| [ |
mood |
| |
 tired |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
"Running Down a Dream," Tom Petty |
] |
Whoa. Looks like I got a lot of responses on the Mark McGwire post. Let's look at three main points:
Is Bert Blyleven a Hall of Famer?
When I included Blyleven on a list of marginal candidate, I wasn't belittling his case. I actually think he is a very strong candidate. His stats compare very favorably to the likes of Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, Tom Seaver, Early Wynn, Phil Niekro, and Steve Carlton. He's fifth all-time in strikeouts. He's ninth all-time in shutouts. He won 286 games during a time period when 300 game winners were becoming increasingly rare. He was 5-1 in the postseason and won 2 World Series titles (including one with the Pirates, which was the last one the Pirates did and probably will ever win). His vote total has gone up in each year since he's been eligible, so it looks like he's gaining momentum. However, his inability to get in clearly shows that he is missing something, at least in the eyes of the voters. Plus, even though he's gaining votes, he's still far short of the required 75% needed for enshrinement. What I meant to say is that while I might not believe that he's a marginal candidate, the voters certainly do. Hey, I even wrote that Goose Gossage was a marginal candidate and I then turned around and said that I thought he should have been enshrined last year with Bruce Sutter. Not even John Kerry was that big of a flip-flopper.
All kidding aside. I think the case for Blyleven is very compelling. Sure, he never won a Cy Young Award and only won 20 games once. However, Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young and "only" managed two 20-win seasons (thought admittedly, Ryan had some other things going for him). Hell, if winning a Cy Young is the benchmark for greatness, then why aren't Mark Davis or Steve Bedrosian in the Hall of Fame? He was a good postseason pitcher, he was a winner, and he was dominant. However, that doesn't make him a lock.
I think what people are holding against Blyleven is the fact that he had a number of years where he was barely a .500 pitcher. In many of those seasons, however, his ERA was actually better than the League Average. In seasons where Blyleven made at least 30 starts, his ERA was higher than the league average only twice: In 1980 when he went 8-13 for the Pirates and posted a 3.82 ERA when the league average was 3.64, and in 1988 when he went 10-17 for the Twins and put up a 5.43 ERA when the league average was 4.09. That means that either Blyleven didn't get a lot of run support, or he gave up a bunch of unearned runs. He did give up a lot of homeruns, but he finished among the top ten league leaders in WHIP in 11 seasons and in Hits/9 innings in 7 seasons to go with all those strikeouts. It looks like when hitters actually managed to hit Blyleven, which wasn't often, they were effective.
Also, I think voters are worried that if they enshrine Blyleven, then that will open the floodgates for the likes of Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and Jack Morris (more on him). I don't think so. John, Kaat, and Morris have 200+ wins, but Blyleven's stats blow them out of the water. Kaat was a tremendous fielder - the Greg Maddux of his time. However, he ranks 33rd all time in strikeouts and had a few too many seasons where he was barely over .500. Same for Tommy John. Some guys padded their stats by staying healthy and being consistent (like Don Sutton or Raffy Palmeiro). John and Kaat were both very good pitchers who, because of their longetivity, ended up with a large number of wins. Blyleven wasn't just someone who ended up with good stats because of his durability while Kaat and John clearly were. Besides, Tommy John's already been immortalized with the surgery. He doesn't need a plaque as well.
Is Jack Morris a Hall of Famer?
No. His lifetime ERA is 3.90 which would be the highest of any starter in Cooperstown. He never won a Cy Young. His W-L record of 254-186 probably isn't good enough for enshrinement outside of some other factors. Sure, he was a gritty competitor and a great postseason pitcher. But, if you take away that 10-inning shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (which, for my money, was the greatest postseason pitching performance in my lifetime), then there's not much else in his favor. Indeed, if Chuck Knoblauch hadn't deeked Lonnie Smith at second base, the Braves probably would have won. So it seems a little unreasonable to make someone's case for enshrinement on the basis of one game, albeit a huge one. Plus, writers hated him back during his playing career and considered him rude, boorish, arrogant, and misogynistic (he once told a female writer that he didn't talk to women unless he was on top of them or they were on top of him - I wonder how Suzy Kolber would have reacted to that comment). Since those guys are the ones that determine Hall membership, it should add up to another empty winter for Jack Morris.
Was Mark McGwire a Glorified Version of Dave Kingman or Rob Deer?
Some responders thought that even if you gave Big Mac the benefit of the doubt, he still wasn't a Hall of Famer. His homeruns were nice, but he struck out too much, he didn't hit for average, and didn't drive in any runs. All true. But comparing him to Dave Kingman? Was Big Mac just another slugger with a swing so powerful that he either knocked the ball out of the park or generated a mighty wind before going back to the dugout empty-handed? Absolutely not. Those guys can always be neutralized by good pitching. McGwire was different. Someone has already the point of McGwire posting the best HR to AB ratio in baseball history (1 home run every 10.61 AB's - better than Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds). He walked a lot, which was partially due to pitchers pitching around him, but was also do to his patience and his discerning eye. He wasn't going to go up to the plate hacking wildly and making outs. In his prime, there were few hitters as feared as McGwire precisely because he could change the game with one swing and because he was such a tough out. Even during his last season when he could barely put any weight on his knee and Tony La Russa was using him almost exclusively as a pinch-hitter, Big Mac still commanded respect from pitchers and fear from opposing managers. Looking at his www.baseball-reference page, I was surprised to see that he had even won a Gold Glove back during his Little Mac days. Sure, steroids were probably responsible for turning McGwire from the All-Star he was into the icon that he became. However, regardless of whether or not you believe McGwire was a human chemistry lab, the bottom line is that he became the kind of baseball icon that transcended the game. Like it or not, he was the Babe Ruth of the Steroid Era. He had a Ruthian presence at the plate, he commanded attention everywhere he went, and people lined up for miles just to see him. How many hitters would command the kind of crowds that he got just to watch him take batting practice? When the All-Star Game was in Boston back in 1999, more people remember Big Mac's homer over the Green Monster in the Home Run Derby than who won the actual derby (It was Ken Griffey, Jr. over Jeromy Burnitz - I had to look that up). I might be mistaken, but I believe that he was the first player that got the "We interrupt our coverage of Pepperdine vs. Santa Clara to take you to his at-bat live" treatment from ESPN. When McGwire played, it was an event. Steroid allegations aside, that's what makes him a Hall of Famer. Sure, he didn't post high averages. Sure, he didn't drive in a lot of runs. Sure, he wasn't a good overall hitter. But fans paid to see him play. That makes him a Hall of Famer - pesky steroid questions aside.
Besides, no one has said anything about this, but what about Cal Ripken? The guy played in 2,632 consecutive games. He never got hurt? What was he made of? Steel? Are we sure he wasn't on Winstrol? He was the greatest power-hitting shortstop of all time and paved the way for slugging shortstops like Miguel Tejada, Derek Jeter, and A-Rod. Are we sure he wasn't using Deca? He didn't look like he was on roids, but maybe he wasn't going for the Mr. Universe look. Maybe he just needed a little something to get him through the grind. That's the problem with the Steroid Era. We don't know about anyone and it's impossible to judge players accurately. I guess that's what makes these kinds of debates fun...
|
