On most days, 287 big league victories and 3,701 K would get you a plaque in Cooperstown.
So why isn't Bert Blyleven getting his ticket punched?
It's a long-standing dilemma that the baseball writers tangle with on every ballot. Do they value career numbers bulked by longevity over actual dominance and superior individual performance, or vice versa?
Compound the difficulty of making that evaluation with the fact that certain numbers, no matter how diminished, "automatically" get you in the Hall of Fame, and you see what a convoluted process induction can become.
A perfect example of the above: Both Don Sutton and Phil Niekro accumulated 300 wins, and they hung around long enough to earn the Hall based solely on that number alone!
If Blyleven had won just 13 more games, would that have put him in for sure?
Another number for "automatic" induction is 500 homers.
But Mark McGwire is outside the shrine, looking in, and he could be joined by Rafael Palmieiro and Barry Bonds as 500 HR-club members not in the Hall thanks to steroid use and abuse.
When one thinks about Mark McGwire in his totality as a player, is he truly great or just a bulked-up Dave Kingman?
Bert Blyleven only averaged 14 wins per campaign and had five losing seasons. He only won 20 games once and led the league in strikeouts with a mediorce 206.
While he did finish second in strikeouts three years in a row (1973-75) and third two times (1976 and '81), was Blyleven ever truly a dominant big league pitcher in the mold of Gibson, Koufax, Marichal, or Seaver?
There is no question that Blyleven's 685 starts, 242 complete games (that's a 35 percent completion ratio) and 60 career shutouts are meaningful considerations. But when one looks at the fact he never got as high as third in any Cy Young balloting, does he really belong?
What makes the Blyleven dilemma all the more complicated is that, in my opinion, neither Phil Niekro or Don Sutton belong, either.
And if you acknowledge Blyleven as Hall-worthy, why not fellow Twin Kim Kaat? Or for that matter, why not Tommy John?
The redefinition of "great" is watering down the honor of Hall of Fame induction in all professional sports.
The writers need to eliminate any candidate from a HOF ballot if the candidate cannot receive at least 50 percent of the votes. There should be no "campaigning" for Hall induction, like what we witnessed with the likes of Phil Rizzuto and Tommy La Sorda.
Those two, in my opinion, have no business in Cooperstown the same way Dick Vitale has no credentials to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame.
There is no question Bert Blyleven is a "bubble" candidacy. Still, many on the periphery have secured induction, such as Billy Williams and Orlando Cepada.
Meanwhile, players like Joe Torre and others will forever be on the outside looking in!
The fact that Jim Rice secured induction after 14 tries in my mind is ridiculous. What changed in 15 years about Rice's credentials? Why now and not 14 years ago? Why Rice and not Evans?
Should Blyleven receive Hall of Fame induction, it will only open the flood gates for other marginal candidates to be elected, and that's not good for the integrity of Cooperstown.
Numbers accumulated in longevity should not translate to Hall of Fame induction.
I mean, if Blyleven makes the baseball HOF, I guess Canton, Ohio will be calling Vinny Testaverde's number.
It's numbers posted consistently as a league leader, All-Star, and hardware winner (Cy Young, MVP) that really matter.
But even Bert Blyleven has a right to be mad at the process. It's one that has become selective and not absolute in it's judgement.
- Login to post comments