If Blyleven was so amazing; why did he fail to get a single Cy Young vote in 18 of his 22 professional seasons? If Blyleven was so amazing, why did he only make two all star teams in his entire career? If Blyleven was so amazing, why did he get barely 18% of the HoF vote his first ballot and take a monumental internet uprising to get him elected? To me, these are important factors; the writers and players of his time barely rated him in his time, so why is he now revered as one of the game’s best? Are you going to tell me that for nearly two DECADES every single evaluator in the game was wrong when it came to Blyleven??

But that wasn’t the point of this article; my opinion is that (as I’ll state more succintly); the Hall of Fame should honor BOTH the likes of Blyleven (who history has shown is better than he was remembered) AND the likes of Morris (who history now shows is overrated but who still holds an important place in the game).

“We evaulate players differently now.” Fine; I’m assuming the “we” in that statement is the current set of bloggers and writers who have come onto the scene in the last few years. But what’s interesting is that “we” generally didn’t play the game, certainly didn’t play the game professionally, and don’t cover the game on a day-in/day-out basis like the writers who generally encompass the electorate of the BBWAA, and I find the disconnect between the opinions of those two groups somewhat troubling. Yes, I’m well aware of new ways of evaluating players. But I’m also aware that the 1980s was a different time, a transitionary time away from 4-man rotations and less of a power game, and that inarguably the great players of that era are severely shortchanged in the current Hall roster.

I’m also aware that generally speaking the opinions of those who covered Morris and those who played with/against him are almost unanimously in favor of his
inclusion. How do you correlate that fact with the “knowledge” that Morris’ career ERA would make him one of the worst pitchers ever to be put into the Hall? I don’t know; I’m not prepared to judge an entire generation of baseball professionals (players, executives and long time beat writers) as being antiquated because they “remember” the Morris of the 80s differently than “we” analyze him now, without context, without the understanding of the game at the time.

Morris led the decade in Wins; most of the “we” would argue “Wins are a useless stat.” Yes; TODAY the interpretive value of a pitcher Win is less, thanks to specialized bullpens, lefty right matchups, pitch count limits and closers. But in the time of Morris, when starters were EXPECTED to finish games and thus pitched each outing as if they were going 9 innings, the Win was more important. The Win was more indicative of whether or not the starter really “won” the game for his team. I’ll tell you this: its a HELL of a lot easier to have a 3.90 ERA when you only go 6 innings/100 pitches and only have to get through the order twice. Try keeping your ERA under 4.00 when you’re facing the heart of the opponets order in the 9th inning for the fourth time and you’re sitting on 140 pitches. THAT was what Jack Morris (and the leading starters of his time) did time and again. I don’t know how to statistically account for this; it isn’t as easy as just holding for Morris’ first 6 innings for his career, because if you’re pitching for 9, you’re managing your arm strength from the first inning onwards.

Whatever. I’m honestly tired of arguing about Blyleven and Morris. Its like arguing with a partisan gun-rights advocate; no matter what god-awful thing happens related to gun violence, you can’t convince them that their stance is even the slightest bit assailable.

Tom Seaver is arguably the greatest pitcher of his generation. Certainly in any comparison between the two he should completely blow away a “mediocre” pitcher like Blyleven

What stats do you like Todd? Let’s separate the men from the boys and look at how many SEASONS these two were in the top 5 (not top 10) in various major stats

WAR for pitchers
Blyleven – 9
Seaver – 10

ERA
Blyleven – 7
Seaver – 7

WHIP
Blyleven – 7
Seaver – 9

Strikeouts
Blyleven – 13
Seaver – 9

Complete Games
Blyleven – 6
Seaver – 6

Shutouts
Blyleven – 9
Seaver – 7

ERA+
Blyleven – 7
Seaver – 9

Is Blyleven a better or even equal pitcher to Seaver? Of course not, but wouldn’t you think that the pitcher with the highest HOF vote percentage, a no doubt hall of famer, considered to be one of the best pitchers ever, would blow away a “mediocre” pitcher like Blyleven? You would think so, wouldn’t you?

I don’t know why Blyleven was underrated when he was pitching, but he was. I do know that he stacks up just fine against virtually ANY HOF pitcher. He didn’t sneak in. He was always deserving

Don’t make blanket statements that a pitcher was clearly mediocre, when they are simply untrue. We evaluate players differently now. Things change. Maybe you’ve heard…we now know cigarettes can kill!! WOW!

The second, category B, were players who ranked among the best all-time at their positions. An example would be Joe Morgan or, say, Eddie Matthews. While what constitutes “among the best all-time” is a matter of debate, this group isn’t that hard to define.

The problem is that A and B, by definition overlap and also constitute, at most, 50-100 players. So, that leaves us with a third category, C, which consists of players who were, if not all-time greats, among the best players of their time or generation.

Here’s where things like MVP/Cy Young votes and all-star appearances matter. By these measures, Morris belongs in the HOF.I would argue that Dale Murphy warrants more consideration than he has gotten.

As for PEDs, I would agree that Bonds and Clemons were already HOF-worthy prior to the steroids era, so as much as I dislike what they are alleged to have done, I hold my nose but not Sosa.

PEDs: thank god i’m not a voter. I honestly have no idea how to judge some of these players if I had to do a HoF vote for real. I have a “my hypothetical ballot” post mostly written where I kinda have to do that, and i’m not happy with the results. For example; Sammy Sosa is one of the toughest cases. He went from 36-40-36 homer seasons to 66-63-50-64. 36 homers one year, 66 the next. 609 for his career. How do you judge that? That’s nearly 300 homers in just 5 seasons, when at best he should have had about 200 given his typical production based on seasons just prior. And he’s out of baseball after age 38 despite a decent final season. Guys like Clemens and Bonds were hall of famers even before their “enhanced” late-career seasons, but Sosa is tougher.

I also wouldn’t knock people for PEDs, although I know that is controversial. I agree that they were cheaters, but baseball has had a lot of that in one form or another over the years. And I don’t think any of us know really who did (well, maybe just who else did), and how much it impacted performance.

I can’t remember who it was (either Posnanski or Bill James) who talked about an “eyeball” test for potential hall of famers. Was the player generally the best on his team? Was the player someone who “scared” you as an opposing fan if he was batting or pitching? Was the player a “destination player” (meaning, would you buy a ticket to a game JUST to see him)? That’s a hard way to quantify “fame” but it does help identify why some players get more voting support than other, better players (guys like Raines).

I do agree with concerns over “Fame.” In the pre ESPN days it was entirely sportswriters who made someone famous or not. Now ESPN does tend to elevate certain players more than they should be (has more ink ever been spilled over a backup quarterback than Tim Tebow? Is it just because he’s playing in New York or because he’s such a compelling story?

I find this topic fascinating, so, sorry for this really long comment. Well, not really the HoF discussions, per se, because it doesn’t mean that much to me (although the family trip to Cooperstown when I was 8 was a huge deal). But the whole issue of the use of stats v. our more emotional (or traditional) way of looking at the game. And my conclusion, which is totally a cop out, is that I like them both.

The stats guys have come up with some great stuff, both in terms of thinking about what actually happened and trying to predict what will happen. I mean, I am 40ish now, but I played baseball for a long time, into college, and even had a couple of tryouts (LAD and dreaded Phillies) and was squarely old school in my thinking. Walks seemed like a failure, some people were clutch and others weren’t, all of that. But over the last 10 years, thinking about a lot of these theories, has been an eye opener and really broadened my understanding, and enjoyment, of the game. And I think, in one sense, the evolution of the statheads was because the mainstream guys were getting a fair amount of things wrong (either intentionally through bias, or unintentionally). The clearest example to me aren’t the pitchers, but Tim Raines. I remember very well how fantastic I thought that guy was; he was a force and you never wanted to see him up or on base. But he never really took with the mainstream writers, either because of the cocaine problem, playing in Montreal, whatever, so I think he was undervalued. I think the stat guys calling him out are right to bring attention to him. So I can’t agree with Sec 314 and say ‘forget the stats’.

But stats are data points to consider, not answers (as you said well) and I think that is where they are being misused. Also, the statheads give off the feeling that they care more about the math and probabilities than the actual game being played. It is almost like if an older guy hit a homerun off somebody like Craig Kimbrel in Game 7 of the NLCS, the stat guy would try to tell you ‘don’t feel good about that, it shouldn’t have happened’. To me, the most important part of this is watching and enjoying the actual games.

But I struggle with your ‘Hall of FAME’ argument, because it seems like FAME is decided by the mainstream writers or outlets like ESPN, which I have grave misgivings over, and the worry is that they decide what we should like and value. Tim Raines probably doesn’t meet your definition of Hall of FAME only because the writers decided not to promote him (my opinion, obviously). He had everything else. So I see the statheads as a valuable hedge against the mainstream guys.

As for Morris and HoF, I thought that he was good, not great, but that was from watching, not reviewing stats. I thought Schilling was better. But I wouldn’t be upset if either was in. I actually feel the same about Catfish (good not great) but I don’t remember him all that well firsthand.

Forget stats… the question is did they have an impact on the game. And for that reason people like Leo Durocher or Don Drysdale or Dizzy Dean or many others get in.

Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer