Yesterday, the National Baseball Hall of Fame announced the results of the 2011 election. Inducted were Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven, Alomar on his second attempt and Blyleven on his 14th. Alomar received 90.9% of the vote, and Blyleven finally made it over 75%, with 79.7%. Following them were Barry Larkin, Jack Morris, and Lee Smith to round out the top five.
Now, any time the human element is involved in any process, there are bound to be flaws - it is simply a part of what makes people who they are. However, some of the votes made absolutely no sense. For instance, B.J. Surhoff received two votes. In fact, one of the people that voted for Surhoff (ESPN news editor Barry Stanton) did not vote for Roberto Alomar. Exactly what criteria was used showing that Surhoff is a Hall of Famer while Alomar is not? Because I would absolutely love to know the rationale behind that vote. Then again, Stanton also voted for Tino Martinez, so it would seem his idea of what a Hall of Famer is would be completely dismissible. At least he didn't vote for Lenny Harris.
For Blyleven, the fact that he had to wait nineteen years after his last pitch to be inducted in is ludicrous. He struck out 3701, which is fifth all time. He pitched 60 shutouts, good for ninth all time. His 242 complete games is good for 91st all time, which counts the days when teams routinely had two starting pitchers and the bullpen was made up of position players. His career WHiP is 1.198, he struck out 2.8 hitters for every one that he walked, and was actually decent with the glove. however, voters for years focused on his won/loss record (287-250), his lack of Cy Young votes, and only making two all-star games as justification on why he was not a Hall of Famer.
Blyleven's case was truly helped by the advent of advanced statistics and sabermetrics. When looking at the innings pitched by pitchers with an ERA+ of 118 or higher, Blyleven is fifth (thanks to baseballreference.com for the chart: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9619 ). His adjusted pitching wins is 36.1, which is 19th all time. His win probability added was 30.6, which is 26th all time. And his wins above replacement for pitchers was 90.1, 13th all time.
The other problem with Blyleven is how he accumulated his statistics. Unlike a Nolan Ryan or a Bob Gibson, Blyleven did not strike people out with a 100 mile per hour fastball. He relied on a devastating curve, which does not capture the imagination of the casual fan or sportswriters. Blyleven also pitched for some truly terrible teams in his career, which limited his ability to garner wins. All of this was held against him. Blyleven has long been the poster child for how traditional statistics do not point to the true value of a player, and now these statistics have led to his induction.
Now, to Jeff Bagwell. Regardless of what criteria is used to view his statistics, they are amazing. He is one of only three first basemen to score 1500 runs and drive in 1500 hitters without spending a lot of time as a designated hitter. The other two - Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx. He is the ONLY first baseman with 400 home runs and 200 stolen bases. This is a player who, from 1991 until 2004, ranked in the top five in home runs, RBI, hits, doubles, runs, and walks. Bagwell made four All-Star games, was a Rookie of the Year and an MVP, and won a Gold Glove. Typically, these are all things that the writers look at when determining whether or not a player should get into the Hall.
The strike against Bagwell is the era in which he played. A number of writers did not vote for him based off of the suspicion that he was on performance enhancing drugs, despite his never testing positive for banned substances. He was never named on the Mitchell report, his name was not on any of the information taken from BALCO, and Jose Canseco (the most credible person in the entire steroids saga) did not mention him in any of his books. In fact, Dan Shaughnessy even mentioned that he was withholding his vote on Bagwell based on his suspicions. "Bagwell never tested positive for anything," Shaughnessy wrote. "But like a lot of players who will follow him to the ballot, he was a guy who made you wonder."
Here is the point: Bagwell NEVER tested positive for anything. A case cannot be made against someone just based off of a hunch. Especially when confirmed cheaters such as Gaylord Perry (who wrote a book during his playing career about the art of the spitball) and Don Sutton (who threw a scuff ball) are in the Hall. In fact, it was once said that if anyone can find a baseball that was not doctored in a game where those two faced each other, that it should be sent to the Hall. Yet Perry is celebrated for being a 'competitor' who would 'do what he needed to win'. How is this any different than using PEDs? I understand not voting for someone who did take them, but in no way should someone be held out on suspicion.
Bagwell deserves to be inducted. Unfortunately, it looks like he is going to have a Bert Blyleven type wait before making it to Cooperstown.
No comments:
Post a Comment