a fairly good job of laying out a lot of these areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltner_list

Here's a reasonable run-down (in favor of) Blyleven: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=127975

I think to Peak HOFers, the "No's" to questions 1-3 disqualify a player, and #6 simply points out that the HOF is flawed.

For Blyleven, the answers to 4, 7 and 8 are significant, and the answer to 9 (there's no one better not in the Hall of Fame) make him a really compelling discussion at the very least.

[smileyy]

I think those are important because it shows how managers and baseball media felt he was doing on year to year basis. That said, your ERA argument is persuasive, although I think ERA's were much lower in the 70's, although I have nothing to support that conclusion. It's just a hunch.

ERA+ (available on baseball-reference) is a good measuring stick. It shows you, adjusted for parks pitched in, how much better or worse a pitcher's ERA was to the league average.

Blyleven, IIRC, had a 118 career OPS+, saying that, for his career, his ERA was 18% lower than the rest of the league.

[DC Muskie]

So let me get this straight. Bert so good on bad teams that he couldn't get wins to help his stats, but he wasn't good enough to make an All star game because they were overloaded with pitchers?

Do I have that straight?

Take 1984. Blyleven won 19 games for the Indians. 19. For the Indians. In 1984. Who went to the All Star game that year for the Tribe? Andre Thorton.

You know who else on that AL star team who played 1st base like Thorton:

Rod Carew
Don Mattingly
Eddie Murray

Oh and another guy named Alvin Davis made the team. He played 1st for the mariners that year.

That's five guys to cover first!

They only used five pitchers that game for the AL and none of them were Bert Blyleven who was on his way to winning 19 games for the Indians.

Warren Spahn played in as many playoffs as Blyleven but won 76 more games, had an era lower then his by 29 points, was an All Star 14 times, had three top five 5 MVP finishes and had 12 seasons where he won 20 games.

And remember, he pitched in 8 postseason games, just as many as Blyleven.

[smileyy]

To bring this back on topic, my quick Keltner List for Barry Larkin:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

He won an MVP award, in a year where he probably wasn't the best player in baseball. He may have been the best player in baseball the year after that.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, for many seasons.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Yes, for several seasons.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes, in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes, but his career was injury-plagued or league-average after his age-34 season.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Of players eligible, possibly. An argument could be made that Jeff Bagwell is better.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Counting statistics are on the low-side due to injuries throughout his career.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Batting statistics need to take into account that he batted that well while playing excellent defense at SS.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Yes, though AlanTrammell was also a very good SS with HOF credentials.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

2 MVP-type seasons, one award.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

12-time All-Star, though perhaps not deserving of all of them. But also blocked from starting by fan-favorite Ozzie Smith, who was an inferior player to Larkin at that stage of his career.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Helped usher in the era of the offensive shortstop.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes, including winning the Roberto Clemente award.


So yeah, Larkin's pretty much an eventual slam-dunk.

[DC Muskie]

Jamie Moyer has been around so long because he hasn't been awful. A player who hasn't had a significant drop off over his later years. It is telling that he has never had a season when his era has been under 4.

Franco batted .309 at the age of 45. He had 361 plate appearances, most on the team. Does that meet a criteria for inclusion into the Hall? That he was able to do that an wasn't awful? Is getting into the Hall mean you weren't awful? I think that's a proper bar to have.


Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the game can say that Mike Schmidt was a hall of famer. Maybe that's the criteria you want, though.

I hate to say it...but yes. It should be that simple.

Basically to me that's why it's so silly. Does anyone have any doubt Greg Maddux is a Hall of Famer? So it takes him two years to get in. That's stupid, but it doesn't take 15.

I mean Jason Love was a great player. Should we retire his jersey because he had the best baby hook shot in the A-10 for the time he played? Or that he was the all time winning-est player in the program?

when you think of guys who deserve to have their jerseys retired, do you think of David West or Jason Love?

To me you wait until the next David West comes around to give you pause.

Bert Blyleven to me is Jason Love.

[smileyy]

Jason Love is lauded far more on these boards than what actually directly contributed to Xavier basketball. He had two largely forgettable seasons, a solid junior year, and a very good senior year.

I love the guy, he played well for half his career, he played hard, but, just, no.