Woo hoo! We've converted another one! Score!

Okay, I'm done, but Bert really deserves to get into the hall.

~Hannah~

Yay! Go Bert! We need the Dutchman in the Hall!

but he hasn't got...... and he never won........only.......not as good as........doesn't....

Public Enemy Mike:

I respect sticking to your guns in enemy territory, but come up with something new.

By any MEASURED criteria, Bert's career should put him in the Hall of Fame. The arguments I hear against this are always subjective and provincial.

If there is a reason for Bert to be excluded from Cooperstown that is not based on run support or reputation, let's hear it.

I really would love to see Bert make it into the hall. I think he deserves to be there and I know there are tons of stats guys and gals who could give me a laundry list of numbers as to why he isn't HOF material, but you know what too bad, if I had a vote I would vote for him.

and in other news....
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Aj0b7nEL5N09a6pDbX3yiPoRvLYF?slug=ap-twins-metrodome&prov=ap&type=lgns

Come people, let's get this done already, the Twins need a new home.

I guess if Bert doesn't make in as a player I can ramble on about how one day he should be in the HOF as an announcer.... :)

Hey, caluofmn -

Actually, one of the strengths of Stark's article is his assertion that the new-and-improved stats -- the ones the real statgeeks like -- show that Bert is a great candidate. It is (as BadAndy points out) the stats like wins (which have a lot to do with bullpens and one's team's hitters) that have thus far kept Bert out.

Hooray for the new math!

Thanks Hrunting, that is good news.

I echo the hooray for new math!

Everyone now and then someone will ask if MLB TV is worth it.

It's Jan. 9th and I have I'm watching the Twins v Dodgers series on. I was at the stadium so I thought I'd see what it was like on TV.

Does anyone remember that in June the Twins were hitting .310 with runners in scoring position?

Watching a Twins game called by Vin Scully... MLB TV... yeah it's worth it for me.

Please let Bert in the HOF already.

That's what I get for a non topic post. Sorry for not reading over my post before posting it.

I feel like a dork now.

Good night

Great site! I agree, the fact that Bert is not in the Hall is a complete shame.

http://completesports.blogspot.com/

BadAndy

I have laid out my points in other posts and don't feel like rehashing them. It's the same reason that he has not gotten in so far. Hey if he gets in it is not the end of the world, but if he get in then there is no way to keep Morris, Guidry, Rice, Gossage, Orel, Mattingly, Dawson, Murphy, ....etc from getting in as well. Should the Hall be for the truly great or also include the really good as well ? Cause Bert was not truly great and not even close.

Agreed. No reason he shouldn't be there.

Him and Morris both.

Click on the TD below - Stark also goes to bat for Jack Morris (and Rice, Hawk, Murphy, and Goose)...

just in case..
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2282992

Bert played with 6 HOFers during his career only one of which was a pitcher. How could he have gotten no run support playing with Killebrew, Carew, Stargell, Puckett, and Winfield ? He was even on 2 championship teams, not like he played for a last place team every season.

He doesn't seem like a hall of fame player to me, but there are other questionable players in the hall like Phil Rizzuto.

Yes! Bert should be in the Hall of Fame. Only weak minds will keep him out.

By the way Tony O should be there also.

I believe the Hall of Fame is for people who were among the best at what they did for long time (Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson, Santo). I don't think the HOF is only for the "truly great" players, and the Hall of Fame voters made that a reality decades ago. Everyone would like to believe that it's for the Walter Johnsons, Willie Mayses, and Ty Cobbs, but it also includes the George Kellys, Jesse Haineses, Catfish Hunters, and Rick Ferrells. The place is littered with people who don't belong, not because they weren't Cy Young or Babe Ruth, but because they weren't even Bert Blyleven or Ron Santo.

Let's be honest...........The primary reason that Bert is not in and unlikely to be voted in was his unpopularity with both teamates and sportswriters.

I think if honestly look at what he did and didn't do in a 22 year career you will honestly see why he isn't in the hall. Some of his numbers are impressive and some of them really really suck.

p.e.m.

nagasadow asked:
Bert played with 6 HOFers during his career only one of which was a pitcher. How could he have gotten no run support playing with Killebrew, Carew, Stargell, Puckett, and Winfield?

Good question, but the numbers don't lie. It's a simple fact that he did get exceptionally poor run support. Joe Sheehan, at baseballprosectus, also recently did a Hall column. Sheehan noted:

Blyleven isn’t even a borderline case, but rather, an above-average Hall of Famer who is underrated due to criminally bad run support during his best seasons. The reputation he picked up as a guy who couldn’t win close games is unfair.
Blyleven may have been a difficult teammate--I mostly remember the 1980s version, the veteran jokester, although I’ve learned more about his earlier days over the years--but that’s an argument you make about a player on the bubble. Blyleven should not be on the bubble. As Rich Lederer says, succinctly, “Since 1900, Blyleven ranks fifth in career strikeouts, eighth in shutouts and 17th in wins.” Blyleven isn’t qualified for the Hall; he’s overqualified, and with six years of eligibility left, I’m optimistic that the voices of reason will eventually carry the day.

PEM-
Which of his numbers really suck? I'll refrain from rattling off his numbers that are really good. For now.

Mitcho

just for fun lets compare Bert to one of the truly greats of his era Tom Seaver and you can see the difference

Seaver
3 Cy Young Awards
1967 NL ROY
311-205 with a .603 winning %
5 20 win seasons
2.86 career era
3 time era champ with an amazing 1.76 in 1971
3640 strike outs
5 time strike out leader
12 time All Star 11 in row at one point in 20 seasons

Bert
0 Cy Youngs
287-250 with a .534 winning % (would be one of the lowest in the hall)
1 20 win season
3.31 career era
never lead the league in era his best season was 2.55 in 1973
3701 strike outs
1 time strike out leader
2 time all star in 22 seasons

He isn't even in the same league with guys like Seaver and Carlton. And yes you should be as good as the other guys in the hall to get in and Bert just is not as good.

I agree that Seaver and Carlton are better, but I also think Bert deserves a place in the Hall. As far as being as good as the other guys in the Hall, check out some of the guys enshrined: Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Pud Galvin, Catfish Hunter, etc.

It all comes down to what people believe are pre-requisites to consideration for the Hall. Some people believe that no one should get serious consideration if they didn't win a championship (Bert won two). Others think that the player should be at or near the top of his field for several years (Bert was in the top 5 in ERA 6 different seasons). Some believe longevity is key (Bert pitched nearly 5,000 innings). Still others believe that the way the player performed in the post-season is pivotal (5-1, 2.54 ERA). Finally, with some statistics are all that matters. Many believe that the player should have career statistics that put him in the upper echelon of his position:
9th in career shutouts
5th in career strikeouts
17th in Runs Saved Above Average [runs saved vs. average pitcher]
19th in ERA vs. League Average [minimum 4000 innings]
14th in Neutral Wins [number of wins if received average run support]
24th in total wins

In each of these categories, every eligible pitcher above Blyleven is in the Hall, as well as many below him. The only exception is Tommy John, who has 288 wins vs. Bert's 287. TJ doesn't appear above Bert in any other category.

What arguments and statistics do you guys have against Blyleven's Hall-worthiness?

*I apologize for the use of stats on this site, but I thought the current situation warranted an exception.

[most of these stats were plagiarized from http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2003/12/only_the_lonely_1.php]

Florida

Catfish Hunter
1 Cy Young Award
224-166 with a .574 winning %
5 20 win seasons
2 time leader in wins
3.39 career era
1 time era champ
2012 strike outs
8 time All Star
5 time world series champion

Those are HOF Numbers

Hall of Fame relevancy of those stats, Mike:

Cy Youngs – Should be relevant, as the BBWA members should know the game well. Sadly, many don’t. Exhibit A – Colon winning the Cy Young this year.
winning % - Wins are a very poor measure of a pitcher’s performance
20 win seasons – ditto
times leader in wins – ditto
career era – A better stat than wins, certainly, though not the best. Bert’s career era is very good.
times era champ – Not much use. Better to look at what percentile the pitcher was in.
strike outs – Excellent stat. The three outcomes a pitcher most controls are strikeouts, walks and home runs. Bert’s strikeout record is superb.
times All Star – see BBWA comment above.
times world series champion – You’re kidding, right?

Its funny that the stats that get used to measure if a pitcher is a hall of famer you guys are all saying don't matter, guess what wins matter the most! Shut outs don't matter, low run support doesn't matter ip don't matter

wins matter
winning % matters
Cy Youngs matter
20 win season matter
leading the league in either wins era or stike outs matter.
all star apperances matter.

these have been the measuring sticks since there has been a hall. For guy like Bert you need to dig out other numbers because in the ones that matter, other then strike outs, he doesn't measure up.

I hate to keep saying it and I will stop but wins and losses are the two most important stats. Bert won 287 games and loss 250 and all 250 losses were not by one run, and if his teamates hated him so much that they wouldn't try to win when he pitched then there is no reason what so ever he should be in.

Win thats all that matters. When you win you don't need any excuses.

Bert didn't win enough and that's why he is out.

Darling readers,

There is no problem with using stats on this site, especially when they are done so intelligently. As long as no one expects Batgirl to use them, we shall all get along just fine.

Love,
BG

PEM would you still try and deny bert a spot if he had got 1 more win in each season that would put him above 300 you say wins matter but then take that away form him because he lost a lot of games when he stayed in the game longer and lost the game instead of turning it over to the bullpen and letting them lose the game

'eh - disappointing -

WW

Mike, of course wins matter. But they do a poor job of measuring a pitcher's performance. Question - if all you know of two games from the previous night are that pitcher A pitched a complete game and won 5-4, and pitcher B pitched a complete game and lost 1-0, who would you guess pitched better?

*wails and rends clothing*

I just watched the HOF special on MLB.com with Billy Sample--Bert didnt get in--he got 53% (big jump). Sutter only one who got in.

One stat was mentioned by Sample--Bert is the only pitcher with 50 or more shutouts not in the HOF. According to Sample thats enough right there.

Berts numbers are not bad compared to Seaver and Carlton and Palmer--they are much better than Drysdale and Catfish and others. He has more shutouts than Any pitcher in the last 50 years except Ryan and Seaver who has 61 (Bert has 60).

Jim Palmer said Blylevin was a HOF pitcher--thats good enough for me

I have said before if Bert's record was 30 games different in each direction he would be in because he would 317-220 almost 100 games over 500 and would have 4-5 20 win seasons, but he doesn't have those wins and he does have those 30 more losses and thats why he is out.

I refuse to believe that all 250 losses were 1-0 or 2-1 complete game, hard luck, hearbreakers.

Bert will have to wait for another year at least... only Sutter got in.

Drysdale 14 seasons
1 Cy Young Award
209-166 with a .557 winning %
2 20 win seasons
1 time leader in wins
3.57 career era
2486 strike outs
3 time leader in strike outs
8 time All Star
3 time world series champion

Other then SO, Drysdales numbers are better. Bert won 80 more and lost 80 more then Don and pitched 8 more seasons

Ass Crap!

*sob*

ass-crap.

Not that I want to encourage or prolong this, but . . .

PEM -- Clearly we're not going to agree on the relative value of wins in pitcher evaluation, so I'll leave that alone. However, you say that other than strikout totals, Hunter's numbers are better than Bert's, but the numbers you give us show that Bert has a better career ERA.

Jim Palmer was better then Lefty and Seaver

3 Cy Youngs
268-152 .638% 116 games over 500
8 20 win seasons
4 Gold Gloves
2.86 ERA
6 time all star
3 time champ

Yes Hunter's era is .08 higher, Sorry, but hey how about CYs, winning %, AS, 20 win seasons and WS championships ? He also pitched 7 less seasons then Bert.

Catfish had a 5 year period were you could agrue he was the best pitcher in baseball, Bert doesn't have 1 season where you can make an argument like that.

Any one that watched these two guys pitch knows that Hunter was the much better pitcher.

Please don't encourage Mike. I think he tried very hard to restrain himself but y'all egged him on and I really, really can't read all this again for the 20th time.

This is basically a philosophical difference and nobody is going to change their minds, right?

For me, if a player is in the top five of one of the most significant statistics of their position, then they should probably be in the Hall of Fame -- that in itself is enough for me (perhaps I am too literal minded, but it's called "The Hall of Fame," not the "Hall of All-Stars"). But if it isn't for you -- if you insist, for example, that people pile up a bunch of credentials that are essentially out of their control such as awards and All-Star appearances -- then you just will never change your mind and it's useless to keep going back and forth and on and on. Everyone has a right to his own opinion. Even if it's wrong. :-)

P.S. I notice that World Series championships are always listed for the great ones but somehow don't get listed for Bert. For the record, he has two. Neither of which were on a New York team.

Dang it Bert! At least you have six more tries and according to the voting results (pardon the stats BG) his voting percentages have risen quite nicely:

03-29%
04-35%
05-40%
06-53%

He's gaining and average of 6 percent each year. If he stays on this streak and has 6 more chances he'll easily be voted in.

I still have faith Bert.

Okay...wait. I understand that Jayson supports Bert in the hall.

Then, explain this article?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2282992

Jeez. I'm just confused.

And wait...you can only be on so many ballots?

Yes, you can "only" be on the ballot 15 times.

And now ESPNews is talking about Rose again. *sigh*

If Pete Rose gets in the HoF....then really there's no respect there anymore.

Also, I think you need to have 5% of the vote to remain on the ballot.

Okay, time to be agreeable.

Mike, you’re right, not all 250 losses were 1-0 or 2-1 complete game, hard luck, heartbreakers.

Word Smith, you’re right, nobody here is going to change their minds.

And HooliganKat, I hope you’re right, too – with 6 more chances Bert should get in.

:)

"Okay...wait. I understand that Jayson supports Bert in the hall. Then, explain this article?
(http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2282992) Jeez. I'm just confused.

you mean the one that ends: "I finally voted for Blyleven for the first time this year, after eight straight years on my Can't Quite Find A Way To Convince Myself list. Want to know why? Click here."?

Rose isn't eligible so its not even debatable.

I've definetly been convinced on Bert's qualifications. Frankly, I was convinced so quickly that I'm stunned he's been so slow to move up. I can admit when I make a pet case for the Hall (Dale Murphy; I really like his numbers and intangibles but I can get why others don't; maybe not why so many others don't, but still). Bert's not a pet case. The stats are enormously important. Only looking at wins (where he is hardly that deficient) is profoundly unfair. Shutouts, strikeouts, ERA, it all points to a clear Hall of Famer. I'm glad Sutter got in, but there the writers are being very stingy with a lot of deserving players waiting on deck and Bert's right at the top of that list (with Gossage, Rice, and Dawson close behind). Its worrying because we are entering a period with 4 shoo-ins over the next 3 years. That's going to splinter support for the folks at the top and perhaps too quickly push off candidates who deserve a longer look.

The 300 win threshold is a pretty poor benchmark for admitance to the HOF. Besides a handful of current veteran pitchers, the way the game is going we may not see a 300 game winning pitcher again. Would that mean there should be no more SPs voted into the HOF?

Bert's most impressive numbers are his complete games, shutouts, and Ks. The only reason I'm bothered Bert isn't in the hall is because I like him and if he had 300 wins, he'd be in. And although Stark deals with that nicely, you can't explain numbers away using other numbers. For example, surely Tommy John would've won 300 if he hadn't needed surgery, but he gained baseball immortality by having that surgery and there's no way to project how his career would've turned out. So he's out and for now Bert is too. Unfortunately, unlucky is not a desirable trait for a hall of famer to have, as many believe a truly great player can over come that (unless you're Kirby).

On the other hand-and Mike, I don't think you'll like this-with the veteran's committee getting to vote people into the hall of fame, Blyleven, Rice, Dawson, Gossage, and possibly a couple of others on mike's 'no' list have great chances of eventually getting into the hall. So why not have them get voted in? Maybe not now, but before their candidacies expire. Those guys don't deserve Rose's fate: he will likely be enshrined after he dies so that he has no way of enjoying it.

The hall should be for the best players, partially because these debates are good for baseball. Although Bert certainly comes close to the 'best eligible player not in the hall' distinction, he doesn't have that yet either. And to be honest, I don't want Bert to make it if he's going to either be one of the players people look at in fifty years and say he doesn't belong or to be someone borderline hall of famers get compared to increase their cases. Better to be one of the best players not in the hall than one of the worst players in the hall.

Bob,
By your reasoning, I guess someone would rather be the smartest kid not to graduate college than the dumbest kid to graduate in every class.

BStu,
Murphy is also one of my "pet projects". He played for a horrible team with no one hitting around him to protect him. No one had to pitch to him.

PEM,
If two pitchers are equally talented and pitch equally well, but one plays for the Red Sox and the other plays for the Royals, the former WILL have a better win percentage. Are you saying that playing on a better hitting team should make you more likely to get into the hall of fame?

FL

FL

The example I have used before which I am sure people will groan it is this.....

1972 Steve Cartlon went 27-10 for a team that went 59-97. Now if Lefty could find away to win 27 games on that team which is Philadelphia not NY then how couldn't Bert find ways to win on his bad teams ?

The 72 Phillies are one of the worst teams in the history of baseball, Carlton's performence that year is one of the greatest.

Gaylord Perry made the hall, he was not a NY pitcher, Fergie Jenkins not NY , Catfish spent his best years in KC and Oakland ,Jim Palmer pitched in Baltimore, not what I would call a big city. Bert is not being kept out because of where he played, he is being kept out because how he played.

If there is a small town bais against players getting in the HOF how did Kirby get in or Ozzie Smith and why aren't Donny Baseball, Ron Guidry Goose or Marris in if all NY players make it ?

Me:

AN interesting post--no more starting pitchers in the hall. I am trying to remember the last starter voted in and I cant...I am sure Rocket and Maddox will get in first year probably Unit too. But Glavine has to be wondering--his numbers are not better than Bert's especially complete games, shutouts and Ks--no where near Bert's. If he doesnt hang on for 300 wins--will he struggle to get in?? Are we at the point that starters have to win multiple CYs and 300 games to make HOF?? I hope not.

One more thing I want to add about win percentage. Maddox will go to the HOF, no question, and I certainly put him above Bert on the All-Time list. That said, I will use his career to illustrate the point.

Greg Maddox win percentage on teams
Below .500: .533
.500 to .599: .630
Above .600: .713

As you can see, the quality of his team HUGELY impacted his numbers.

FL

You don't need 300 wins to get in the hall. There are a lot of guys without 300 wins. Current starts that will most likey end up in the hall

Clemans, Maddox, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, Smoltz, and possibly Schilling. Only 2 of these guys will have 300 the others will be in the 250-240 range, but with Cy Youngs high w/l%, 20 win seasons, low eras, etc....

Schilling will have the hardest time since he might not even have 200 wins,playing most of his career on bad Phila teams, but his postseason play and the bloody sock might get him by, as well as 3 300+ strike out seasons 1 NLCS MVP (93) 1 WS MVP (01)

i'm pretty sure the ny thing was related to championships

FL- That last comment/paragraph was a personal opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with it, because surely Bert would be more celebrated in the hall than out of it. But in general, yes, I would rather be the best outside of a select group than the worst in it. (Don't know who the dumbest kid to graduate college was, but the smartest was a Time person of the year...)

Bob,
I know what you meant; I just happen to disagree. I will grant you one thing: no one would be talking about Bert Blyleven today if he hadn't been snubbed for 9 years.

PEM,
You can always find one extraordinary case where people have fallen outside the norm, but those cases should not diminish the more consistent reality. It is a fact that, all things being equal, a pitcher on a team with better hitters WILL win more often than a pitcher on a team with poor hitters. It comes down to one simple question: Should playing on a team with better hitters make a pitcher more likely to make the hall of fame?

I may be misunderstanding something, but just in case anyone is misinterpreting my reference to a New York team, I didn't mean to imply anything about bias in the voting (that's a whole different issue). My remark was an admittedly clumsy, backhanded attempt to imply that the number of World Series a player won as a member of the Yankees is not, perhaps, a terribly reliable indicator of individual greatness. (For example, how many World Series championship teams did Luis Sojo play on? And how many rings does Tony Gwynn have? Does anybody think Luis Sojo is a better player than Tony Gwynn?) But really that is a tangential issue, and if that's what sparked the references, then I regret the distraction it caused.

Nobody here is arguing that Bert Blyleven is as great a pitcher as Steve Carlton. You can persist in listing all the great pitchers who are in the Hall and are greater than Bert, you can do that until the cows come home, what the heck difference does it make? Either he is qualified (which some of us think he is) or he isn't (which many people clearly think he isn't). "Proving" that this pitcher or that pitcher is better is simply not relevant to the argument. As I once wrote, facetiously, SOMEBODY has to be the worst pitcher in the Hall, why not Bert?

Anyone who truly honestly believes that wins and win percentage, along with whether or not you were the dominant pitcher in any given year or years, are the most important qualifications for getting into the Hall of Fame, absolutely could not believe that Bert belongs. So be it. But please try to understand that it's not that we don't comprehend the facts, or that one more example will be the thing that turns us around. It won't. You say EE-ther and I say EYE-ther, and I'm not going to change how I say the word because you say EE-ther 100 times and insist it is the correct pronunciation. I simply don't believe it is the correct pronunciation. Even if you tell me that 75 out of 100 people say it that way, if I think it's wrong, then I will persist in thinking it's wrong. Believe me, it won't help to introduce me to each and every one of the 75 people, one at a time. It will only make me cranky.

And apparently, when I get cranky, I write A LOT of words, and I don't think you want that.

Shutting up now,

Smitty

Word Smith - Thank you for consistently preaching reason when we are awash in so much crap.

Wins, Cy Young, World Series rings are all great, however . . .

NONE OF THEM BY THEMSELVES TELL YOU HOW WELL A PITCHER PERFORMED.

You have to look at ERA, WHIP and K's for that.

If you want to stick to using wins, All-Star appearances, World Series titles and so forth for Cooperstown eligibility, then you'll end up with guys who don't belong like Phil Rizzuto in there . . . wait, never mind, it's too late.

I can't wait till the day comes I can go to Cooperstown,look at Bert's plaque and tell my grandkids about the time he struck out 11 but lost 3-1, those are the real special moments in baseball.

Interesting debate -- I am so glad we have it every 6 months :)

I pop in just to make a couple of comments (what else is new) -- my full disclosure is that I believe Bert should be in the Hall, though I understand those that believe Bert shouldn't be in.

1) Florida's (I always picture Good Times Florida sitting at a computer posting to BG, and it makes me smile) analysis of Maddux's winning percentage to team winning percentage makes me wonder if it is a chicken-and-egg argument. Did Maddux have a lower winning percentage because the team didn't play as well, or did the team win less games because Maddux wasn't pitching as dominant as in other years? I'm not looking for an answer to this quandry, but if you have an answer to the chicken-and-egg debate, I'm all ears.

2) Smitty, have you learned nothing? Nobody is better than Tony Gwynn. Sojo is a first ballot HoF'er though. I mean, astronomical numbers: .261/36/261... oh, that's for his whole career? Hrm, nevermind. 5 WS rings though... that's impressive.

YF

YF,
The egg.

Word,
By jove you're right. I'm not going to convince anyone that win percentage isn't that important just like noone is going to convince me that being FIFTH all-time in strikeouts isn't important. I believe that longevity is important while some people think that having 6 or 7 great seasons is sufficient. I think that awards that are voted on mean less than a players statistics. There is no right answer, only opinions. No one can get "screwed" by the committee because their is no committee. No one can complain about bias in the criteria because the criteria is so broad it could reasonably be applied to any player. That's what great about this process.

FL

PEM:

Interesting list of today's starters getting into the hall. I believe that Rocket, Unit and Maddox are first ballot HOFers. Pedro if he continues for another couple of years will join them (remember Juan Gone and Jose C a few years ago looked like locks).

Glavine and Smoltz may get in--Smoltz more likely cause he closed for a while--but given that no pitchers have gotten in since Ryan in 98 (you can look it up) I doubt it. Glavine's numbers are nowhere near Berts in Ks, CGs, ShutOuts. Schilling has no chance.

Former Twin and current Yankee announcer Jim Kaat won almost the same number of games as Bert (285 I think). He won about 10 gold gloves and was the best fielding pitcher I have seen in 50 years watching baseball. He would have won CY in 1966 or 67 (cant remember which) but lost to Koufax, the next year they split the CY into leagues.

Kaat didnt make the HOF and is now off the ballot--likely to get in soon by vets committee.

I firmly believe that Bert, Kaat, Tommy John and Jack Morris all belong in the HOF--and we need to keep adding starting pitchers.

If there is space for Rizzuto, Carter, and others, there is space for 4 outstanding pitchers.

DAM

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5237536

Oooh. A guy who played for the Yankees is making some noise. Maybe that'll get the attention drawn to this bizzare voting.

Tom Glavine 19 Seasons

2 Cy Youngs
275-184 winning %.599
5 20 win seasons
5 times led league in wins
career era 3.44
2350 Strike Outs
9 Time All Star
1 World Championship

Those numbers are a sure thing

Curt Schilling 18 Seasons

0 Cy Youngs
NLCS MVP
WS MVP
192-131 winning % .594
3 20 win seasons
2 times led league in wins
Career era 3.40
2832 Strike Outs
2 times led league in Strike Outs
2 300+ strike out seasons
6 All Stars
2 World Championships,
1 Bloody Sock

His numbers are close and I think the bloody Sock will get him in

Pedro 14 Seasons

3 Cy Youngs (1 in each league)
1 AS MVP
197-84 winning % .701
2 20 win seasons
1 time led league in wins
Career era 2.72
6 times led league in era
2861 strike outs
1 300+ strike ot season
3 times led league in strike outs
7 time All Star
1 World Series Championship

Pedro is in.

I think these numbers are interesting, and I would say he is in but this would be a better debate then Bert

John Smoltz 17 Seasons
1 Cy Young
1 NLCS MVP
1 Fireman
177-128 .580%
1 20 win season
1 time led league in wins
154 saves
1 time led league in saves
Career era 3.26
2567 Strike Outs
2 tijmes led league in Strike outs
7 times All Star
1 World Series Championship

What do you think ?

I firmly believe that Bert, Kaat, Tommy John and Jack Morris

Out of these 4 guys Jack Morris is the only one I say there is no question over. His 3.90 era is keeping him out, but you don't get any more big game then Morris,and he does have good numbers in key areas, and game 7 in '91 is the stuff of legends.

Kaat, John, and Bert have some high numbers, mostly due to playing a long time but none of them set themselves a part or were ever considered the best pitcher in baseball at any time and fall short on some important numbers.

You could make an argument for Kaat with the 10 GG. Ozzie got in, rightfully so, becuase of his D and I remember how good Kaat was in the field. I could be swayed on Kaat.

hekobobrigagetocmbsxsozjvdemwknaetnonkaqwszlktohg link http://pfphxv.wjdeqy.com

jessica simpson boots video these boots are made for walkin jessica simpson croco print shoes sas shoes outlet stores these boots are made for walking jessica simpson boots video youth boot camps croco print shoes childrens cowboy boots these boots are made for walking these boots are made for walkin jessica simpson sas shoes outlet stores cheap volleyball shoes nursemate shoes sas brand shoes these boots are made for walkin jessica simpson sas shoes outlet stores croco print shoes nursemate shoes croco print shoes