Just How Good was Bert Blyleven?

Comments

1. Chip says:

   January 11, 2011 at 8:50 am

   Michael, I always enjoy your well-reasoned Hall of Fame discussions. Here’s a question, though, unrelated to Blyleven’s induction. Does it diminish the Hall of Fame that not one player in the history of Hall of Fame voting has ever received 100% of the vote? How is it that no single electorate of a particular ballot could unanimously agree that one player was worthy of the HOF? I’m talking abou the immortals- those who merit discussion as the ‘greatest player of all time.’ Not Ruth? Williams? Mays? Aaron? I don’t believer there were steroid types of discussions inherent in their selection, so how do we explain that lack of 100%? Is it writer’s bias? For example, the relationship between Williams and the Boston press was infamously contentious. Were there writers who didn’t vote for him because they didn’t like him? That’s crap; if you can’t vote for the talent, don’t vote. Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts.

2. Mike Hoban says:

   January 11, 2011 at 10:56 am

   Chip,

   Thanks. I do have a theory on this but I have never mentioned it before. I believe that there are some writers who truly believe that “no one should get into the Hall on the first ballot.” So, even if they think that John Smith is a worthy Hall of Famer, they would not vote for him on his first year on the ballot. Let’s be grateful that there do not seem to be many such writers.

   But how to explain that Jeff Bagwell only got 40%? I have never heard him accused of taking steroids. He was good enough to be inducted on the first ballot.

   Roberto Alomar was a great player but Bagwell ranks ahead of him on my CAWS career ranking.

   Mike

3. Al Featherston says:

   January 11, 2011 at 2:59 pm

   Chip, I think Bill James has a better explanation for the failure of any player to get 100 percent of the vote … in his great book “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame” he talks about how the HOF voting procedure was screwed up from the beginning.

   Neither Ruth nor Cobb got 100 percent because the first ballot in the mid-1930s was loaded with literally hundreds of great players and managers — Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Speaker, Walter Johnson, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Nap Lajoie, Three-finger Brown, Connie Mack, John McGraw, Cap Anson, Christy Mathewson, John McGraw — the list is endless. Is it surprising that the vote was spread around dozens of great players and that only five got 75 percent of the vote?

   The huge starting list created so many problems — with so many worthy candidates on the ballot, it got to the point that 75 percent of the voters couldn’t agree on ANYBODY. That’s why the veteran’s committee was first formed, so that enough early baseball greats could be inducted to make it possible for the more recent retirees to get in.

   Plus, there was considerable debate about waiting period. At first, there was no waiting period, but many voters thought there should be and wouldn’t vote for players in the first few years (which explains why DiMaggio failed on his first votes).

   Now, I think the early confusion works against the modern no-brainers. Because Ruth and Cobb weren’t 100 percent, there will be voters who think Mays or Seaver shouldn’t be 100 percent either, so they leave their off their list. In addition, there are no gradiations in the HOF between the true greats (Ruth, Wagner, Ted Williams, etc.) and marginal guys like Chick Hafey and Highpockets Kelly, some voters try to create their own graduation by denying merely HOF worthy players first-ballot entry.

   All that said, I too am baffled by Bagwell’s low vote total. I had never heard PED accusations either, but reading some of the post-vote commentary, it seems like some voters have their suspicions (without evidence).